Waltham Forest Council (202125120)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125120

Waltham Forest Council

24 August 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 management and handling of:
1. repairs to the downpipe and guttering causing a leak and damage in the property.
2. damp and mould in the property.
3. an infestation of pests.
4. the resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 November 2021.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. However, the information it provided contained evidence of activity that goes beyond its final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore beyond the scope of this investigation.
It is, however, prudent for some elements of the additional evidence to be considered and referenced in the report; where it provides clarity on activity that is within the scope of this report. Where this occurs it is noted.

Background

The resident lives in a top floor, 2-bedroom flat in a 3-storey block let as a secure tenancy by the London Borough of Waltham Forest in July 2010.
The property is occupied by two family members.
A previous disrepair claim had been made to address the presence of damp and mould in the resident’s property which was settled in 2018 following a property assessment completed by an external contractor.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under the terms of the secure tenancy agreement the resident:
1. “must keep the home free from rats, mice, and other pests and if infested take immediate action to deal with the problem. If you require assistance from the Council Environmental Health Department, you may be charged for their services.”
2. must let into the home anybody working for the council and anybody else who the council allows to enter the home…to inspect and/or check its condition and to carry out any works to it,
3. report to the council as soon as possible any repairs which are needed if it is the council’s responsibility to do those repairs,
4. follow the council’s procedure for reporting repairs.
Under the terms of the secure tenancy agreement the landlord:
1. must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the home (including drains, gutters, and external pipes),
2. must keep in repair and proper working order the pipes and other installations in the home,
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. it will only apply to complaints handled under its complaints procedure or by the Ombudsman,
2. in deciding whether to award compensation, the investigating officer must consider whether the complainant has suffered injustice as a consequence of the maladministration or fault…it is not enough to have suffered maladministration; there must have been a consequence,
3. We will not pay compensation for circumstances that are beyond the Council’s control; for example,
  1. storm damage including flooding,
  2. problems arising from the complainant’s lifestyle choices, such as condensation, damp, and mould.
4. the following criteria can be used as a guide in assessing the level of compensation payable:
  1. distress, often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified,
  2. time and trouble: unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300.
The landlord’s corporate complaints procedure states:
1. it will send complaint acknowledgements within three working days of receiving a complaint,
2. it will send a stage one response within 20 working days from receiving a complaint,
3. it will send a stage two response within 25 working days from receiving a complaint.
The landlord provides access to pest control services via its website. The landlord publishes:
1. the costs for different pest control treatment requirements,
2. access to a booking form for residents to make treatment arrangements,
3. advice about pest control services including what to expect and fact sheets about common pests,
4. emails and telephone contact details for pest control services.
The landlord categorises repair works in the following ways, according to the level and nature of response required. These are listed as:
1. Emergency works: faults or disrepairs that constitute a safety hazard or which make a property uninhabitable, completed within 24 hours,
2. Urgent works: faults or disrepairs that require prompt attention, but which do not constitute an emergency, completed within 5 days,
3. Routine works: faults or disrepairs that do not fall within the Emergency or Urgent categories, completed within 21 days,
4. 45-day works: works that cannot realistically be delivered within 21 days due to their nature or complexity.
The landlord is responsible for:
1. any damage caused by damp penetration due to rising damp, defective rainwater goods, roof leaks, or any other defects in the external envelope allowing water ingress:
2. unblocking of main drains where these have become blocked and where the cause and/or responsibility cannot be clearly attributed,
3. any pest infestation affecting more than one dwelling and/or communal parts and where no individual tenant is responsible for the infestation,
4. the maintenance of external stairways, balconies,
5. resolving penetrating or rising damp, plumbing leaks within the dwelling and roof leaks. The Council is not usually responsible for dampness caused by condensation,
The tenant is responsible for:
1. any pest infestation confined to the individual dwelling or where the tenant is responsible for the infestation.

Summary of events

Relevant events prior to the resident’s complaint being registered under the internal complaint procedure.

The landlord prepared a disrepair report on 16 May 2018 following a property inspection that assessed outstanding disrepairs, leaks from the loft area, damp, condensation, and lift insulation compliance. Further to check for any defects with a heat recovery unit. The report stated:
1. “there are no outstanding disrepair items present. However, there is mould spores to the kitchen and bathroom wall, which is a result of condensation,
2. no leaks have been identified coming from the structure or ducting within the loft area,
3. a visual inspection of the HRU did not identify any defects, loose connections and or damage ducting,
4. no damp was identified but light condensation was present on the bathroom window,
5. the landlord [should] wash mould from the walls in the kitchen and bathroom, fill a drilled hole in the balcony brickwork, repair a cracked joint of the balcony plinth, cut back the downpipe to allow an offset fitting and gap between the balcony downpipe and gulley grill.
The resident reported “water leaks” (and according to a later email dated 15 November 2021, an insect infestation) to the landlord on 28 September 2020. The landlord subsequently completed works to ‘remedy leaks from the wash hand basin and soil pipe’ and ’remedy a leak from the tank in the loft above’ on 29 September 2020.
The resident emailed photographs of a water leak in their property to the landlord on 9 November 2020. The landlord replied to the resident the next day requesting them to “confirm the location of the ceiling and vent and the date the photographs were taken.”

Relevant chronology of events within the jurisdiction of this investigation.

The resident reported water leaking from the gutter onto the balcony to the landlord on 24 May 2021. The landlord subsequently raised a works order on 24 May 2021 with a target date of 22 August 2021. The landlord cancelled the works order as it was incorrectly raised to an individual property and not the block and raised a new communal works order on 21 June 2021. The work was recorded as complete on 6 July and scaffolding removed on 16 July 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 May 2021 to again report a blocked drainpipe and leaking guttering. The resident advised the matter had caused water flooding on the external patio entrance landlord and stated they were concerned the matter “may cause more damp to the exterior property walls if not rectified immediately”. The resident referred to the landlord’s legal repairing obligations under the tenancy and the Landlord and Tenant act. The resident requested confirmation that the repair would be treated as a priority and completed the same week.
The landlord attached a photo to an internal email it sent on 1 June 2021 stating the “gutters and blocked balcony drain repair needs to be done in the next three weeks”. The landlord emailed the resident the same day stating a works order was raised for a repair to the guttering and downpipe which would be completed within 3 weeks. Further that they would be contacted to discuss access arrangements. The landlord stated access to the balconies could be obtained without the need to access the resident’s home.
The landlord commenced works to repair guttering and downpipes in the resident’s block on an undisclosed date between 1 June 2021 and 6 July 2021 when the landlord recorded the works complete.
The landlord’s scaffolding was removed from the resident’s block on 16 July 2021.
The resident wrote a stage one complaint to the landlord dated 31 July 2021 which was received by the landlord on 2 August 2021. The complaint referred to:
1. Blocked drainpipe and gutters which require repair,
2. The time taken for the repair to be completed which was listed as two months,
3. A compensation request for £1000 for having to chase the repair,
4. Flood water from heavy rain is entering the property and causing damage to internal walls.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 August 2021 stating:
1. Repair works to the resident’s blocked pipe and guttering were completed on 6 July 2021,
2. the scaffold was struck on 16 July 2021,
3. bad weather was present on 25 July 2021.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 18 August 2021 to inspect the kitchen, living room and balcony. The resident was not at home and access was provided by the resident’s daughter. The surveyor took photographs of different parts of the interior and exterior of the property.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 26 August 2021. The response summarised the complaint as related to:
1. a blocked drainpipe and gutters which require a repair,
2. the time taken (2 months) for the repair(s) to be completed,
3. a compensation request of £1000 for having to chase up the matter,
4. damage to internal walls caused by flood water entering the property as a result of heavy rain conditions.
The landlord stated:
1. it had previously confirmed in correspondence dated 1 June 2021 that repairs to the guttering and downpipes would be completed,
2. two surveyors attended the property on 18 August 2021 and were granted access by the resident’s daughter in his absence. The surveyors found:

(1) no signs of water ingress in the living room and considered the conditions reasonable,

(2) “the balcony downpipe was in a reasonable state,

(3) “the grating cover which had slipped was reinstated,

(4) there was “no distortion to the swan neck and the downpipe was stable,”

(5) “the lighting in the kitchen was operational and the kitchen ceiling was not discoloured,

(6) no form of water penetration was identified”.

The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and provided details on how to escalate to stage two of the complaint procedure.

The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 10 September 2021 and found the pipework was discharging water into the gulley. The surveyor subsequently raised a works order on 15 September 2021 to “realign the gutter, make good a gutter joint and fit a shoe and make good pipe joints.” The repair target date was 14 December 2021.
The resident emailed their stage two complaint to the landlord on 19 October 2021 describing it as an “interim stage two complaint”. The resident stated a stage two complaint would follow when the landlord provided information and answers to their queries. The resident’s stage two complaint related to:
1. the quality of the landlord’s stage one complaint response,
2. the time taken for the repairs team to respond to enquiries,
3. the resident’s asked the landlord to provide them with:
  1. “a report including photos of repairs to the gutters and downpipe as completed on 16 July 2021,
  2. photos of the scaffolding and the completed remedial repair,
  3. photos of the scaffolding either erected or dismantled and any evidence that the alleged tasks took place,
  4. photo/repair images taken on [the resident’s] balcony,
  5. photos of the repaired downpipe and damp readings of the areas inspected including the bedrooms, kitchen, and the bathroom,
  6. images of the downpipe and swan neck that indicate they were in a reasonable condition.”
4. the resident stated, “a response is expected by 22 October 2021”.
The landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 19 October 2021 confirming it was registered as a stage two complaint and that the council does not operate an interim stage 2. The landlord advised “the correct way to submit complaints is via the council’s online portal” and provided a link.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 October 2021 confirming their previous letter was “a complaint and not another reminder for the repairs teams” and that they rejected the response the landlord provided. The resident stated the online portal link the landlord provided does not work and blocks the resident’s contact attempts which the resident considered may relate to “me, my content or my poster material.” The resident advised they had retitled the complaint as stage 2 complaint following advice the landlord had provided.
The resident emailed photographs and a video of “alleged completed repairs indicated in the stage 1 response” to the landlord on 20 October 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident’s stage two complaint internally requesting it is logged, acknowledged, and investigated as “we are wasting time corresponding with him in the interim.”
The landlord sent an internal email dated 22 October 2021 requesting a series of documents and evidence related to the resident’s stage two complaint is provided by 8 November 2021. Specifically this related to:
1. a copy of the repairs history for this flat and for the block,
2. copies of all works orders raised in respect of the roof, guttering and drainpipe and copies of all notes attached to the works orders,
3. a copy of the resident’s repair request related to a leak they reported in May and the letter that had sent him on 1 June 2021,
4. all evidence of the works being raised, undertaken and post inspected: Incl. any information in relation to drainpipe gutter repairs around June 2021 and confirmation if the repair was post inspected,
5. confirmation of whether any works were raised for any damage inside the resident’s flat after the surveyor’s visit on 18 August 2021 and if not why and do you agree with the surveyor’s decision?
6. the standard timescales in place for carrying out this type of repair and how they were met in this case,
7. how the resident’s request for the provision of a report and photos was being met,
8. comments on the video and the photos the resident supplied in his Stage 2 complaint.
The landlord sent a further internal email on 26 October 2021 requesting copies of any correspondence held with the resident related to their stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property on 29 October 2021. The resident’s stage two complaint stated the surveyor “examined and demonstrated water penetration up to 2 metres caused by water ingress.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 November 2021 stating a decision was made to incorporate a request it received from the resident (for the provision of a surveyor’s report) into the stage two complaint response as “it is related to the same repair issue” and “is the most effective use of our investigation time”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 November 2021 stating that they disagreed with the landlord’s decision to incorporate their request for the provision of the housing surveyor’s report into the stage two complaint because they requested it is raised as a new stage one complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2021 to complain about its failure to complete remedial repairs to water leaks and an insect infestation. The resident stated they first reported these two matters to the landlord on 28 September 2020 but had not received any resolution to the matter, or a temporary fix put in place. The resident stated:
1. The water penetration has been exacerbated by the landlord lack of remedial repairs which has caused further damage to the living room, bedroom ceiling and wall areas.
2. The resident provided photographs of the damaged areas referred to.
3. The resident also stated they reported a blocked pipe in “winter 2020” and a debris filled gutter on 25 May 2021 and since then, despite sending numerous emails has been ignored.
4. The resident referred to statement made in the landlord’s stage one complaint response and challenged the matters by stating;
  1. not at any point was scaffolding erected at the address and they were waiting for evidence of it to be provided by the landlord,
  2. the downpipe remains filled with debris and the landlord’s reference to the completed repair is a “definite lie” and the requested evidence remains outstanding,
  3. The suggestion there were no signs of water ingress is the living room was “another dishonesty” as neither surveyor conducted damp readings or wet wall tests and contradicts advice from a surveyor’s inspection completed on 29 October 2021 which demonstrated water penetration up to 2 metres,
  4. the statement that “the downpipe on the balcony was reasonable” is “a definite lie” as video footage attached shows the downpipe to be blocked,
  5. the statement that the grating cover had slipped, and the landlord reinstated it was dishonest as the grating cover could not be refitted correctly and was left at 45 degrees,
  6. the statement related to the downpipe as stable and the swan neck as no distortion is another dishonesty,
  7. the landlord’s view that “no other outstanding issues” was another dishonesty as the water leaks, insect infestation and internal damage remain “unfixed since last year”,
  8. the reference to heavy rains on 25 July 2021 as “extraordinary nature” does not sufficiently explain water ingress running down the walls: If the guttering, drains, and external areas were repaired the water ingress would not have occurred and this remains outstanding.
5. The resident referred to the landlord and tenancy act and the tenancy agreement with reference to the landlord’s repairing obligations and
6. The resident requested an apology and explanation for the significant delays.
7. The resident requested £75,000 compensation related to:

(1) £20,000 for pain and suffering inconvenience to them and their family,

(2) £15,000 for unreasonable repair delays,

(3) £8,000 for time away from the property due to exacerbated medical problems related to dampness in the home,

(4) £12,000 for breach of contract and repair obligations,

(5) £20,000 for maladministration unreasonable and unjustified delays and dishonestly.

The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 November 2021. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and stated:
1. the resident’s account was not blocked, and the digital service team were investigating and had sought contact to discuss the resident’s IT access issues. The resident was encouraged to make contact to progress the matter,
2. it investigated a leak the resident reported in 2020 which was responded to by surveyors but no record of a complaint about a leak was made at that time,
3. it completed repair works to address leaks from the guttering and pipework during June and July 2021 and these were confirmed as complete on 6 July 2021 following 7 days of rain in June 2021 and four during the first week of July 2021,
4. it completed the repairs within a reasonable time and within the works order target date timescale,
5. it had received photographic evidence provided by the contractor of the resident’s cleared gutter and scaffold in place at the block,
6. unprecedented rainfall occurred on 25 July 2021 and 7 August 2021 which caused significant flooding in the borough and more debris may have been moved into the pipe as a result,
7. a report related to the surveyor’s visits to the address was not prepared but their assessments were provided in the stage one complaint response,
8. photographs taken were provided as attachments and interpreted to show debris and blockage of the downpipe at the lower end,
9. another surveyor attended the property and subsequently raised a works order to realign the gutter, make good a gutter joint and fit a shoe and make good pipe joints. Further that water was discharging into the gulley from an unblocked pipe during that visit,
10. the repairs the resident reported on 24 May 2021 were completed within time, but an inspection completed on 18 August 2021 confirmed a blocked downpipe works,
11. works to address the blocked downpipe were completed outside of the target time of 4 weeks,
12. The complaint was upheld due to the delay completing the repairs and compensation of £150 was awarded, set out as £50 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for time and trouble.
The landlord visited the resident’s address on 17 December 2021 in response to the resident complaint about outstanding repairs. During the visit, the landlord:
1. released leaf debris and silt from the bottom of the balcony pipe,
2. advised the resident that the balcony should be kept clear to prevent a build-up and blockage,
3. found no water damage in the lounge adjacent to the pipe,
4. agreed to redecorate the resident’s living room and kitchen.

The resident wrote to this Service in relation to the landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses. The resident stated balcony repairs from a previous disrepair report were not completed. The complaint was accepted as duly made by this Service on 11 February 2022.

Assessment and Findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s management and handling of repairs to the downpipe and guttering causing a leak and damage in the property.

The resident referred to damage caused to their property from the downpipe and guttering in a report they made to the landlord in September 2020. The landlord recorded works to remedy a leak from the soil pipe as completed within 24 hours which was in line with its policy timescales and therefore expected. The landlord raised a further works order the next day to address a leak coming from water tank in the loft space thereby suggesting that the repair to the soil pipe did not fully remedy the water ingress. The landlord once again completed the additional repair within 24 hours in line with its policy. The landlord was expected to ensure the leak was addressed when it initially attended the property however, it is common for sources of water ingress to be difficult to locate. The landlord’s subsequent attendance to remedy the leak the next day achieved this aim, and this was reasonable.
The resident reported a leak into their home again 6 weeks later and provided photographs of the ceiling and vent. The landlord replied to the resident’s report the next day by asking when the photographs were taken and this was a reasonable enquiry to make to understand further the impact and severity of the matter, especially given there had been previous disrepair matter related to water ingress, leaks in the loft space and damp in the home. The landlord confirmed in its complaint response that “there is no record of [the resident] having made a complaint about any outstanding works in relation to a leak at that time.”
The resident reported a blocked pipe and gutters to the landlord 6 months later in May 2021 which flooded the resident’s external patio entrance. The resident expressed concern that the matter could lead to damp and mould in their home, and this was understandable given the property had previously been the subject of a disrepair investigation related to damp and mould. The landlord incorrectly raised a works order to the property address and not the block address and so subsequently cancelled and reraised the works order in line with its repair procedures. The landlord was expected to raise works orders correctly and efficiently so as to limit the possibility of any delays and further to ensure the apportionment of costs for communal works was achieved in line with its occupancy agreements.
The landlord raised the works with a 3-month target date which indicated it considered the matter to be outside of routine repair timescales. This Service has not seen evidence to confirm why the landlord did not respond to the presence of a leaking gutter within a shorter timescale so as to prevent further damage being caused to the property. The landlord was expected to have foreseen that the leaking gutter would penetrate brickwork and consequently have the potential to cause distress and inconvenience to the resident and prioritise the works accordingly. The repair target time could have been reduced so as to address the repair and the detriment it caused in a timelier way. Notwithstanding, the landlord recorded that works to address the guttering and downpipe were completed on 6 July 2021 within 35 days of it being reported. This aligns with the landlord’s repairs handling policy which affords 45 days for works which “cannot be delivered within 21 days due to their nature or complexity,” given the need to erect scaffolding in order to affect the repair.
The landlord stated the scaffolding was removed 10 days after it completed the repair however the resident raised questions in their stage one and two complaint that suggested scaffold was never placed outside their home. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm scaffolding was erected such as a works order, or a copy of the photo the landlord later referred to as evidence it was used. The landlord either did not keep adequate records to satisfy itself that works were completed and/or accepted the account of its contractor over that of the resident without sufficient reason. Moreover it is to be noted that the resident did not received the evidence they requested to confirm the presence of scaffolding at their address and that it was used to complete the guttering repair.
Following a visit to the resident’s property a month later in September 2021 the landlord raised a further works order to realign the gutter, make good the gutter and repair pipe and shoe joints. The landlord was expected to fully address repairs to the guttering that impacted the resident’s home during the works it previously undertaken in July 2021. The requirement for additional works to the guttering and pipework bring into question the quality and durability of the works the landlord previously completed. It is accepted that repairs are unpredictable and there is a requirement for the landlord to be reactive to repairs as they occur however this Service would not expect a list of repairs related to a matter it had so recently addressed to be required. The presence and ongoing impact of the repair to the guttering and pipework caused further detriment to the resident and cumulatively increased the inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
It is evident to this Service that the resident sought proof of works the landlord undertook to address the repairs they had reported. Given the ongoing nature of the repairs and the associated water ingress the resident reported it is understandable that the resident sought evidence of inspections, surveyor’s reports, and photographs. Further the resident stated they were aware that the landlord had not completed works to remove debris and blockages as had been confirmed. The landlord responded to the reports by stating that blockages from debris returned following bad weather. However it is not clear to this Service whether the landlord considered how to prevent any recurrence of the matter such as by installing gutter guards, assessing whether trees needed cutting back, or having a gutter clearance programme in leaf-fall season. The landlord was not under any obligation to provide copies of the surveyor’s reports and/or the photographs the resident requested but this Service considers providing these would have been good practice and evidence that the landlord took a transparent approach to its repairs and maintenance services. By failing to supply this information the landlord missed an opportunity to rebuild the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s housing repairs service.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord completed a disrepair investigation that centred around damp and water ingress into the resident’s home prior to the parameters of this complaint investigation. Further that leaks from the roof space were listed as a matter for investigation. Whilst the scope of that investigation is outside of the jurisdiction of this report it is evident that a series of repairs were listed within the surveyor’s report related to brickwork and downpipe repairs on the balcony and referred to a crack in the plinth and debris blockages caused by a poorly fitted downpipe. It is possible that the failure to fully complete these repairs, or to post inspect them and ensure their durability, may have had an ongoing or later impact on the repairs the resident continued to report within the context of this complaint.
This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm that the repairs to the guttering and the soil and wastepipes leading to the resident’s drain have been comprehensively completed and provide an enduring remedy. Additionally the landlord failed to provide sufficient information in its complaint response to address the matter in a fully transparent and solution focused way. Taking all aspects of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to the downpipe and guttering causing a leak and damage in the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of damp and mould in the property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess and protect against hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord arranged for an external contractor to inspect the resident’s property in 2018 related to a disrepair claim it received from the resident concerning matters including damp in the property. The disrepair and defects report compiled in May 2018 confirmed the use of a moisture meter during the inspection. Further it confirmed the presence of a heat recovery unit for controlling the air quality in the property. The report concluded that mould was present in the bathroom and kitchen related to condensation, but no damp was present. While outside the jurisdictional parameters of this investigation, given these findings, follow on preventative works such as a gutter clearing programme might have been appropriate and avoided the emergence of later associated problems.
The resident referred to damp and mould in the property again in their email dated 25 May 2021. The resident expressed concern that a failure to complete drainpipe and guttering repairs could lead to damp and mould in the property. The landlord responded to the resident’s email within 5 days and confirmed that a works order was raised to address the repairs within 3 weeks. The landlord’s response to the repair aligned with the 21-day timescale for a routine repairs and this was reasonable. The landlord’s response to the resident focussed on the blocked downpipe and guttering repair and did not address the resident’s reference to damp and mould in the property. As the resident’s concern about damp and mould was speculative this was a reasonable response for the landlord to take but it did not allay the residents’ concerns regarding damp and mould.
The resident made reference to flood water accessing the property in their July 2021 stage 1 complaint. The landlord instructed a surveyor to assess the property prior to issuing its response and this was an appropriate action for it to take to ensure the advice it provided was an accurate account of the condition of the property. The surveyor did not prepare a report following their inspection but concluded there was “no form of water penetration,” and “the conditions were reasonable.” It is not clear to this Service if the landlord assessed the presence, or potential presence of damp and mould in the property during the visit as it focussed on the ingress of flood water. This Service considers that by accessing the resident’s home the landlord had an opportunity to consider the presence of damp in the property especially given there was a reported history of damp and mould. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken damp readings or wet wall tests within the property, however, no evidence has not seen that this type of measure was completed. This Service would also expect the landlord to have retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook, whether visual or technical such as by retaining photographs or written notes.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property again in October 2021 during which, according to the resident, water penetration up to 2 metres was identified in damp readings undertaken. The landlord’s decision to revisit and assess the resident’s property was appropriate, in particular to use moisture reading equipment inside the resident’s home to determine the presence of damp. However the landlord did not address the damp readings in its stage 2 response, despite this being raised specifically by the resident and this was unreasonable. By failing to refer and interpret the readings taken in the property the landlord missed an opportunity to improve the resident’s understanding of the condition of their home and conclusively determine and communicate if damp or mould was or was not present. This was likely to have caused frustration to the resident given they addressed the damp readings specifically.
Information related to the findings and conclusions of the surveyor’s inspections at each stage of the complaint process was not provided to this Service, or to the resident when it requested by them at a later date. The landlord did however refer to this information in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The retention and use of data is referenced in the Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on knowledge and information management which states “A crucial, and often overlooked, aspect of good knowledge and information management is the need to share it appropriately.” This Service would expect the landlord to have retained records of the detailed findings of the surveyor’s visit which it could later have shared with the resident in response to their request where these align with document retention guidelines. By failing to provide the resident with details of the surveyor’s visits including the damp readings they referred to, the landlord missed an opportunity to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repair handling processes and evidence that reasons why no further damp-related repairs were conducted in their home. This Service has not seen any good reason for the landlord to have withheld this information and in doing so created detriment to the resident.
At all stages of the landlord’s assessment of the property it had an opportunity to communicate with the resident the outcomes of their visits in particular to address their perception that damp and mould may affect their property. The resident made reference to the presence of damp in an ongoing way thereby inferring their perception that the landlord had not investigated the matter sufficiently or had not robustly responded to any damp readings it obtained. While the landlord may not have identified the presence of water penetration in the home it was expected to explain this clearly to the resident so as to manage their expectations. The landlord’s failure to do so, such as by explaining its interpretation of the damp readings it took was unreasonable. As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
The resident made a series of reports and complaints to the landlord about their concern about of damp and mould at their property. Their concerns related to a history of condensation at the property and the impact repairs related to blocked guttering, pipework and leaks had on the internal walls of the property. The landlord was expected to robustly assess the property, complete repairs in a timely way and clearly explain its findings so as to manage the presence, or perception of the presence of damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord visited the property, completed assessments, and explained its conclusions in its complaint responses. However, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord retained, used, and shared evidence of its assessments so as to satisfactorily address the resident’s concerns. Consequently, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s management and handling of an infestation of pests.

In correspondence the resident issued to the landlord in November 2021 they stated they first reported an ant infestation to the landlord in September 2020. This Service has not seen any further evidence about the infestation such as the location or severity, nor evidence to confirm if or how the landlord addressed the matter in its communication with the resident or via its repairs procedures. It is evident to this Service that the landlord’s policies and tenancy agreements state residents are responsible for addressing pest control issues. However, in the absence of evidence of the conversation the resident held with the landlord this Service can draw no further conclusions about this initial report.
The landlord publishes clear guidance on its website about how to respond to pests in the home which includes a link to the landlord’s contractor, the expected costs, and timescales as well as advice for identifying pests and booking treatments. The information the landlord provides reflects the principles of the landlord’s policies and the terms of its tenancy agreements and is therefore an effective resource and provides sufficient guidance for the treatment of pest matters. This detail and level of information provided in particular links to booking systems and treatment advice is considered good practice by this Service.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident raised the pest infestation matter with the landlord again until over a year later in their stage two complaint. This would therefore be considered outside of the usual timescales for submitting a complaint which this Service considers should be made within a reasonable time and usually no later than 12 months. The resident had the opportunity to raise the issue in their stage one complaint but did not do so. Consequently, the landlord was not expected to respond to matters that it had had not been made aware of. However it should have made this clear to the resident.
The resident raised the presence of an insect infestation at their home again in their second stage 2 complaint dated 15 November 2021. However, the resident provided little information about the pest issue other than to suggest it caused damage to the ceiling along with the presence of damp. Given the landlord had not responded to this element of the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by stating the complaint was made too late, or by agreeing to register the matter as a new stage one complaint. Instead the landlord failed to respond to the report in its complaint response at all and this was poor practice.
The landlord could have provided advice and information to the resident in its complaint response, such as signposting them to the pest control area of its website. Alternatively, given the resident indicated the insect infestation affected their ceiling, thereby suggesting it was present in a loft space, the landlord was expected to investigate and determine if treatment was its own responsibility. By failing to respond to the resident’s reports of an insect infestation as a new complaint or within its stage two complaint the landlord caused avoidable detriment to the resident.
Taking all factors into account in relation to this element of the resident complaint this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s reports of an infestation of pests.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaints

In identifying whether there has been failure in service the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint and compensation policy and procedures. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
The landlord publishes a corporate complaints procedure which sets out the expectations for handling complaints at stage one and stage two. The policy states complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days at stage one and 25 working days at stage two. The timescales for issuing complaint responses do not align with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s online access link for residents to make complaints on its website is beneficial it receipt and handling of complaints it receives. However there is a requirement to register an account before a complaint can be submitted and further registration requirements thereafter which create a further barrier to the complaint process most notably for those that do not engage in online activity. The landlord does not identify any alternative methods for the submission of complaints, and this fails to ensure adequate levels of accessibility is achieved.
It is noted by this Service that the landlord completed a complaints self-assessment in September 2022 in which it stated, “although we do not actively advertise various methods for submission of complaints, we still process complaints that are received”. This is an ambiguous statement, and this Service is of the view that the landlord could and should go further in ensuring it provides an accessible complaint process that aligns with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Specifically, section 2.1 states “Landlords must make it easy for residents to complain by providing different channels through which residents can make a complaint such as in person, over the telephone, in writing, by email and digitally. While the Ombudsman recognises that it may not be feasible for a landlord to use all of the potential channels, there must be more than one way of making a complaint available to residents.”
The resident emailed their stage one complaint to the landlord’s chief executive on 30 July 2021. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and this was expected. By failing to issue an acknowledgement within three days the landlord did not comply with its complaints policy and would have left the resident uncertain about when they would receive the landlord’s response.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response within its published timescales to address the repair matters the resident raised following investigations it completed with its housing and repairs staff. The resident’s complaint instigated a property inspection by a surveyor, and this was good practice to ensure any repairs were addressed and that subsequent advice provided in the complaint response was accurate and reflected the condition of the property at that time. The response provided up to date information about the repairs the resident referred to, including a reference to scaffolding which impacted the time taken to complete repairs and the sighting of a photograph of the completed works and this was reasonable. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s request for compensation. Further an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations related to their perception of detriment caused and the potential value of compensation awards was missed.
The resident issued a stage two escalation request on 19 October 2021 which they referred to as an interim stage two complaint. This Service understands this was because the resident was seeking to obtain additional information from the landlord to refer to in further correspondence. The landlord acknowledged the complaint later the same day and explained it had registered their correspondence as a stage 2 complaint because it does not operate an interim stage. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to make which established clarity around its policy and this was expected. Entertaining an interim complaint would had created an additional stage on the two-stage process and this would have been outside the complaint handling code and the landlord’s policies. Further it would have been inconsistent with the approach taken to other complaints the landlord received. This was therefore an appropriate response for the landlord to take and resulted in the resident resubmitting their correspondence as a stage 2 complaint the following day.
The resident made reference to the landlord’s online complaint portal with the suggestion it blocked the resident’s complaint in their escalation request. It is this Service’s view that the operation of an online complaints portal should be a simple and effective process with clarity on what may cause a complaint to be rejected. Notwithstanding the landlord confirmed it investigated the resident’s view that their complaint was rejected in its stage two response stating that their complaint was not blocked and that its IT staff were seeking to engage with the resident about the matter. Taking action to identify if any access issues were present was an appropriate action for the landlord to take. Discussing the matter with the resident was an opportunity for the landlord to ensure their account was correctly created and to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint service and this was both reasonable and appropriate. This Service had not however seen any evidence that this matter was actually resolved since the landlord’s complaint response was issued.
The use of an online complaint portal is beneficial to the landlord in that it ensures oversight and an audit trail for complaints it receives. However, the resident chose to email their complaint to senior staff because alternative options for making complaints were not provided. By doing so the resident submitted their complaint to an end location that was outside of the landlord’s complaint handling processes and therefore without an accountable audit trail. By publishing alternative complaint methods, such as a complaints email address the landlord would have confidently ensured that the resident’s complaints were received and processed using appropriate channels. By failing to do so the landlord is likely to have caused detriment to the resident who was uncertain if their complaint had been received and correctly registered, which would only have been possible due to the availability and prompt diligence of the staff members concerned.
The landlord again visited the resident’s property to complete an assessment prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. It is evident that the landlord chose to assess the property when complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 were submitted to the landlord prior to issuing its complaint responses. This Service considers this to be an effective complaint handling so as to ensure that the substantive issues of complaint could be investigated, resolutions identified where required, and that any advice provided in the subsequent complaint response was an accurate and an up-to-date account of the property condition. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to take.
The resident issued a separate stage one complaint to the landlord to request a copy of a surveyor’s report it referred to in its stage one complaint response. The landlord explained that this would be incorporated into its stage two response which was being compiled at this time “as it related to the same repair issue.” This was a reasonable decision for the landlord to take to best manage the landlord’s time and ensure a response to the resident’s request was provided in as timely way as possible. Notwithstanding the landlord could have clarified that the report had not been written which would have been more a timelier approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response 3 days later than its 25-day target date and this was a failure. It is possible that this was to ensure additional information the resident submitted in their later correspondence also titled stage 2 complaint and dated 15 November 2021 was included. This Service would expect the landlord to agree any extension of time with the resident and confirm this in correspondence.
The landlord’s stage two response sought to address each of the resident’s complaints by responding to the matters in the order they were raised, and this was appropriate. The landlord provided evidence of works orders related to repairs reported in 2020 and 2021 as an appendix to the response and this was informative. Further it referenced the works orders in the letter where they provided context and also provided explanations around mitigating factors that affected the completion of repairs such as weather conditions and the subsequent blockages debris caused. This was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take to address the resident’s complaint.
The landlord referred to contractor’s photographs of scaffolding erected at the resident’s block as evidence to refute the resident’s claims it was not used. However, that the landlord did not embed the photographs as it had with other photographs in its response and this Service has not seen any other evidence that the photos of the scaffold were provided, as requested. The resident was instead expected to accept the landlord’s word that scaffolding was erected over their stated experience of living in the block. Providing this photographic proof or verifying the use of scaffold from neighbouring properties were missed opportunities for the landlord to evidence the use of scaffolding and in doing so bring closure to the matter. Further it was likely to have caused frustration to the resident in that their request for the information was not met.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints about the presence of an ant infestation, water ingress in the property and its failure to take damp readings or wet wall tests, further that contradictory information was provided to the resident. This was not in keeping with this Services expected standards for complaint handling. The landlord was expected to address in full the complaint elements raised by the resident. Section 5.5 of the Code states “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 absence of this information about some aspects of the resident’s complaint would have caused frustration to the resident who had taken time and trouble in pursuing a remedy. This was poor.
The landlord considered compensation in its stage two response, and this was appropriate in that it recognised detriment had been caused to the resident related to a delayed repair. The landlord’s compensation procedure allowed it to assess a compensation award, taking into consideration the time taken for the repairs to be completed and the adverse impact the matters had on the resident. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the presence of damp and mould inside the resident’s home and its complaint handling and communication failures, and this was expected. When looking at compensation as a remedy for dissatisfaction, this service first looks at the landlord’s own assessment of its service failure and the redress due. We then look at the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) to assess if the award is reasonable. The amounts contained within the landlord’s compensation procedure were low when compared to the remedies guidance and this Service considers an increase of compensation is therefore due.
The landlord sought to respond to the resident’s complaints in a transparent way and cited works orders and conversations it held to investigate the matters raised. The landlord reasonably addressed the complaint elements it chose to respond to; however the authenticity of its response could have been enhanced by the provision of photographs and/or surveyor’s reports which were requested by the resident. The landlord failed to respond to some key elements of the resident’s complaint, such as the presence of an ant infestation and water ingress and this was not acceptable. Further the landlord failed to adequately consider a suitable level of compensation as a remedy for the detriment it caused to the resident. It is evident to this Service that the resident had inflated expectations of the level of compensation they may receive, but this was not addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses. Taking all aspects of the landlord’s response into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord management and handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

a. repairs to the downpipe and guttering causing a leak and damage in the property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

b. damp and mould in the property.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

c. an infestation of pests.

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of:

d. the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of guttering and pipework repairs by raising works orders and subsequently visiting their property to complete further property inspections. However, this Service has not seen any evidence to confirm that the repairs to the guttering and the soil and wastepipes leading to the resident’s drain were completed in an efficient and suitably lasting way.
The landlord was expected to robustly assess the resident’s property and clearly explain its findings so as to manage the presence, or perception of the presence of damp and mould in the resident’s home. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord retained, used and/or shared evidence of its assessments so as to confidently address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord failed to consider if the presence of a pest infestation in the residents home was its own responsibility to address. The landlord could have registered the resident’s report of a pest infestation as a new complaint or provided advice and information to the resident in its complaint response about the pest infestation, such as signposting them to the pest control area of its website.
The landlord failed to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its complaint responses. Further it failed to provide evidence in the form of photographs or reports of inspections it later came to rely on. The landlord did not consider compensation as a method for bringing reasonable redress to the resident’s complaints in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuit of a remedy to the matters they raised.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided within 28 days of its receipt of this report.
In addition to any compensation previously provided and within 28 days of its receipt of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience associated with repairs to the downpipe and guttering at the resident’s property,
2. £200 for inconvenience related to its handling of damp and mould in the property,
3. £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing treatment of a pest infestation.
4. £300 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures,
The landlord is ordered to complete a full assessment of the property to ascertain the presence of damp and mould in the property. Further to retain accurate records of all assessments it completes that can be reasonably relied on at a later date. Where damp and mould is present, the landlord is ordered to:
1. communicate the outcome with the resident,
2. arrange for remedial works to be completed.
The landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of damp and mould. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. the use of damp metering equipment in the diagnosis of damp and mould,
2. communication with residents about the diagnosis and assessment of damp and mould in the home.

The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within two months of receipt of this report.

The landlord is ordered to review the learning on this case in respect of its management of knowledge and information. It is recommended that the landlord reviews and incorporates the best practise highlighted in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information into the provision of housing services. In particular related to:
1. the retention and supply of accurate records and information relied on in complaint responses,
2. the preparation of adequate surveyor reports where inspections are completed,
3. the storage and use of photographic evidence for assessing repairs.

The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within two months of receipt of this report.

The landlord is ordered to consider the learning from this case, and advise this Service of its plans and actions, including timescales, to ensure that its complaint handling practices fully align with the principles of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. In particular related to:
1. the response timescales operated in its complaint procedures,
2. the accessibility of a current complaint procedure and information about the available methods for making complaints published on its website.

The landlord should advise the Housing Ombudsman of its intentions to comply with this order within two months of receipt of this report.