Dacorum Borough Council (202207644)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom second floor flat. Between 2021 and 2024 the resident reported several leaks in her property which she said were causing damp and mould. She also requested a move to another property for medical reasons.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
4. The suitability of a property offered by the landlord.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp and mould.
6. We found there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
7. The resident’s complaint about the suitability of a property offered is outside of jurisdiction.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of leaks, damp and mould

8. Emergency repairs were handled promptly and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, but several routine repairs exceeded the policy timescales. In multiple instances the landlord did not follow its own no access policy, such as issuing letters after 2 failed visits. Despite some failings, the landlord maintained regular communication and visited the resident, and coordinated with external agencies to support the resident. This helped mitigate the overall impact.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord’s responses at stage 1 of its complaint policy were within the relevant timescales, or the resident was provided with an explanation why the timescales could not be met. However, the time taken to send a stage 2 complaint response was outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales and it did not sufficiently recognise this failing in its complaint response.

Suitability of a property offered

10. We are not free to investigate every complaint referred to us. Our Scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints about a local council which concern matters that do not relate to its provision or management of social housing.
11. As this complaint centres on the landlord’s allocation of housing points and a decision to allocate a property as a priority due to medical needs we cannot investigate this. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions in relation to housing allocation, she can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

12. We’ve decided to look at the landlord’s actions between October 2021 and February 2024. This is because the landlord offered to start a new Stage 1 complaint in April 2024 to deal with any ongoing issues, but the resident declined this offer. It would not be fair to look at anything after February 2024, as the landlord has not had a fair chance to review its actions and put things right through its complaint process.

What we did investigate

13. The landlord’s initial response to a leaking toilet on 28 October 2021 was handled appropriately. The repair was made safe the same day, and a surveyor attended the following day to assess further issues. This met the timescales within the landlord’s repair policy of an emergency repair being made safe within 4-hours and an urgent inspection timescale of 48 hours. However, the follow-on repairs identified during the survey were not completed within the expected timeframes. The tap repair, raised on 9 November 2021, was not completed until 12 April 2022, despite multiple attempts and rebookings. This exceeded the 20-working day target for routine repairs. Similarly, tiling work raised in January 2022 was not completed until April 2022. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
14. The landlord completed a repair to the extractor fan within a reasonable timeframe, aligning with policy expectations. The toilet replacement raised in February 2022 was also completed promptly, showing good adherence to the repairs process. However, the mould wash raised in February 2022 was attempted twice without access, and there is no evidence to show the no access procedure was followed. The policy requires a letter to be issued after 2 failed attempts. The failure to provide a letter meant the resident was not aware the repair had been closed. This caused some inconvenience to the resident.
15. In April 2022, the resident reported that blown windows were causing damp and mould. The landlord attempted to carry out an inspection in May 2022, June 2022, and July 2022, but it was unsuccessful. While it is positive the landlord was trying to follow its damp and mould policy to conduct an inspection within 7 days, there is no indication that the no access procedure was followed. The failure to act in line with its no access procedure meant the required escalation and closure steps were not completed.
16. An emergency leak reported on 27 September 2022 was attended the same day and fixed. This response met the emergency repair timescale and demonstrated effective action.
17. Between February and March 2023, the landlord responded promptly to several reports of flooding and leaks in the resident’s kitchen. These were attended the same day, and appropriate follow-up actions were taken, including involving its drainage team and a Tenancy Management Officer. These responses were consistent with the emergency and urgent repair categories in its repair policy. It showed good practice in managing the resident’s concerns. The landlord was in regular communication with other agencies during this time to discuss any potential safeguarding needs for the resident. In the circumstances this was a reasonable approach to try and obtain some additional support for the resident.
18. In May 2023, a leak from a newly installed tap was attended the same day. Subsequent reports of flooding and drainage issues in May 2023, June 2023, and July 2023 were also attended promptly, with contractors taking necessary actions including controlled entry and use of drainage equipment to resolve the issues. These actions were in line with repair policy and showed a proactive approach. The landlord continued to communicate with other agencies such as a local Mental Health Crisis team. This was to ensure the resident was offered the appropriate support as it was discovered the flooding at the property was mostly due to the resident’s vulnerabilities.
19. From August to December 2023, there were repeated attempts to carry out a damp and mould survey, but access was not gained until 6 December 2023. The landlord followed its no access policy by leaving cards and rearranging appointments with the resident. It was fair for the landlord to persist in arranging access rather than closing the repair as the resident had raised concerns about the damp and mould impacting her health. The landlord was in communication with other agencies during this period to ensure the resident was provided with the necessary support.
20. Once access was gained, the surveyor identified some repairs and told the resident a contractor would be in contact to make appointments at a convenient time. Although the contractor tried to arrange the necessary appointments, there was a lack of engagement from the resident. In the circumstances the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the damp and mould issue in line with its policy.
21. The landlord’s communication overall was appropriate when dealing with the resident’s reports. It regularly communicated the dates of appointments and left no access cards to say when it had missed an appointment. The landlord completed at least 6 visits to discuss the issues faced by the resident. It also assigned a Tenancy Management Officer to the resident’s case to ensure there was a specific person who could oversee the issues and help the resident. It is also positive to see the landlord kept appropriate records of repairs, and notes of visits and meetings. This likely contributed to the proactive and prompt management of the matter.
22. While there were some failings, the impact of this was mitigated due to access and communication issues outside of the landlord’s control. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. This apology did not go far enough to recognise fully the impact to the resident. In this case we consider a payment of £100 compensation is fair. This both acknowledges the impact to the resident, while also acknowledging the failings did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome of the case. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

23. The landlord sent its first stage 1 complaint response 15 working days after receiving the resident’s formal complaint. While this is outside of its normal 10 working day timescales, it told the resident it needed additional time and said it would provide a response within 20 working days. This aligns with its complaint policy which says it may ask for an extension of up to 10 working days and explain the reasons why.
24. The landlord’s complaint policy says that if a resident wants to escalate a complaint, they need to do so within 28 days of receiving the stage 1 response. It was fair for the landlord to deal with the resident’s communication dated 8 February 2023 as a new complaint. This is because the resident did not raise further concerns or ask to escalate the complaint within the policy timescale of 28 days.
25. The landlord sent a second stage 1 complaint response 9 working days after receiving the resident’s second complaint. This was in line with its complaint policy timescales.
26. The resident sent a further letter of complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2023. She chased this at least 2 times and contacted us to help escalate her issues. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 85 working days after the complaint and request for a stage 2 response. This was outside of its policy timescales and caused the resident some inconvenience when chasing for a response.
27. The landlord apologised to the resident for its mishandling of the complaint, but this does not go far enough to recognise the impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation which fairly acknowledges the inconvenience caused to the resident. This aligns with our remedies guidance for failures that have lasted a short duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the case.

28. The resident’s complained the landlord’s Housing Needs team offered her an adapted property that was not suitable for the needs of the household. We do not investigate complaints about a local council’s allocation of housing so have not investigated this.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate. It was able to provide clear records of its actions and communication with both the resident and other agencies. This meant it could properly investigate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident was good. It made significant efforts to engage with the resident and offer support where possible to resolve the issues. Its decision to assign a specific point of contact (Tenancy Management Officer) to oversee the actions being taken was a good way to manage the issues being raised.