London Borough of Newham (202425925)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom maisonette. She lives there with her adult children, one of whom is acting as the representative for this complaint. They are referred to as the resident for the purpose of the report. The resident has advised they have respiratory conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour. (ASB).
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

5. There were lengthy delays in the landlord responding to emails from the resident, raising concerns about noise nuisance. We have not seen any reason for the delay and the landlord did not acknowledge this in the complaint’s process. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern that a noisy metal gate has been installed in her neighbour’s property, despite her belief that the landlord had previously said it would be removed.

        The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

6. The landlord responded to the damp and mould report by visiting the property, assessing and completing the work to address damp and mould. There were delays to the work, however there were two failed appointments due to the resident not providing access which contributed to this. The landlord offered £100 for the delays which was reasonable.

        The landlord’s response to the complaint

7. There were small delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, however we do not consider these to be significant. The landlord gave £50 compensation to the resident as it said it did not acknowledge an earlier complaint about damp and mould. We consider this to be reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.

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 had a previous complaint regarding ASB which completed the landlord’s complaints process on 22 June 2023. We investigated the complaint and issued our decision on 27 September 2024. We would not look to reinvestigate matters that we have already investigated or duplicate previous orders. We have only considered events that happened after 22 June 2023 in this investigation.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 August 2023. She said that there had been an inspection to the neighbour’s property in 2022 and asked if there had been an update since that time. She noted that there was a noisy metal gate at the neighbour’s property which the landlord had said needed to be removed. She also asked if the landlord had checked the neighbour’s property to ensure that any previously removed laminated flooring had not been reinstalled. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this email. This is likely to have caused frustration to the resident.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2023 to ask for an update to her enquiry regarding the neighbour’s laminated flooring. The landlord responded to this email on 27 November 2023 to say it had asked the Housing Officer for an update. We have not seen that the landlord followed up on this and the landlord did not issue any further response to the resident until she contacted the landlord on 26 January 2024. There was a failing by the landlord to keep the resident updated in a timely manner.
11. In emails between the landlord and the resident dated 16 January 2024 the resident made a report of loud music from one neighbour. The landlord issued a letter to the neighbour regarding this, which was a reasonable response. We note the resident subsequently informed the landlord that it had sent the letter to the wrong neighbour. We have checked the records, and the landlord issued the letter to the neighbour whom the resident had reported. When the resident informed it this was the incorrect neighbour, the landlord contacted the neighbour to inform them it was an error. The landlord was not responsible for the error, however it acted promptly to put things right when the resident made them aware of the mistake.
12. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2024 asking if it would send a different letter regarding the other noise levels from her neighbour. The landlord responded saying it would not issue a further letter and the resident queried this. It may have been reasonable for the landlord not to issue a further letter to the neighbour, however it would have been beneficial for the landlord to explain why it had made this decision. We have not seen that it provided an adequate explanation to the resident.
13. On 27 February the resident sent a further email. She noted that a noisy metal gate which she said she had previously been told would be removed, was still in place. She requested noise monitoring equipment. The resident also queried whether the laminate flooring had been reinstalled. The landlord responded on 5 March 2024 and confirmed it could install a noise recording machine. It said it was trying to get someone to visit the neighbour to check the flooring. This was a reasonable response from the landlord in relation to the noise monitoring equipment and the flooring, however we note it did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the metal gate.
14. On 12 March 2024 the landlord said it had visited the neighbour and confirmed the laminate flooring had not been reinstalled. On 19 March 2024 the resident asked if this was a recent visit and we have not seen that the landlord responded to this. We have not seen records of the visit to the neighbour. We are unable to say when the visit took place, however we consider that the landlord could have provided assurance to the resident regarding whether the visit had been recent. We have not seen it did this.
15. The landlord re-opened the ASB case on 25 June 2024. It re-offered noise recording equipment, which the resident had previously refused as she had ongoing building works. We consider this to be a reasonable action from the landlord.
16. We have identified poor communication in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We note that we identified this in our previous investigation, and we made an order for a senior manager to review the communication. The review identified a need for 3-weekly case reviews on ASB cases and made a commitment to provide regular updates to residents. The review was completed on 16 January 2025, which is after the timeframe for this investigation. As the review explains how the landlord will improve communications, we have not made further orders regarding this.
17. However, we acknowledge that there is likely to have been further frustration to the resident due to the delays in communication we have identified in this report. We consider a compensation award of £150 to be reasonable inline with our remedies guidance where the matter has caused distress and inconvenience.

18. We have seen evidence that the resident has been raising issues with damp and mould since 2021. In her complaint she noted that her dissatisfaction was that the mould continued to reoccur over a 10-year period. The landlord’s complaint response addressed reports of damp and mould since 7 February 2024. The evidence provided to us shows that prior to this date, the last report of active damp and mould was in February 2022. As per our Complaint Handling Code, it was reasonable for the landlord to only consider the most recent reports of damp and mould in its complaint response.
19. The landlord arranged an appointment for a surveyor to attend the property on 22 February 2024. It emailed the resident to notify her of this appointment on 7 February 2024, and the resident confirmed she was available. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that there was no access to this appointment. It also said in its stage 2 response that there was a further no access appointment on 7 March 2024. We have not seen records of this appointment, or communications with the resident regarding this appointment. In the stage 2 response the landlord said the resident had advised she would be available. Whilst we have not seen records of communication for the second appointment, we consider on balance that the landlord took reasonable action to investigate the damp and mould.
20. The landlord said it gained access to the property to investigate the damp and mould on 16 July 2024. Whilst we acknowledge that there is a delay between 7 March 2024 and 16 July 2024, we note there is no evidence the resident had made contact with the landlord to reschedule the no access appointments. We therefore do not consider the delay to be unreasonable given the landlord’s previous access attempts.
21. The landlord said that during the appointment works were identified and that these were awarded to a contractor on 23 August 2024 and that the works commenced on 23 September 2024. We have not been provided with a breakdown of what the works were. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete repairs within 20 working days. The landlord has said the delay was due to obtaining quotes for the work and the contractor’s availability for the work to be done. It offered £100 compensation which we consider to be reasonable.
22. The resident made the landlord aware in her escalation that she and other residents in the property had respiratory health conditions. Mould is considered a hazard under the housing health and safety rating scheme and is a potential risk to people with respiratory conditions. As such the landlord should have logged the health conditions on its system when it became aware of it, so it could respond appropriately. The landlord’s records showed it updated the records on 12 November 2024. There was a delay in the landlord updating its records as the resident notified it of the health conditions on 16 August 2024, however the landlord has now taken the correct action to rectify this.
23. The resident has noted that there is damage to her belongings due to the mould and that this is ongoing.  In the stage 2 response the landlord advised the resident on how she could make a claim on the landlord’s insurance. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
24. The resident has advised the damp and mould is ongoing and the landlord has not identified an underlying cause. We would recommend that the landlord consider if there is an underlying cause if the matter reoccurs. However, during the period of time assessed for this investigation, we consider that the landlord has acted reasonably. This is because it attended to the report of the mould and completed repairs. It also provided compensation for the delay, which is inline with the amount we would award for delay and inconvenience.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a complaint within 10 working days from acknowledgement. The landlord took 11 working days to issue the response from the time the complaint was made. We have not seen when the landlord acknowledged the complaint. However, we consider that the response time was reasonable.
26. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that the resident had made a complaint on 7 February 2024 regarding damp and mould. We have not seen a complaint from this time. The landlord offered £50 for not responding to this complaint, which we consider to be reasonable inline with our remedies guidance for failures where there is low impact. We consider there to be low impact because the landlord was actively trying to investigate the damp and mould at this time.
27. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 29 working days. Whilst this is outside of the landlord’s complaints policy, we do not consider the delay to be significant. We note in the stage 2 response the landlord said it had responded within 20 working days. We believe this to be an error. We do not consider the error to have a significant impact, but we would encourage the landlord to ensure all information in the stage 2 response is accurate.

Learning

28. The stage 1 response did not address the ASB as it said it was awaiting the Ombudsman’s investigation report for a previous complaint. We consider that the landlord should continue to engage with the resident for any new reported ASB, unless it has given clear and reasonable reasons to the resident as to why it does not consider the reports to be ASB. We do not consider that there being an investigation with the Ombudsman is a reasonable reason to not respond to the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. We have identified that some records, such as communication with the resident in arranging the damp and mould appointment were not included in the evidence. We would encourage the landlord to keep robust records.