Adur District Council (202425622)

Background

1. The resident had reported water ingress that was causing damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out some repairs, but the resident was dissatisfied how it handled the issue and raised a complaint. She had disclosed vulnerabilities to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:

a. Response to the resident’s reports of water ingress in the property.

b. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:

a. Reasonable redress in the resident’s reports of water ingress in the property.

b. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord took too long to identify and address the cause of water ingress that in turn caused delays in rectifying the damp and mould issue. It failed to consider the impact on the resident who reported vulnerabilities.
5. We found the landlord failed to comply with its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code when responding to the resident’s complaint.

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.

6. On 25 September 2022, the resident reported a water leak. The landlord logged the issue as an emergency repair, noting “water dripping from toilet light.” It attended promptly and assessed that the water originated from the walkway above and the downpipe. The landlord also recorded that scaffolding had been in place for a year. We consider the landlord appropriately prioritised the repair and attended promptly.
7. On 4 November 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response to her concerns about the water ingress and the scaffolding. It provided her with a link to make a formal complaint. The landlord said it would update the resident once it had received responses to internal enquiries and returned from leave. Although the landlord had registered both issues over a month earlier, it waited passively for internal responses and failed to progress matters. The landlord’s records show that it recognised both issues as priorities yet failed to address them as if they were. We found it did not respond appropriately.
8. On 19 December 2022, the landlord’s records show a request to proceed with repairs, as the downpipe issue had remained unresolved since 2021 and was causing internal water ingress at the resident’s property. The landlord recorded that it had not progressed the works due to workload pressures. Internal emails noted that the downpipe was likely blocked and required clearing or replacement. Also noted, was that the walkway needed repair and sealing, with the application of water‑repellent paint to prevent further water ingress. The landlord did not take appropriate or timely action to address a known issue believed to be causing water ingress. This demonstrated a failure to consider its responsibilities and follow the repair policy.
9. The landlord recorded that the repairs required extended scaffolding and treated this as a priority. But it did not erect the extended scaffolding until 20 January 2023 and scheduled works for 30 January 2023. However, an operative became available earlier and attended on 26 January 2023, which was positive. The landlord cleared the downpipe, rebuilt loose sections, and sealed the area. During the visit, it identified wider defects contributing to the water ingress, including the poor condition of the walkway with pooling water that were noted previously.
10. On 13 February 2023, the landlord held a meeting after identifying the leak originated from the roof and external wall tiles. It said the roof and guttering required replacement, as the “RAFA blocks” were a temporary construction intended for a 10‑year lifespan from 1975. The landlord also noted that its surveyor had advised the previous year that a section 20 consultation with residents was forthcoming.
11. On 16 February 2023, the surveyor confirmed that roof replacement did not form part of a current project. The landlord’s records show the roof was replaced in 2005 and a 25-year lifespan was expected. This meant a replacement would not be required before 2030 unless major defects arose that could not be remedied through patch repairs.
12. On the following day, the landlord updated the resident and explained the required works were more extensive than expected. It said it needed to review which works it would do that year and decide whether roof works would be included. To prevent reoccurrence, the landlord advised it would only carry out remedial works to the resident’s bathroom after the underlying issues had been fixed. We consider this to be a reasonable response.
13. The landlord’s records show that on 21 February 2023 it completed repairs to the walkway above the resident’s property, which stopped further water ingress into the bathroom. It repaired and replastered the ceiling, but the light fitting remained hanging loose. However, the resident told the landlord that no-one had carried out any works to her bathroom ceiling.
14. Throughout March and April 2023, the landlord’s records and internal emails gave inconsistent accounts of the repairs. They alternately stated that the works were complete, not complete, minor “slight staining,” or the resident’s responsibility, while others recorded the landlord should attend to resolve matters due to the outstanding complaint. This inconsistency culminated in the landlord asking the resident to provide evidence that the works had not been completed. The resident responded by sending date‑stamped photographs showing the damage and the timing of the leak. We found the landlord’s records were unreliable and placed an unreasonable burden on the resident to evidence outstanding works.
15. On 5 April 2023, the landlord said it needed to inspect after the resident reported damp and mould. There is no evidence that it did this.
16. On 19 May 2023, the landlord apologised for failing to complete the remedial works. It said it had not received responses to internal requests and that it would arrange for the scaffolding to be removed if works did not proceed. The landlord said it would allow a further 5 days for a response before escalating the complaint to stage 2. It also arranged an appointment with the resident for remedial works on 23 May 2023.
17. On 23 May 2023, an operative attended the property, took photographs, and left without completing any works. The resident contacted the landlord, saying it already had enough photographs, and she had expected the works to be completed that day. The landlord later confirmed it had authorised bathroom ceiling remedial works, replacements of the balcony door flashing and flooring, wash down of damp and mould, and redecoration. The landlord found that all works were rechargeable to the resident and the terms of the lease support that finding. However, the landlord’s records show it decided not to charge the resident for the repairs to her bathroom ceiling. We found this to be a positive action that demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to put things right for the failures it had identified.
18. On 14 June 2023, the landlord sent its full response to the resident’s complaint. While it had completed some repairs, it confirmed others remained outstanding. The landlord said it would address the damp and mould once all works were complete. It also advised it planned to replace the roof within the next 2 years and would consult leaseholders.
19. Over the following 4 months, the resident repeatedly sought updates, but the landlord did not respond consistently. The resident continued reporting outstanding repairs to the landlord. She said water ingress had persisted, which caused further damp and she was “living with black mould”. The resident believed the landlord ignored her concerns and expressed her frustration at having to chase it repeatedly.
20. On 14 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had completed a cavity inspection and would redecorate after the works concluded. It apologised for the delays and said it would carry out remedial works shortly, adding that it would not charge leaseholders. The resident later queried this, believing the lease made the landlord responsible for maintaining the property’s structure. We have checked the lease, and the resident is correct about the landlord’s obligations, but they are at the leaseholders’ expense. The terms of the lease provide for the landlord to recalculate the service charge once the actual repair costs are known and then recharge them to leaseholders.
21. In January 2024, the resident told the landlord that the cavity clearing had not resolved the damp, which continued to spread. She said she had asthma and a 17‑month‑old child. Due to no response, she followed her MP’s advice and contacted councillors. Both the resident and a councillor contacted the landlord repeatedly throughout January but did not receive a response until 30 January 2024. The landlord then told the resident that her complaint was at stage 2, and an investigator would contact her with an update and a final response date. There is no evidence that this happened.
22. Over the next 3 months, the resident continued to report outstanding works and chased the landlord for updates. She reiterated her concerns, explaining that she had asthma and that her son had a “constant cough and cold,” which she believed was caused by damp and mould. The landlord said an investigator would contact her, but there is no evidence this occurred at the time. Our investigation confirmed that, once the works were fully completed, the damp and mould did not reoccur.
23. During May and June 2024, the resident repeatedly asked the landlord for updates. In May, a councillor sought clarification from the landlord but received no response. In June, the councillor again contacted the landlord to request a works completion date, and again the landlord did not reply. Our investigation shows that even external intervention from a councillor failed to prompt action from the landlord. Almost 2 years after the resident’s initial reports, this represented an unacceptable and inappropriate response, followed by a further month’s delay.
24. On 5 July 2024, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delays and said it would complete the redecoration the following day, which concluded the remedial works. The resident said the issue was reported by the previous leaseholder in February 2020 and highlighted by her surveyor when she bought the property in June 2020. The landlord failed to consider the known vulnerabilities of the resident or the potential impact on her young child. While we recognise complex repairs can take longer, we consider a 3‑year timeframe to be excessive.
25. The landlord offered £3,116.73 in total compensation to the resident for delays and communication issues, including by waiving the amount she was otherwise required to pay under the lease (£2,570) for roof repairs. Under the lease terms, the costs of roof repairs are divided equally between the number of properties in the building. This means that the council would cover the tenants’ proportions and the leaseholders would cover their own.
26. Our guidance sets out that compensation is appropriate to put things right where the landlord’s failing amounts to maladministration with significant impact on the resident. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable but did not give this proper consideration. It failed to respond promptly to concerns that were raised repeatedly, including by a councillor. Had the landlord not offered to put things right after accepting its service failure, we would likely have found severe maladministration.
27. The landlord’s interim compensation policy allows it to offset compensation it may offer against a resident’s account for service charges. It acted appropriately and in line with its policy. The landlord’s offer acknowledged the significant impact this issue had on the resident, for a prolonged period. Although the compensation was not awarded directly to the resident, it demonstrated a willingness to go against the terms of the lease, by not charging for the roof repair, in order to put things right. This amount is also in line with our compensation guidance.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to seek clarity on the resident’s concerns and their desired outcomes beforehand. The landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its policy provides for timescales to be extended if further information is required. The landlord’s complaint definition and response timescales comply with the Code.
29. The resident formally complained on 16 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged it in writing 7 working days later, which did not comply with its policy or the Code. It extended its timescale and provided holding updates that it was waiting for internal responses but did not send its final response until 15 June 2023. This delay was excessive and did not comply with its policy or the Code.
30. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 October 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge it until 28 December 2023, which is 37 working days too late. In July 2024, the resident asked twice if someone would contact her about the complaint but did not get a reply. The landlord took a further 3 months to send her its final response on 2 October 2024, which is 9 months after its acknowledgement. We found this delay was excessive and the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident in line with its policy or the Code.
31. Our compensation guidance provides that compensation is appropriate where maladministration has caused significant impact. In ordering £250 for complaint handling failures, we considered the significant time and trouble over a prolonged period, which included some external involvement.

Learning

32. The landlord’s policy states that it treats complaints as opportunities to learn and improve services and requires residents to “engage with all reasonable requests made” to enable it to address concerns. The councillor commented, “I think we can all agree that she has had to work pretty hard to get to this point.” The landlord may wish to reflect on the high volume of contact from the resident without corresponding action. The evidence shows extensive chasing, including at times internally, which did not result in action to resolve the issues raised or progress the complaint. The landlord may find our ‘Spotlight Report: Repairing Trust’ useful and may wish to consider staff training in this area.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Our investigation identified poor record‑keeping. The landlord failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities, despite these being reported on several occasions. Inaccurate information was also shared externally and later had to be corrected by the resident. The landlord may wish to refresh staff training on the importance of maintaining accurate and up‑to‑date records. In May 2023, we published ‘On the Record’, a report on information management, which includes relevant water ingress case studies and may be helpful.