Swindon Borough Council (202344193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344193

Swindon Borough Council

31 October 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs (including reports of damp and mould).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement porch canopy.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives with their children. The landlord is a local authority.
On 23 August 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. They said:
1. Their property was in dis-repair, but the landlord was not doing anything.
2. The house had cold, damp, cracks, and rust channels on the inside walls where the external panels joined up.
3. They had reported these issues numerous times and a survey had been done in February 2023, but they had not had any further contact from the landlord.
4. Cracks had previously been painted over, sanded and filled, and treated with mould blocker paint. This had not solved the problems.
5. The landlord had taken down the porch last year and this had left a gap in the mortar line above the front door. They had reported this and the repair used to show in their online requests, but it had now disappeared without being completed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 September 2023. They said it had told them it would issue its stage 1 response by 7 September 2023, but this had not happened.
On the same day (8 September 2023) the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure and issued its final response. It said:
1. It had raised a works order to clean the mould present in the property and its contractor would be attending that day.
2. It could see the previous job to replace the porch had been closed. It had raised a new works order for an inspection to take place on 4 December 2023.
3. It had instructed a contractor to perform a concrete test. It had booked the test for 13 September 2023 and it should receive the results around 2 weeks later. This would inform what further actions were required to repair the property.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

On 24 June 2024, in response to this service’s request for evidence, the landlord said it had identified several required repairs. It advised that it was seeking quotes for the external repairs. It expected to have completed the external repairs and to have fitted extractor fans by the end of August 2024.
On 11 October 2024 the resident told this service that the landlord had fitted a new porch around 3 to 4 months previously, but it had not repaired the gap in the mortar line.
The resident has also advised that, in or around July 2024, the landlord had fitted the extractor fans and several companies had attended to quote for the external repairs. However, the external repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is only permitted to consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In this case, the complaints about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and the replacement porch canopy have both exhausted the complaint procedure. While the landlord’s final response was issued on 8 September 2023 it is clear from the available evidence that the substantive issues continued past that time. It is important context to understand what the current position is in order to understand the Ombudsman’s orders. As such, information about what happened post-complaint procedure needs to be included in this report to aid clarity and understanding.

The landlord’s handling of repairs (including reports of damp and mould).

The Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should deal with reports of damp and mould can be found on our website.
The landlord’s housing handbook confirms it is responsible for the structure and exterior of its tenanted properties. The handbook states the landlord will complete repairs that it does not consider an emergency or urgent within 40 working days.
The landlord has supplied a copy of a repair log for the resident’s property. This is a list of works orders which, for each order, indicates the date the landlord raised it, the status, the date the landlord completed it, and a brief description.
The resident has stated in their complaint that the landlord’s contractor inspected their property in February 2023. While the landlord’s repair log has no record of this and there does not appear to be a formal inspection record, other records the landlord has provided (for example, its own inspection reports and emails it received from the contractor) refer to the inspection having taken place. The lack of clear records about this inspection indicates a failure in record-keeping.
The contractor’s emails state that, following the February 2023 inspection, it had provided feedback and recommendations to the landlord. This included identifying that there was water ingress through failed joints between the exterior concrete panels and a need for external weatherproofing. Based on the available evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that an inspection took place in February 2023. The Ombudsman further considers it is reasonable to conclude that, in or around February 2023, the landlord knew (or ought to have known) that it needed to carry out external repairs to the resident’s property.
There is no evidence the landlord took any steps to complete the required repairs within the timescales set out in its repair policy. Or, if it did not receive the feedback or recommendations from its contractor, that it had followed up with the contractor within a reasonable time. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman considers this was an undue delay by the landlord.
The landlord has provided a copy of an inspection report dated 22 August 2023. It identified 11 issues at the property, which consisted of:
1. External cracking.
2. Cold bridging.
3. Internal cracks consistent with the location of the external panel joints.
4. No extractor fan in the kitchen and an under-sized fan in the bathroom.
5. Mould around the windows.
The report recommended that, subject to what had been found in the February 2023 inspection, the landlord should fit external wall insulation. There is no evidence the landlord took reasonable steps to carry out the required repairs in line with its repair policy. This was not appropriate.
There is no record of this inspection in the repair log. It is unclear when the landlord decided a further inspection was necessary or why it considered that was the case. This is a further indication of a failure in record-keeping.
On 7 September 2023 the landlord had spoken to its contractor who advised that it could do a concrete test to inform any remedial actions for the reinforced concrete structure. The landlord raised a works order for this test the same day.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out additional investigations to ensure it completed all required remedial works. However, it has not provided any explanation for why it could not do the works to seal the damaged joints while conducting further tests on the concrete panels. The available evidence indicates that, in any event, repairing the joints would need to take place before treating the concrete panels. There is therefore no basis on which the Ombudsman can conclude that it was reasonable or appropriate for the landlord to have further delayed beginning repairs while additional testing took place.
Since March 2020 landlords have been required, under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation during a tenancy. This obligation applies to most types of tenancy. Given the nature of the matters raised by the resident the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have satisfied itself that the property was, and remained, fit for human habitation. The landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has either done this or that it considers the obligation under section 9A does not apply. This is a failure by the landlord.
There is no dispute that the landlord has done some minor works, such as damp and mould cleans. However, these did not address the main required repairs or the root cause of the damp and mould issues. The Ombudsman does not consider these minor works were sufficient to mitigate the landlord’s other failures.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, having considered all the circumstances, that there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of repairs (including reports of damp and mould). This is because:
1. There is insufficient evidence to conclude the landlord acted appropriately or reasonably in its handling of the reported matters.
2. The landlord had been aware of the need to repair the property since around February 2023 but had not completed a suitable and lasting repair in line with its repair policy.
3. There are indications of failures in record-keeping.
4. There were undue and unexplained delays caused by the landlord.
5. There is insufficient evidence the landlord took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985.
When considering appropriate redress, the Ombudsman is mindful that the landlord does not yet appear to have completed the required repairs. This has led to the resident, and their family, living in unsuitable conditions for at least 18 months. The resident has also stated that they have had to pay for products to clean the mould and redecorate their property. In light of this, the Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £1500 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement porch canopy

The landlord’s repair log indicates the landlord removed the resident’s porch in, or around, January 2022. It appears the removal was due to the porch coming away from the house and containing asbestos. The removal was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
There does not appear to be any dispute that, when the landlord removed the porch, a gap in the mortar line was left above the front door. The landlord did not raise a works order to repair it. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have identified any damage caused by its repairs and taken steps to rectify this in a reasonable time.
The landlord raised a works order on 10 November 2022 to remedy the gap in the mortar line. The repair log does not provide details about how the matter was identified, but the description would suggest the resident had made contact to report it. The landlord marked the order as abandoned on 21 April 2023. The landlord has provided no explanation for this, either in its final response to the resident or to this service. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its repairs policy and were not appropriate.
The landlord raised a works order on 8 September 2023 to investigate the feasibility of installing a new porch canopy. The landlord marked this as completed on 4 December 2023.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord raised a works order to install a new porch. It marked this abandoned on 16 May 2024 and raised an identical works order the same day. This new work order appears to have been allocated to an external contractor.
The resident has confirmed the landlord has now fitted a new porch canopy. However, the resident has also advised the landlord has still not repaired the damaged mortar line.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new porch canopy.
While there is no evidence of the lack of a porch having a direct adverse impact on the resident, they have needed to take time to chase the landlord to take actions which it should have already done. It is also likely that the gap in the mortar line would have contributed to the ongoing damp and mould issues in the property. The Ombudsman therefore considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £300 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) states that landlords should resolve complaints at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome resolve the matter for the resident, and whether there were any urgent actions required.
The landlord’s complaint policy states, at stage 1, it will investigate the complaint. Its written decision will explain the decision made, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered, and details of any outstanding actions. At stage 2 it will do a review of the complaint.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response. When the resident chased up their stage 1 complaint, the landlord escalated their complaint to stage 2 and issued a final response. This was not in line with its policy or the Code and was not appropriate.
It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have prioritised issuing its stage 1 response. As part of that response, it would have been reasonable for it to have acknowledged the delay and offered an appropriate remedy, such as an apology or compensation (if doing so would have been in line with its compensation policy).
The final response, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, did not provide a clear explanation of the decision the landlord had made on the resident’s complaint or the reasons for any decisions it had made. While it provided brief details of next steps that the landlord would take, it did not provide sufficient information to allow the resident to understand whether the landlord had considered offering any other remedy. This was not in line with its policy or the Code and was not appropriate.
The landlord’s response advised that, if the resident was not satisfied, they could refer the complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGSCO). This was incorrect and the landlord should have provided the resident with contact details for this service. Both the landlord’s policy and the Code are clear about the need to provide these contact details. This was therefore a failure by the landlord.
By not issuing a stage 1 response the landlord missed the opportunity to review its complaint handling. This may have allowed it to identify the above failings and to have taken steps to put them right. It also would have allowed the landlord to hold itself to account on the actions it said it would take. This may have allowed it, at stage 2, to have resolved the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
While there is no evidence of a significant adverse impact caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, those failures did impact on the resident’s ability to get an early resolution to their issues. It was also necessary for the resident to take additional time to chase up the landlord. The Ombudsman considers £100 is a reasonable figure to recognise the resident’s time and trouble in having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs (including reports of damp and mould).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement porch canopy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,900 which is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle repairs (including reports of damp and mould).
  2. £300 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle the resident’s request for a replacement porch canopy.
  3. £100 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

The landlord must within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. Use its best endeavours to ensure that it has completed the repairs that its contractor identified and communicated to it on 8 April 2024 (as set out below). This should include repairing the gap left above the resident’s front door.
2. The identified repairs were:
  1. The existing bonded joints to be raked out and re-made with a flexible sealant.
  2. External facings of the concrete panels to be treated with a penetrating treatment to mitigate effects of carbonation on internal reinforcement.
  3. External facings to then be treated with a sealant to offer increased protection against water ingress.
  4. Insulated plasterboard to be fitted on the inside of all external walls and 300mm from external junctions on any cross walls and ceilings to alleviate the effects of thermal bridging.
  5. Active ventilation should be installed in high moisture areas. This should vent externally.
3. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
4. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.
The landlord must pay the resident £25 per day for each day the repairs go over 8 weeks (until all the repairs are completed).