We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Norwich City Council (202338173)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338173

Norwich City Council

21 October 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 6 September 2021. The property in question is a 2-bed flat.
  2. The landlord says that it has a record of the resident having mobility issues and vulnerabilities linked to mental health.
  3. The resident raised concerns around a leak in the wall between her kitchen and bathroom in 2021. The landlord carried out works to replace pipes that ran through the wall, as it found evidence of damp and pooling water. The resident raised a complaint following these works due to the damp. The landlord responded on 20 January 2022 and suggested further works were required and would be carried out following the complaint.
  4. On 31 July 2023, the resident reported a leak in the same area. The landlord attended but has said it has no record of any visit notes. On 6 September 2023, the resident chased works she said were outstanding since the plumber last attended. The landlord attended and booked follow on works to lag the pipework.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 11 October 2023 following a visit during which the landlord reported that it could not locate a leak. Follow on works were booked but the resident said she was unhappy with continued issues with damp in the same wall. Further repairs were carried out on 19 October 2023 but the landlord could not provide any detail on the exact nature of those works.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 October 2023. It provided a timeline of repairs since July 2023 and said that it had completed repairs the day before. No further actions were proposed in its response. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint to stage 2 but no details of the escalation were provided by the landlord.
  7. A damp and mould survey was carried out on 1 November 2023 which identified damp and black mould in the property. Several required works were proposed within the report. The landlord said it attended on 7 December 2023 to replaster the wall and identified a leak as the wall was wet. It advised that follow on works would take place.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 January 2024. It acknowledged finding a leak on 7 December 2023 and said it had arranged follow on works for 18 January 2024. It said that on this date it found the wall to be dry but booked further follow on works for 24 January 2024 to carry out further pipe works.
  9. The resident brought the case to this Service following the stage 2 response. It is evident that the resident continued to chase works with the landlord, reported further instances of leaks and raised concerns around damp and mould in the property. The evidence provided by the landlord shows works continuing until early September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is clear from the resident’s complaint that there were historical reports of leaks, damp and mould. The resident stated that these went back at least 2 years, which the evidence does reference. A complaint was raised in December 2021 and the landlord responded in January 2022. This Service has not had sight of any evidence that this complaint was escalated or managed at stage 2.
  2. In view of this, this investigation will focus on the most recent complaint in October 2023 and any associated events. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which explains we may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally 12 months) of the matter arising. 

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould

Leaks

  1. It is evident that following the initial leak report on 31 July 2023, the landlord attended on the same day but failed to carry out a repair and left no record of the outcome of the visit. On 6 September 2023, the resident advised that she was awaiting follow on works that the plumber had proposed during the previous visit. Although there are no records from that previous visit, the continued presence of the same leak demonstrates that the landlord had not provided a lasting repair. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord which left the resident awaiting a repair to the leak for a further 5 weeks. This likely added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. Given the lack of action following the initial visit on 31 July 2023, the landlord should have ensured that it applied a priority to dealing with the reported leak in September 2023. Not only was the presence of the leak causing concern for the resident but the landlord should also have been looking to ensure that the leak did not cause further, or more long term, damage. Despite being aware of the delay since the previous visit, the landlord again only proposed follow on works.
  3. The landlord continued to show no urgency in attending to carry out the follow on works, as it scheduled them for over 4 weeks later. When it did attend on 11 October 2023, the landlord said it was unable to find a leak and booked a water pressure test for a month later. As the resident was unhappy with the outcome, she raised a complaint. Following that complaint, the landlord attended again on 16 October 2023 and found a leak on the “mains poly” pipe, with follow on works booked for 3 days later. It attended on 19 October 2023 and completed the proposed works.
  4. It is clear that the landlord failed to take any significant steps to address the leak for over 11 weeks after it was reported. Even if the leak would not be considered an emergency repair in line with its repair policy, the landlord should have carried out the repair within 5 working days instead. The landlord failed to show adequate oversight in managing the leak repair and also failed to show any urgency to resolve the leak. It is understandable that a landlord may need to diagnose an issue and reattend to carry out the required works on a second visit but it took 5 visits for any repairs to be carried out in this instance. This is a significant service failing by the landlord which left the resident experiencing the distress and inconvenience caused by both the leak and the delay in action.
  5. It is evident that following these initial repairs, the resident raised further concerns that the leak had not been fixed. Works orders and associated notes show further similar and continued delays in scheduling works and a failure in oversight of those works. The resident chased the landlord on 10 November 2023, as she had been told there were follow on works to be completed but the landlord acknowledged that no works had been raised. Works order notes show that the landlord was having to seek further advice, as it could not update the resident based on the information it had available.
  6. Notes show that the landlord was aware on 7 December 2023 that the leak was ongoing. Despite being aware of this, it did not attend until 18 January 2024, over 5 weeks later. When it did attend, the landlord found that the wall in question had dried but it booked further works for 24 January 2024 to address a “possible pipe split”.
  7. It is clear that despite the landlord being aware of the unreasonable delays in managing the initial leak between July 2023 and October 2023, there were continued failings. The oversight of these repairs was not adequate leading to both the resident and the landlord itself seeming unsure of what was happening next. When it did identify further and/or ongoing leaks, there was no urgency to carry out repairs with seemingly duplicated visits leading to more follow on works being raised or proposed. Had the landlord taken more ownership of the problem following the stage 1 complaint, this would have provided the resident with more confidence in the process and likely have led to the leak being addressed sooner.
  8. It is clear from the evidence provided that following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord continued to offer a similar service. There are ongoing instances of similar failings as those identified during the complaint period. The notes show repairs linked to same leak reports being completed as recently as early September 2024. This means that overall the resident experienced these issues for over a year since making the landlord aware of them.   

Damp and mould 

  1. Following the resident’s complaint in October 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 1 November 2023. It identified damp “in all of the flat” and black mould on the walls, ceilings and reveals. High damp meter readings were identified in the kitchen cupboard that backed on to the wall that was the source of the leaks.
  2. It reported that the ventilation system in the bathroom had “minimal pull” and the kitchen extractor was in the wrong position and there was an issue with the ducting which would “collect condensation and leak into the cupboard”. The report also identified that the windows were “older”, with no ventilation features. It recommended that both extractors were renewed, vents installed on cupboard doors and mould wash and treatments should be applied throughout the property.
  3. The report attributed the “condensation and mould” levels to “low level/intermittent heating and a lack of ventilation” in the property. Although the landlord was entitled to rely upon the recommendations set out in the report, it is unreasonable that the damp survey did not address the potential impact of the leak on the resident’s living conditions and how this could be contributing to the black mould.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould strategy says that all related “repairs, including mould washes are carried out swiftly”. However, works order notes show that most of the works proposed in the survey report dated 1 November 2023 were not completed until 23 May 2024, over 6 months later. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord which left the resident, who had already expressed concerns around the health implications, without any notable improvement in the situation. This likely only added to the distress and inconvenience she had already experienced. 
  5. It is clear that the landlord missed an earlier opportunity to address these issues, as it had already identified the problem with the extractor fans in the property in May 2022. A report carried out at that time found condensation and mould in “various areas including floors”. The recommendations made following the survey included renewal of the extractor fans in both the bathroom and kitchen, along with fitting vents to cupboard doors. Given that these same recommendations were made 18 months later, this shows that the landlord had either failed to act on those recommendations in 2022, or they were not carried out to a reasonable standard.  
  6. In line with this Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould with proactive interventions to address it. However, it is evident that despite visits to the property on 31 July 2023 and 6 September 2023, the landlord failed to identify the damp and mould issues at the property. No damp and mould survey was proposed or arranged until after the resident raised a complaint on 11 October 2023.
  7. It is possible that damp and mould was not evident on previous visits but given the leak reports, checks for damp and mould should have been carried out and noted during those visits. However, as the eventual damp and mould survey found damp “in all of the flat” and mould on walls, ceilings and reveals, it is unlikely that this had only developed in the time between the complaint and the survey being carried out a few weeks later. This was another failing on the part of the landlord which likely contributed to the unnecessary delays in the treatment of the damp and mould.
  8. Further to these failings, it is evident that in both 2022 and 2023, after the damp and mould issues were raised, the landlord failed to carry out any risk assessments. Given that the resident had made the landlord aware of medical vulnerabilities, this should have been a priority in both instances.

Summary – Leaks, damp and mould

  1. Ultimately, it is clear that the landlord failed to manage the reports of leaks, damp and mould “swiftly”, in line with its damp and mould strategy. Although some leaks can be difficult to diagnose, there were unreasonable delays in this instance. Risk assessments were not carried out and there was no plan of works to address each of the key issues. A lack of adequate record keeping contributed to duplicated visits and an inconsistent plan of action to address the problem.
  2. When the landlord did identify works that it felt would repair the leak, damp and mould, these were not carried out in line with its own repair policy. Repairs took weeks rather than days to be completed. Given the resident’s concerns about the potential health implications and further damage to the property, it was unreasonable for the landlord to take over 6 months to undertake the treatment and preventative works for the damp and mould problem. Having considered the service failings in this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’), the landlord should have acknowledged where things had gone wrong and provided an explanation of why. Where the issue was still ongoing, it should have detailed its plan of action to rectify the situation and potentially offered some form of redress.
  2. The landlord’s responses at each stage of the resident’s complaint merely offered a brief timeline of events within that period of the complaint. Neither response highlighted any failings in the service it offered and neither indicated whether the complaint was upheld or not. The landlord failed to provide any insight into the cause of the complaint and when addressing an ongoing issue at stage 2, it merely added that another appointment had been made.  
  3. Given that the resident would be aware of the events that had occurred at each stage, the responses from the landlord offered no acknowledgement of her experiences or the frustrations caused. The stage 2 complaint response offered no reassurance that the landlord had considered how it could improve its service. The responses at both stages left the resident in exactly the same situation, with no acknowledgement of the reasons for her complaint or the failings she endured.
  4. It is also evident that the landlord failed to provide a stage 2 response in line with the timeframes set out in its complaint policy. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 23 October 2023 but did not provide a response until 24 January 2024, over 3 months later. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord. It did not provide a timely response and did not advise the resident of a reason for the delay.
  5. Although the landlord said contractors would attend on the same day as the stage 2 response, it provided no oversight to ensure that these actions were completed. The resident continued to chase the landlord to seek a resolution to the problem and experienced similar failings. This demonstrates that the lack of acknowledgement of its initial failings meant the landlord did not learn lessons from the complaint. Landlords should ensure that they take learning from outcomes of complaints, in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Dispute Resolution. 
  6. Ultimately, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in a timely or meaningful manner. Its responses served as a confirmation of the events the resident was already aware of and offered nothing in the way of an acknowledgement of its failings in line with the Code. The resident was no better off for having complained and continued to experience the same problems following the complaint process. Having considered the failings in this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is required to provide a written apology to the resident.
  2. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord should complete a damp and mould survey and a post-inspection check following the recent works. A risk assessment should be carried out, along with a full report produced detailing it’s findings. This should ensure that all leaks and possible causes of damp and mould are now repaired and that all remedial works have been completed to a good standard. If any further works are required, it should put in place a schedule of works for any relevant works or treatment. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident within 14 days of the inspections, along with details of any timescales for any works that it finds to be outstanding.
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £1,000 to the resident, made up of:
    1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of roofing repairs and associated damp and mould reports;
    2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.