Darlington Borough Council (202411824)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed ground floor flat, which was newly built in 2019. The resident has a range of health issues including emphysema, COPD, asbestosis and arthritis. The resident said he had reported issues related to damp, mould, condensation and leaks since he moved into the property in 2019. After he reported damp and mould on 14 November 2022, the landlord inspected the property. For the period December 2022 until 17 April 2023, it took a number of steps to investigate and resolve the damp, condensation and associated repairs to windows and radiators. It also investigated the resident’s further reports of issue with the brickwork.
    

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and condensation.
   2. Reports of cracked brickwork.
3. We have also reviewed how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of reoccurring damp and condensation.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cracked brickwork.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and condensation

5. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately to reports of damp and mould from April 2022 onward, conducting extensive surveys, repairs, and installing environmental sensors to monitor and improve conditions. All actions met the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It also offered alternative accommodation, compensation for the impact on the resident, and confirmed the property met the Decent Homes Standard.

Cracked brickwork

6. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report of cracked brickwork, conducting inspections and referring the issue to a structural engineer. All of the actions taken were within the timescales in its repairs policy. The inspection found the crack was minor and caused by thermal expansion, with no structural risk.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). There were significant delays at both stages, particularly stage 2, which took 116 working days to issue a response. It failed to agree extensions with the resident, offer redress, or show learning from the delays.

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.

8. The resident has complained of damp and mould since at least 16 December 2019 when he said that condensation was building up in the bedroom and that the window seals were in need of replacement. However, we have not seen evidence that the resident raised a formal complaint until 17 April 2023. In the interests of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, we have focussed this investigation on events leading to the formal complaint.
9. Within the scope of this investigation, the resident first reported damp and mould on 14 November 2022. The landlord acted in a timely way and surveyed the property the following day. This was in line with its repairs policy, which lists damp and mould as an urgent repair, requiring an attendance within 3 working days.
10. Following this, the landlord undertook a wide range of incremental surveys, repairs and improvements to the property, which we have seen evidence of. This included invasive cavity wall surveys, upgrades and balancing of the heating system, improved ventilation and works to repair the guttering. The evidence shows the landlord responded to further concerns and carried out the necessary surveys and examinations.
11. On 16 June 2023, the landlord installed environmental sensors in all rooms in the property, to monitor damp, mould, ventilation, air flow and other factors. The landlord used this data to target its interventions, for example installing an airbrick in the property when the sensors showed that ventilation was poor. This also allowed the landlord to track the progress of the measures it had taken. By 13 December 2023, the sensor data showed improvement and the damp and mould scores had decreased. This approach demonstrated good practice, using current and comprehensive data to target interventions and track progress.
12. The evidence also shows that the landlord monitored ventilation effectiveness, after the installation of the airbrick. The landlord shared its findings with the relevant teams to influence the ventilation strategy for new builds. This was very positive to note, as a benefit to future tenants living in new build properties owned by the landlord.
13. Alongside the practical actions to address the damp and mould, the evidence also shows that the landlord offered alternative accommodation, but the resident declined this. This was a reasonable response, while investigation and works were underway.
14. Within its complaint responses, the landlord offered £500 for distress, inconvenience and impact on the resident’s health. Additionally, the landlord paid the resident £1,186.93 for the cost of furniture and possessions which had been damaged by the damp and mould. This compensation was in line with our remedies guidance. It also proportionate to the impact of having to accommodate multiple inspection and visits for a prolonged period of time.
15. The landlord said that the £500 offered at stage 2 was an interim payment and that additional compensation would be considered once the matter was resolved. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 June 2024 to advise that it had done this. It said that there had not been any failings in the intervening period and therefore additional compensation was not required. We cannot find any evidence of failing in this period, and therefore this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
16. Beyond the complaint process, the landlord left the environmental sensors in the property for continued monitoring. It also confirmed to the resident on 16 February 2024 that the property was habitable and met the Decent Homes Standard.
17. Taking these factors together, the landlord has undertaken extensive investigations in the property and made a series of repairs and improvements to address the resident’s concerns. Within the period of time considered by this investigation, its response has been timely and it took appropriate steps to provide redress to the resident for the ongoing inconvenience. This was reasonable in the circumstances and on this basis, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

18. The landlord’s repair policy does not explicitly note the timeline for completing structural repairs to brickwork, however this is likely to be considered a routine repair, unless there is a risk to life. The landlord’s policy allows 7, 20 or 40 working days for routine repairs, depending on the complexity. 
19. The resident reported a crack in the tarmac, going up the side of his property through the brickwork on 17 April 2023. In response to this, the evidence shows that the landlord undertook a series of inspections involving its housing management officer, building design manager, building safety manager and others. The first of these inspections took place on 20 April 2023, 3 days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord referred the issue to a structural engineer, who attended on 11 May 2023.
20. On 18 May 2023, the surveyor reported he had found a 0.5mm crack in the gable wall which he said was due to thermal expansion. The surveyor said that the crack was “not significant” from a structural perspective and recommended repairing the crack.
21. On this basis, the landlord attended to inspect the property in a timely way and sought an expert opinion at an early opportunity. The surveyor completed the report and recommendations were completed within a calendar month and this confirmed that the crack was not significant and did not pose further structural issues. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
22. Taking these factors together, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.

23. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
24. The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses in the following timescales:
    1. 17 working days at stage 1.
    2. 116 working days at stage 2.
25. This means that the landlord’s responses were delayed at both stages but significantly delayed at stage 2. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree extensions (of up to 10 working days) with residents and there is no evidence that the landlord did this. 
26. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord undertook any learning from these delays, or provided the resident with any form of redress, such as compensation. The landlord missed this opportunity to provide redress at any early opportunity and repair the landlord and tenant relationship.
27. Taking these factors together, the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint or escalation request in line with its complaints policy, timescales or the requirements of the Code, nor did it demonstrate any learning from these delays or provide redress to the resident. On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
     

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The records provided show a positive management of information related to repairs. This included survey reports, repair logs, correspondence and photographs. The landlord also proactively used data from the environmental sensors in the resident’s property to assess the success of measures it had taken and target ongoing work.

Communication

29. The evidence shows that the landlord did update the resident with its findings periodically However, the complaints communication was significantly delayed, without any extensions being agreed with the resident and the landlord should prevent a reoccurrence of this in future as per the learning order made. Internal communication was strong, with referrals being made between departments in a timely way, supported by good record keeping and data.