Norwich City Council (202423175)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the top floor of a 3-storey residential building. She has physical and mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Rehousing application.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of our jurisdiction.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application was within its capacity as a local council.
   3. The landlord’s complaint responses were lacking, and its record keeping was poor.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 did not investigate

5. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her physical and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
6. The resident has raised issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We are unable to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised complaints about her rejected insurance claim for damaged personal possessions and her request to reimbursed for heating costs. Therefore, we did not investigate these issues.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord told us that during the period of the resident’s complaint, it did not have a damp and mould policy in place. However, our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should ensure their response to reports of damp and mould is timely and reflects the urgency of the issue. They should share the outcome of surveys with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. They should also act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. Where extensive works are required, landlords should consider the circumstances of the household, including vulnerabilities.
8. The landlord’s repair policy says that where it is unable to complete a repair on a single visit, or within its expected timeframes, it will proactively keep residents updated on progress including arrangements for repeat or rearranged visits.
9. On 24 November 2023, the resident reported that her living room ceiling was wet. The landlord appropriately raised a repair the same day and informed the resident that its roofing contractor would contact her directly to arrange an appointment. Although the landlord’s records do not show if and/or when the contractor attended, it is reasonable to conclude that it did. This is because within an email to the landlord on 3 January 2024, the resident said that “workmen came out to [her] property just before Christmas who said water was laying on top of the flat roof, and they would get a surveyor to come out to inspect the damp and mould”. As the landlord has not disputed the resident’s comments, it is likely that this is a true version of events. Also, due to the lack of documentary evidence available, it is reasonable conclude that no external repairs were undertaken to the roof in late 2023.
10. On 18 December 2023, the landlord sent the resident a letter. It said that it was closing the repair as it was unable to reach her to discuss the damp and mould in her property, but advised her to contact it if she was still experiencing issues. We note the resident’s comments (on 3 January 2024) that it had not attempted to contact her. However, the landlord’s repair records show that it attempted to call her on 2 occasions between 13 December 2023 and 18 December 2023. Despite this, the landlord’s letter must have been confusing for the resident, as she had already been informed that an inspection was going to be arranged.
11. Upon receiving confirmation from the resident (on 3 January 2024) that the damp and mould issue was ongoing, the landlord raised an inspection appointment. It appropriately attended 6 working days later (on 12 January 2024) and identified some remedial repairs.
12. Based upon the evidence provided, it is not clear what date the landlord completed the external roof repair, which is a shortcoming in its repair record keeping. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it was resolved between February 2024 and April 2024, as when the landlord inspected the roof again in July 2024, it determined there was no leak. Despite this, the lack of clarity is highlighted by the following:
    1. In an internal email on 5 June 2024, the landlord said it had repaired the roof on 9 February 2024.
    2. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (on 24 July 2024) it said that it had completed the external repairs in “late” February 2024.
    3. The landlord raised a further repair on 15 March 2024 to “locate roof leak”.
    4. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 April 2024 to advise it that the roofing contractor had visited her property unannounced.
13. It is also unclear what target timescales the landlord was working towards for the roof repair. Based on the available evidence, it is likely that it took more than 60 working days (the maximum timescale permitted in the landlord’s repairs policy for ‘major repairs’) to complete the work.
14. The landlord completed the internal damp and mould repairs during week commencing 23 September 2024. This was approximately 10 months after the resident first reported the issue. While taking into account the delays that were outside of the landlord’s control (mainly between July 2024 and September 2024), we find that the landlord acted inappropriately because:
    1. It had undertaken a damp survey on 19 February 2024. The resulting report showed that it had identified the presence of damp and mould in the living room, bathroom and kitchen and recommended a range of works. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why this work was not completed within its target timescales.
    2. The resident and her local councillor repeatedly requested updates from the landlord between February 2024 and July 2024. They explained how the condition of the property was impacting her and that she was unable to use her living room. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter and caused inconvenience to the resident, as she was unclear on its position. However, it was positive that the landlord confirmed that the property was habitable, using the assessment of its qualified contractors.
    3. While the landlord offered the resident support and guidance for her health concerns (on 19 August 2024), we find that it should have offered this to her sooner. Its lack of empathy and acknowledgement up until this point is concerning.
15. As the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation for its handling of the issue, we find that it did not go far enough to put things right for her.
16. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation, in accordance with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

17. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
18. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. This complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application and in the shortlisting of properties, in its capacity as a local authority. As such, we are unable to investigate the complaint. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), which is the appropriate body to consider complaints about actions and decisions made by local councils.
19. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that this complaint is outside of our jurisdiction.

What we did not investigate

20. As the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application is outside of our jurisdiction, we are also unable to assess its complaint handling for this issue. However, it is important to note that while we understand the practicalities of landlords’ teams investigating complaints about their own service area, we find the landlord’s decision to open 2 separate complaints confusing. This indicates that it may have been operating an unnecessarily protracted complaints process at the time.

What we did investigate

21. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints process, which is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
22. We have not had sight of the landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement email to the resident. This is evidence of poor record keeping and is at odds with the Code, which states that a full record of the complaint must be kept, include all correspondence with the resident.
23. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in accordance with the timescales outlined in its policy (2 working days). However, we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident prior to sending her the response. It would have been appropriate for it to discuss the complaint with her and give her a fair chance to set out her position. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
24. The landlord also did not give the resident a “decision” (ie confirm that it ‘upheld’ or ‘did not uphold’ her complaint). This was at odds with its complaints policy. Also, given that the landlord recognised within its stage 1 response that there were delays in completing the repair work, it would have been reasonable for it to offer some form of redress in accordance with its compensation policy. This is evidence that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident.
25. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, within 2 working days (on 16 July 2024). However, it was unreasonable that evidence of this was provided to us by the resident, and not the landlord, which is further indicative of poor record keeping.
26. The landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 response within 6 working days (24 July 2024).
27. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for a landlord to assess its handling of the substantive issue. Although not obligated to do so, it is good practice for landlords to provide a timeline of events for the substantive issue within formal complaint responses. This allows them to demonstrate that they have undertaken a comprehensive investigation and considered all the facts within the case. As the landlord did not do so in this case, we find that it overlooked some important facts within its final response.
28. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. The disorganised commentary on the repair records made it challenging for us to assess its handling of the issues. Also, several pieces of key information were provided to us by the resident, rather than the landlord. The landlord should endeavour to keep contemporaneous records of all correspondence it has with residents.

Communication

30. The landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking overall, and there was evidence that it did not respond to several of her emails in relation to the substantive issue.