London Borough of Croydon (202403515)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. The resident reported to the landlord that her son’s foot had gone through the ceiling when he was up in the loft. She also reported damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about repairs to a hole in the ceiling, and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its handling of:
   1. Repairs to the hole in the ceiling and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the damp and mould and ceiling repairs. The ceiling has now been repaired and the landlord carried out repairs to resolve damp and mould. The landlord offer of compensation was inline with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

6. The landlord repaired the ceiling 4 days after the resident reported it, which was in line with its repair policy timescale of 5 working days for urgent repairs. This was reasonable as there was no indication that the ceiling was at risk of collapse, so whilst urgent, it would not be an emergency repair.
7. The landlord made good the ceiling on 5 May 2023. This was outside its timescales for completing routine repairs of 28 working days. This delay will have likely caused the resident and her son, time, trouble, and inconvenience as they were kept waiting for the landlord to fully repair the hole in the ceiling for longer than they should have been.
8. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that neither she or her son should enter the loft nor store belongings up there as the loft had not been fully floorboarded. It was also reasonable for it to advise the resident that if she wanted floorboards in the loft, it was her responsibility to install these. Landlords are not obliged to provide floorboards in lofts as loft spaces are not considered liveable spaces in the way that kitchens, bathrooms, living rooms or bedrooms are. The landlord’s obligation was to maintain the property not to improve it, and floorboards in the loft would be considered an improvement.
9. The resident told the landlord that her son was allergic to dust and that the dust coming down from the loft into his bedroom was putting his health at risk. We do not doubt the  resident’s comments about her son’s health. However, 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 on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. The resident did not raise issues with damp and mould in either her stage 1 or stage 2 complaints. It appears that she may have raised concerns about damp and mould when the landlord called her to discuss her stage 2 complaint. Upon the resident reporting damp and mould to it, the landlord acted swiftly in carrying out a damp and mould inspection of the property on 6 September 2024. It acted reasonably in renewing sealant round a bedroom window and replacing the fanlight window in the lounge within its timescales for completing routine repairs of 28 working days.
11. Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident has raised further issues with the landlord including the bathroom extractor fan not functioning properly, the shower not working and drainage problems in the garden. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
12. We have identified that there were delays in the landlord completing the repairs to the ceiling. However, the total compensation of £450 the landlord has offered the resident was reasonable. This offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We accept that the landlord specifically offered the compensation in relation to its complaint handling errors, however, the overall compensation it offered the resident is sufficient to recognise the delay in it repairing the ceiling as well as the errors in its complaint handling.

13. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. At stage 1 it will provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will provide a response in 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that if it needs more time to respond to complaints, at stage 1, an extension of time at stage 1 will not exceed 10 working days, and at stage 2 an extension will not exceed 20 working days.
14. The resident first complained to the landlord on 4 May 2023. We have not seen evidence that the landlord responded to this initial complaint. The resident complained again on 22 June 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 August 2023 and issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023. Both these complaint responses were outside the landlord’s timescales of 10 working days for responding to stage 1 complaints. These delays will have likely caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience.
15. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 10 January 2024. The landlord told the resident it would escalate her complaint but failed to respond. We contacted the landlord on 13 August 2024 and asked it to respond by the 20 August 2024. The landlord acted in line with its complaints policy in asking the resident to give it until 10 September 2024 to respond. However, it did not issue a response until 24 September 2024. Overall, there was a delay of over 7 months in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This will have caused further time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident as she was waiting significantly longer than she should have been for a response and she had to contact the Ombudsman for assistance in progressing her complaint.
16. It was appropriate that in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been failings in its stage 1 complaint response. It acted reasonably in accepting that it had not set out what repairs it would carry out nor when it would do so. The landlord has offered the resident £450 compensation for its errors in its handling of the complaint. As noted above, this compensation is reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings in this case, and therefore it need not do anything further in this regard.