Charnwood Borough Council (202208480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208480

Charnwood Borough Council

27 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of mould on 6 January 2022, and the associated complaint.
2. An emergency request for repair following a water leak on 17 January 2022.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in December 2019. The resident lives in the property with 2 young children.

Scope of investigation

The resident strongly feels the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her personal belongings. She said it was negligent as it did not address her report of damp within the property in early January 2022, and it did not attend an emergency call-out within a reasonable period.
It is not the role of the Housing Ombudsman to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items or decide whether a landlord was negligent. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts.
Within this case, the landlord advised the resident to make a claim under its liability insurance. It was within its right to do this. The landlord was not obliged to pay such claims outside of the insurance process.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer, or comment on the outcome of the liability claim made by the resident.
Within the resident’s recent communication, she expressed concerns about water ingress through the roof following her return to the property. As this concern did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, it is not a matter we can consider within this investigation. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident directly through its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.
The landlord issued complaint responses on 1 February 2022, 6 May 2022, 10 August 2022, and 12 October 2022. It is noted the resident raised various complaint points which were addressed within the landlord’s responses referenced above. The resident referred two complaint matters to this Service, as defined in paragraph 1 of this report. The Ombudsman has focused on the landlord’s responses to these specific issues only.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord’s ‘tenant’s guide to repairs’ handbook sets out that:
1. For emergency repairs it will get someone to the home within 24 hours. This is for repairs that stop serious damage, for example, a burst water pipe.
2. Urgent work will be completed within 5 calendar days, routine work within 28 calendar days and planned work within 90 calendar days.
3. The landlord advises residents to take out contents insurance to cover against damage to personal items, carpets, furniture and other contents and decorations.
4. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the home. Inside the home, it is responsible for water and gas pipes, wiring, heating systems, drainage, power, and light fittings.
The landlord’s website has a page for emergency repairs. It states that a severe leak or a leak that is affecting the electrics is considered an emergency. It says the resident should call the landlord and the repair will be responded to within 24 hours. No appointment would be made, but an adult would be expected to stay at the property until the emergency had been made safe.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord insures the structure of the home. The resident is responsible for insuring the contents.

Summary of events

The landlord recorded on 24 November 2021 that the property was inspected for damp and the resident refused mould treatment. The landlord has not provided detailed records about the damp assessment undertaken at this time.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord’s records demonstrate the resident contacted it again. The note says, “the damp and mould is getting worse, especially when there is heavy rain. The flat is on the top floor and she [the resident] is unsure whether the roof was inspected during the [previous] visit.” The records from this date show the landlord wanted to complete a further inspection.
Records dated 14 January 2022 show the landlord booked an inspection for 28 January 2022. It wanted the damp to be treated in the interim.
On 17 January 2022, there was a leak from a water tank in the loft. The landlord and resident provided different information about what occurred that night.
Both parties agree the resident initially reported the leak around 00:00 and the leak was stopped at approximately 10:00.
The resident and her children were decanted into emergency hotel accommodation on 17 January 2022, before moving into temporary accommodation.
The landlord received a complaint from a local councillor on behalf of the resident on 19 January 2022. The complaint was about the decant, the resident’s future housing needs, and the landlord’s handling of previous reports of mould at the property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord issued a complaint response regarding the decant on 1 February 2022. It said the repair element would be addressed separately.
The landlord said the property had dried out by mid-March 2022 and repairs were progressed between March 2022 and July 2022.
In April 2022, the landlord noted that it wanted to arrange for a full structural survey of the property. It is not clear from the evidence available whether a structural survey took place during the scope of the complaint.
A third-party sent a complaint escalation to the landlord on behalf of the resident. On 8 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her complaint. The resident responded to the landlord on 19 April 2022 providing more details about her dissatisfaction.
On 6 May 2022, the landlord issued a complaint response. It said:
1. It investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. It summarised historical reports of mould in November 2020 and April 2021. Mould treatments had been ordered but the resident refused them.
2. The cause of the mould was not diagnosed, and while it is possible this may be linked to the water tank, it cannot confirm this, and the issues experienced may be related to other aspects of the property.
3. It recognised there was a delay attending to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and partially upheld her complaint.
4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding the attendance from its emergency engineer. It said its response was timely and based on the information provided to it at the time.
5. It was reviewing an offer of compensation and would respond to the resident with an update.
6. It was implementing a new procedure for dealing with reports of damp and mould which aimed to support a faster response.
The landlord offered the following compensation to the resident on 10 June 2022:
1. £100 for the delay attending to the resident’s report of damp and mould. This offer was in relation to reports of damp and mould from November 2020 – May 2021.
2. £150 for the delay responding to the resident’s complaint.
3. £350 for the delays undertaking repairs to the property following the leak.
Records indicate the resident moved back into the property in July 2022.
In the landlord’s follow-on complaint response dated 10 August 2022, it awarded an additional £100 compensation to recognise the time and frustration caused to the resident in pursuing her complaint. This made a total compensation offer of £700.
In September 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted to complain about how her report of a leaking ceiling was dealt with around 2 weeks prior to the leak and how the emergency repairs department dealt with the incident on the night of the leak.
The landlord responded on 12 October 2022. It said:
1. No leaks through the ceiling were reported. It was reported that the mould on the ceiling got worse when it rained.
2. Its operative called the resident around 03:00 to explain they would be coming out to the property, but they were having troubling contacting the engineer.
3. The resident informed them that she had left the property and would not be back until the morning, so they would not be able to gain access until then.
4. An engineer attended around 10:00 to stop the leak.
5. It did not uphold the complaint.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord informed this Service that the resident had not been through the landlord’s full complaint procedure as a stage 2 response had not been issued. However, it recognised the resident’s complaint in October 2022 should have been treated as a complaint escalation. In the circumstances, it gave consent for the Ombudsman to consider this complaint.

Events after the end of the complaint process.

A damp survey took place in March 2023.
The landlord provided evidence that a work order had been raised with its roofing contractor on 13 April 2023. The repairs history states this job was completed on 11 July 2023.
The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it chasing a repair to her leaking roof in December 2023 and January 2024.
In March 2024, the resident contacted her local councillor. She said since she had been back in the property, there were numerous problems with the roof. One part of the roof was fixed in summer 2023, however two other areas were leaking. The current position with the repairs is unclear.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman provides an impartial dispute resolution service which is an alternative to the courts. Our approach is framed by 3 Dispute Resolution Principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
As part of its submission to this Service, the landlord provided a damp and mould framework dated August 2023. While this post-dates this complaint, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord has set out its approach to dealing with the diagnosis and remediation of damp and mould issues. In addition, it identified where further improvements could be made.
In view of the above, the Ombudsman has not made any recommendations regarding the landlord’s approach to reports of damp and mould. Nonetheless, the landlord is expected to take any learning from this case into its future service provision.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mould on 6 January 2022 and the associated complaint

Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was about how her previous reports of damp within the property were managed. She asked this Service to consider the repair request made around two weeks before the leak. Records show the repair request was made on 6 January 2022.
The landlord has not evidenced why it looked at reports of damp from November 2020 and April 2021 within its complaint response in May 2022, and not more recent reports from November 2021 and 6 January 2022. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and made the resident feel she was not being listened toby the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord later responded to this aspect of the complaint on 12 October 2022 after the resident spent time and trouble contacting the landlord and raising a further complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord listened to the call recording within its investigation into this aspect of the complaint. Considering the nature of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to see if a call recording was available to establish what the resident reported at the time and to assess whether it handled the repair request with the appropriate level of urgency.
From the records available, the call made on 6 January 2022 was regarding the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property, and whether the previous inspection included a review of the roof. This Service expects a landlord to have retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook such as written notes, copies of damp readings, photos, or a report. No detailed records from the previous inspection were provided to this Service. Further, it is unclear whether these records were available to the landlord’s frontline staff for them to address the resident’s question about whether the roof was inspected.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that evidence can be provided to the Ombudsman when requested, but because this assists the landlord in its understanding of the condition of a property, enabling outstanding works to be monitored and the provision of accurate information to residents. Based on the above, the Ombudsman recognises there were record keeping failings within this case.
Following a resident’s report of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action. Evidence shows the landlord had requested a damp and mould assessment to take place on 28 January 2022 – 22 calendar days later. There was also a note on its system to schedule an appointment to treat the mould in the interim. This was a reasonable course of action by the landlord and demonstrates it took the resident’s report of mould seriously on 6 January 2022. Unfortunately, before the proposed actions could take place, a significant leak from the water tank occurred.
The resident is of the view that she told the landlord there appeared to be water on the ceiling on 6 January 2022 and if the landlord had investigated this sooner, it would have had an opportunity to discover the water tank leak before there was significant damage. While the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s strength of feeling here, it is not for this Service to make a finding concerning liability.
From the evidence available, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of damp and mould in January 2022 by arranging an inspection and an interim mould treatment. However, it failed to investigate this within a reasonable time during the landlord’s initial complaint response. Additionally, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to listen to the recording of the call. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s handling of an emergency request for repair following a water leak on 17 January 2022

Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm the exact sequence of events which occurred on 17 January 2022.
As previously explained, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate allegations of negligence or liability for damages. However, the Ombudsman will decide whether the landlord acted appropriately following the resident’s emergency request for repair following a water leak.
The landlord’s repair timescale for emergency repairs is 24 hours. The Ombudsman would reasonably expect a landlord to adhere to the timescales set out in its policies and procedures.
It is not disputed by either party that the landlord attended within the timescale set out in its policy. As such, the Ombudsman finds there has been no failing by the landlord in this respect.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mould on 6 January 2022, and the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of an emergency request for repair following a water leak on 17 January 2022.

Reasons

The landlord failed to fully respond to the resident’s concern within its formal complaint procedure. Some record keeping shortcomings were identified.
The landlord responded within its emergency repair timescale set out in its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for its failure to respond to a key element of her complaint within a reasonable period, and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Recommendations

It is recommended for the landlord to pay the resident the £700 compensation it previously offered if it has not already done so.
It is recommended for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident regarding her reports of roof leaks and damp in the property.