London Borough of Barnet (202348009)

Background

1. The resident lives in temporary accommodation in a flat in which a leak occurred causing damage to the property. The building in which the property is in, is owned by another local authority who attended, in the first instance to stop the leak. When it attended, it stopped the leak but had to remove and lift some of the resident’s flooring to do so. The landlord was then responsible for the repairs to the flooring The resident lives with her children who have health concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The repairs needed to the flooring after a leak and the associated damp and mould in the property.
   2. The resident’s report of a broken cooker.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the flooring after a leak and the associated damp and mould in the property.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the cooker repairs.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the flooring after the leak and the associated damp and mould

4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s repair request following the leak in line with its policy. There were significant delays in it attending to repair the flooring which had been damaged following the leak. There were also delays in it inspecting the damp and mould. The landlord did not follow its repairs, damp, and mould policy.

Cooker repairs

5. The landlord attended to inspect and replace the cooker within its repairs policy timescales.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond in line with its complaint policy or the Code.

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.

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.

What we have not considered

7. In her formal complaint, the resident said the damp and mould had impacted the health of her children. While we do not dispute this, such a determination in more appropriate for a Court as a personal injury claim. We have considered the overall distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have considered

8. The resident informed the landlord that a leak had occurred in the property and the Local Authority who owned the block had attended to stop the leak on 23 May 2023. It is unclear from the evidence exactly when the leak occurred. However, following the landlord being made aware of the leak it appropriately raised a repair to attend urgently to resolve the issue, including repairing the damaged flooring.
9. We are aware the contractor tried to attend to inspect the flooring on 25 May 2023. However, the landlord has not provided details of the visit, which indicates a record keeping issue.
10. We are also aware that an incident occurred in the property that date which meant the contractor was unable to enter the property to complete the works to inspect the flooring. While this is unfortunate, the contractor was entitled to make the decision to leave the property if they felt unable to remain.
11. However, we cannot see that the contractor told the landlord that it had encountered an issue at the property meaning it had not completed the necessary works to the flooring. This caused delays in the flooring works being reraised. This highlights a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its contractor. It is important to note however, that the landlord accepted and apologised to the resident in its complaint response for its contractor not following the agreement it in place with its contractors for such situations.
12. The landlord then raised for its contractor to attend on 6 June 2023; however, the contractor did not attend due to the previous incident in the property. This was a further missed opportunity for the landlord and its contractor to have discussed the access issues and to have considered alternative solutions for the flooring works to be completed within a timely manner. Its failure to do so caused further delays in the works being completed.
13. The landlord did not replace the flooring until 24 August 2023, 3 months after the leak was reported and 51 working days outside of its published timescales. During this period, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates. This delay was unacceptable and left the resident unable to fully enjoy her home.
14. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord admitted the delay in repairing the floor was due to its flooring operative leaving the business at short notice. While this may have been inconvenient, the landlord should have contingency plans to prevent such delays. It should also have informed the resident to manage her expectations, but there is no evidence it did so.
15. In her complaint, the resident said that due to the leak and delays in repairing the flooring, damp and mould had occurred in the home. In an internal email from 12 July 2023, the landlord’s healthy homes team said it had been trying to contact the resident to arrange an inspection for 31 July 2023, which the landlord then reiterated in its stage 1 response. However, the resident raised the issue in her formal complaint on 26 June 2024 and therefore attending on 31 July 2023 was not in line with its policy which says it would complete an initial inspection within 10 working days of the issue being reported.
16. Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it had sought to contact the resident outside of its stage 1 response to confirm the appointment, which is further evidence of a record keeping issue.
17. The landlord asked the resident, in its stage 1 response, to confirm the appointment, but we have not been provided evidence to show that she did. Therefore, the appointment did not go ahead. The landlord was aware the appointment had not gone ahead. However, it did not rearrange this until it gave its stage 2 response in which it said it confirmed an appointment for 14 September 2023. While it apologised for the delay, it is not appropriate that it took 3 months for it to arrange to inspect the issue.
18. Furthermore, we cannot see in that time that it considered if it needed to provide any temporary solutions to the resident to help alleviate the damp and mould in the property.
19. The landlord attended to complete the Healthy Homes inspection on 19 December 2023, while it did not find any evidence of damp and mould in the property, it attended 116 days outside of its 10 working day timeframe, as set out in its damp and mould policy. Landlord’s need to take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould and its failure to attend outside of its published timescales was not appropriate.
20. In her escalation request, the resident provided details of items which had been damaged due to the damp and mould totalling £780. While the landlord appropriately signposted the resident to her own content’s insurance, the complaint response detailed that the issue was an accident and therefore the resident was unable to claim on its public liability insurance. However, this response was inappropriate. It is not for the complaints team to determine liability, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its own insurance team to consider the claim further.
21. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required after the leak and the associate damp and mould. The landlord did not attend to complete the repairs to the flooring, following the leak, or attend to inspect the damp and mould within its policy timeframe. Its communication and record keeping were poor.
22. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s award of £100 is within this range but does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing a remedy for the flooring. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in the finding of maladministration.
23. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation in recognition of these failures. This level recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by trying to have her flooring repaired and resolve the damp and mould in the property.

What we have not look at.

24. In her formal complaint the resident said she had reported the cooker not working 2 years earlier. While we do not dispute this, we cannot consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the issue occurring. Therefore, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the issue from when the resident raised the issue again on 22 June 2023.

Handling of the broken cooker.

25. When the resident raised the issue of her broken cooker, the landlord raised the repair with its contractor. Its contractor attempted to contact the resident to arrange the repair but was unable to contact the resident to raise the repair.
26. The evidence shows the landlord attended to inspect the cooker within its published timescales, of 15 working days, on 28 June 2023 and it fitted the new cooker on 21 August 2023.
27. In her complaint, the resident requested a £1,000 compensation cover for the cost of takeaways since the oven had broken in 2021. The landlord said the resident was aware of the need to report a repair to the landlord, and it had found evidence that she had not done so prior to raising it in June 2023. It clarified that it had fitted the oven within its published timescales and therefore would not compensate for the takeaway food. Given that it attended to repair the oven within its published timescale and then replaced the oven, the landlord was entitled to not agree to reimburse the resident for the takeaway costs.
28. The landlord responded to the cooker issue within its policy timeframe, replaced the oven, and clarified the position regarding reimbursement for the takeaways. We therefore find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the broken cooker.

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. 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.
    2. The landlord did not evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint, in line with its policy.
    3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 11 working days outside of its published timescale. It has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident, in line with the Code.
    4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 6 working days outside of its published timescales.
    5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 12 working days outside of its published timescales. Again, it has not provided evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident, in line with the Code.
    6. It did not acknowledge or apologise for any delays in its complaint handling.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the published timescales, neither did it provide its response at stage 1 or 2 within the required timescales. These failures amount to maladministration.
31. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of these failures. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor. It did not evidence that it held comprehensive records of repairs, the works undertaken and when which meant at times it was hard to determine if the landlord had followed its policy. The landlord should consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication was poor in this case. It did not effectively communicate with resident or its contractors which led to delays. If a landlord has effective communication with its resident’s, it can manage their expectations accordingly in relation to repairs and timeframes. The landlord needs to consider implementing a system that would enable regular effective communication.