Watford Community Housing Trust (201914487)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914487

Watford Community Housing Trust

22 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a house where the bathroom is situated above the kitchen.
  2. On 24 February 2020, the landlord responded to a historical complaint from the resident about a number of repairs, which included a delay in replacing kitchen fixtures. It explained that, after an initial inspection in December 2019, it had scheduled works to her kitchen units for 10 February 2020. Due to a lack of materials, this was postponed until 18 February 2020 when it repaired three of the kitchen units. The landlord identified that a new kitchen worktop was required which it ordered. It advised that a follow-on appointment had been booked for 23 March 2020 to fit the new kitchen worktop and unit and apologised for the delay.
  3. The landlord’s records from 20 March 2020 recorded that a new kitchen worktop was on order and a replacement sink unit and plinth were currently in storage at its office. It contacted the resident by text and email to advise of a new provisional appointment due to a change in working practices because of the impact of the corona virus pandemic. The landlord recorded a further note on 9 December 2020 which stated that, due to a lack of materials, the job was on hold.
  4. On 29 December 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman to say that the landlord had not carried out any work since she contacted this Service previously on 21 February 2020. She said that she had been dealing with mould in the property and her kitchen units for over a year which had left her “exhausted and constantly sick with… asthma”. The resident relayed that the landlord had repeatedly postponed her repairs due to a lack of materials. She said that her bath had dropped again due to damage to the beams below from damp.
  5. The resident called the Ombudsman on 12 May 2021 when she was advised to escalate her complaint with the landlord.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 17 May 2021 to raise a complaint about her repairs. It contacted her on 19 May 2021 to gather more information on the repairs. The landlord emailed the resident on 21 May 2021, in which it said that it would manage the kitchen repairs under its formal complaints process and it would raise jobs for the other repairs which had not been reported to it previously.
  7. The resident informed the landlord on 24 May 2021 that her doctor had told her that she was experiencing “black mould poisoning” which was affecting her asthma and she developed a rash when in her kitchen. She asked how long its response to her complaint would take, adding that he complaint had not been resolved for over two years. The landlord replied that day, in which it acknowledged her report of health concerns, which it hoped she was being supported with by her doctor. It confirmed that it would carry out an inspection of the kitchen on 3 June 2021; due to this it would not be able to issue its complaint response to her until 8 June 2021.
  8. On 4 June 2021, the landlord raised jobs to carry out a mould wash of the back wall and replace the damaged sink and corner units, the worktop and plinth in the kitchen.
  9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 June 2021 in which it relayed that it would carry out the repairs above and provided updates and appointments for the repairs which did not form part of her complaint. It apologised for its delay in replacing the kitchen worktop, units and plinth, explaining that this was due to delays in sourcing the required materials from its supplier and then additional delays caused by the corona virus pandemic. In recognition of the delay she had experienced, the landlord offered her compensation of £100.
  10. The landlord’s records on 9 June 2021 noted that it could not provide appointments for the kitchen repair jobs in the resident’s complaint due to being unable to source the parts needed from its suppliers. This meant that the mould wash to her kitchen wall would also be delayed. The landlord noted that the original job had been booked in October 2019.
  11. The resident corresponded with the landlord between 8 and 16 June 2021 to express her dissatisfaction with the level of compensation it had offered. She advised that the figure she sought was in the region of £5000 as the £100 it had offered did not cover her redecoration costs or the effect of the mould on her physical and mental health. The resident contended that she had experienced a lack of support from the landlord over the past three years due to its “negligence” and provided a letter from her doctor stating that the mould was affecting her health. She said that her kitchen walls, floor and units had been affected and reported a new repair to an electrical socket.
  12. In its response of 29 June 2021, the landlord offered to make referrals to mental health organisations on the resident’s behalf and log her medical letter against her case. It said that it had made an appointment for 12 July 2021 to assess the materials needed for the kitchen repairs, following which it would aim to complete the works on 15 to 16 September 2021. It offered an appointment for 9 August 2021 to carry out the mould wash of the kitchen wall and confirmed that it would follow up on the outcome of the visit scheduled for 12 July 2021 as it noted that its previous inspection had not factored in works to the floor.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2021 to escalate her complaint to the final stage. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the time it was taking to address her kitchen and electrical repairs. The resident asserted that the kitchen wall required more than a mould wash as the mould had penetrated into the plaster and brickwork. She reported that the seal around the bath had been damaged due to her bath descending and this was allowing water to leak into the kitchen ceiling making her concerned about the safety of the structure of the property.
  14. The landlord acknowledged the escalation of the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its procedure on 6 July 2021 and advised that it would raise repairs for the newly reported repairs to the bath seal and leak into the kitchen.
  15. The landlord recorded on 13 July 2021 that the inspection scheduled for the previous day had not gone ahead as the worker had been unable to gain access to the property.
  16. The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 26 July 2021 to advise her that it would provide its final response to her by 9 August 2021 after it had completed its investigation of her reported issues.
  17. The landlord carried out an inspection of the property and produced a report on 28 July 2021 which stated that repairs were needed in the kitchen due to water penetration from the bathroom above which had caused damage to plaster work and kitchen fixtures. These repairs were to replace the worktop and the sink base unit; renew the plinth, end panel and plaster under the sink; repair a leaking cold-water feed pipe; and stain block and paint the kitchen ceiling.
  18. The landlord also noted that the floor underneath the kitchen sink unit needed to be checked for damage and that the leak had spread throughout the kitchen floor underneath the floor covering. It observed that this had caused signs of rust to the white goods “especially the washing machine”.
  19. The landlord’s inspection of the bathroom found that there was no sealant between the bath and the wall, which had led to water penetration to the kitchen below. It recorded that the renewal of the bath, the wooden bathroom floor and the bathroom flooring were required and the floor underneath the bath needed investigation as the smell indicated deterioration of the wood underneath.
  20. The landlord noted that other repairs were required in the rest of the property which comprised: replacement of two air vents, clipping loose radiator pipes, replacement of floorboard in the lounge, re-fixing of kitchen cupboard doors, adjusting the bathroom door and renewing the privacy lock on the bathroom door.
  21. The landlord suggested that the entire replacement of the bathroom was warranted as this would enable it to carry out an unrestricted examination of the bathroom floor. It also suggested painting the whole of the kitchen ceiling to match the paint colour and the replacement of the resident’s washing machine as a goodwill gesture.
  22. The landlord attended the resident’s property again together with its contractors on 3 August 2021. It recorded that it explained the scope of the works to her, explained the timeframes involved due to needing to source materials, and confirmed to her that the work would commence in early September 2021. The landlord recorded that the property’s bathroom had been added to its improvement programme and the resident was satisfied with the proposed works.
  23. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 5 August 2021 in which it confirmed that it would carrying out the same works specified in its stage one response. Additionally, it confirmed that it would replacing her entire bathroom to enable investigation and repair of the floor. The landlord re-offered the £100 compensation it offered in its stage one response and additionally offered to replace her washing machine, up to a value of £300.
  24. The resident informed this Service on 6 August 2021 that she was unhappy with the compensation the landlord had offered as she felt it was insufficient to recognise that she had not been offered any assistance with the mould in the property for three years. She said that the £300 it offered towards the replacement of her washing machine and £100 compensation did not cover her laundry costs and the damage to her health and possessions over the last three years.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs obligations matrix confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of kitchen worktops, units, drawers and tiles. Its responsive repairs policy states that it aims to complete repairs within ten working days of the initial report, except for emergency repairs which it will attend within four hours and repair within 24 hours.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may pay compensation for damage to a resident’s possessions if this was caused by itself. After carrying out an inspection it may offer to repair, replace or offer compensation for the value of the item. This states that it will offer compensation for general inconvenience decided on a case by case basis.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom

  1. The resident has said that her and family’s health has been negatively impacted by the mould in the property. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the mould and any subsequent impact on the resident. If she considers that her health has been detrimentally affected by the landlord’s actions or lack of action then she may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its obligations to the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect that a resident raises their dissatisfaction with a landlord’s service within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman would also expect that a complaint is escalated within a reasonable period if a resident is dissatisfied with a landlord’s complaint response. This is because, with the passage of time, a determination cannot be reliably made on historical events. The resident’s kitchen formed part of her previous complaint, responded to by the landlord on 24 February 2020. While this would ordinarily be outside of the six-month period within which the Ombudsman would consider, discretion has been exercised to consider events since this date as the landlord has been aware of the issues since then.
  3. As confirmed by the landlord’s repairs obligations matrix above, it was obliged to repair and maintain the resident’s kitchen worktops and units. When a landlord receives report of a repair, its first response should be to inspect the issue to identify the remedial work required. It is noted that inspections were carried out in December 2019, 3 June 2021 and 28 July 2021. While it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and it is the resident’s obligation to report repairs which arise, it was a failure by the landlord not to identify that the damage caused to the kitchen was due to water ingress from above. It is unclear which repairs were reported prior to the landlord’s historical stage one complaint response on 24 February 2021, but it was aware from at least 24 May 2021 onwards of the presence of mould in the kitchen. It was unreasonable for it not to have identified the reason for the deterioration of the kitchen units and the mould in the kitchen prior to its final inspection on 28 July 2021 after the resident reported the issues in her bathroom.
  4. The landlord took an excessive length of time to carry out the replacement of the resident’s kitchen worktop and units, which it confirmed it would do in its historical stage one complaint response on 24 February 2020. The period between this and its final response on 5 August 2021 was approximately 18 months and considerably in excess of the ten working day timeframe specified in its responsive repairs policy above. While it did contact her on 20 March 2020 to advise of the delay due to the lack of availability of materials, it was unreasonable that it did not follow up with her, prior to her recent complaint on 17 May 2021 to update her on the progress of the repair. Some delay may be attributed to the onset of corona virus pandemic restrictions, but the landlord would still be expected to maintain contact with the resident while her repair remained outstanding. It therefore additionally exhibited a failure to communicate with the resident about her repair.
  5. The landlord apologised to the resident, in its final response on 5 August 2021 for the delay and outlined reasonable actions to remedy the damage caused to her kitchen by the delayed identification of the water damage from the bathroom above. Namely this was to replace the damaged kitchen units, carry out remedial decoration work, replace the bathroom and repair the floors. The landlord’s offer of £300 towards the replacement of the resident’s washing machine was a reasonable offer in the circumstances, given that the damage to this was due to its failure to diagnose the leak affecting the kitchen and that it assessed this in accordance with its compensation policy. However, the compensation it offered of £100 was not reasonable redress for the extended period in which her repairs, and the diagnosis of the cause of the defects, remained outstanding.
  6. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Remedies-Guidance.pdf provides for awards of compensation of between £250 and £700 where there has been “considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. This may include “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs”. To recognise the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to properly diagnose the repair, communicate about the outstanding repair, and carry out remedial works, the Ombudsman will order an additional compensation payment of £400 to be paid to the resident, in addition to the £100 it previously offered and the £300 it offered towards the cost of replacing her washing machine.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to diagnose the reason for the damage to the resident’s kitchen; it delayed excessively in carrying out the remedial works it identified and it did not communicate with her about her outstanding repairs. The amount offered in compensation was inadequate in these circumstances.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation in addition to the £100 and the £300 towards replacement of her washing machine it previously offered her.
    2. Confirm to the resident when remedial works to her kitchen and bathroom will be carried out, if not yet complete.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation its previously offered her.
    2. Confirm that it will pay £300 towards the cost of replacing her washing machine.
    3. Review its processes for sourcing materials from suppliers to ensure that a systemic breakdown of its repairs process does not occur.
    4. Review and implement improvements to its communication procedures with residents with outstanding repairs to ensure that regular updates are provided.