Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202428299)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak and mould in her wet room to the landlord in July 2024. She complained that the landlord did not complete the repairs. The resident has mobility issues and a child with physical vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Report of a leak and mould in the wet room.
   2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report of a leak and mould in the wet room.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the report of a leak and mould

4. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s report about the wet room in line with its repair policy. It only responded after she made a complaint.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy or our Complaint Handling Code (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.

6. The landlord’s contractor installed the wet room in November 2023. The resident reported bubbling under the floor directly to the contractor on 13 December 2023 and 21 February 2024. There is no evidence the contractor replied to the resident or informed the landlord of any additional work required. The landlord is responsible for the completion of repairs, regardless of whether a contractor conducts these. It should therefore have a process in place to ensure repairs are signposted back to the landlord. This will enable it to monitor them so they are completed within the published timescales and to a satisfactory standard. There is no evidence the landlord has such a process. This led to avoidable delays in the completion of the repairs which likely led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.
7. The landlord told us the resident first reported the issues directly to it on 8 and 26 July 2024. She said the issues had been ongoing since December 2023. We have not seen any evidence that contradicts this. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s reports at this time, or that it logged the repairs. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not meet its repair obligations. The absence of a repair log is also a record keeping failure.
8. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 September 2024 because the repairs had not been completed. The resident and her family had full use of the wet room, but she was concerned the mould she believed was present was impacting their health.
9. After receiving the complaint, the landlord inspected the wet room on 11 September 2024, and again on 18 September 2024 with the contractor. This was reasonable and demonstrated an attempt to address the issue. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said there was no mould and that a leak had discoloured the timber. It confirmed the repairs were scheduled to start the week commencing 23 September 2024. The landlord has not evidenced that it considered or discussed alternative wet room arrangements with the resident during the repair period, despite being aware of the household vulnerabilities. This was unreasonable as it did not show an understanding of how this would impact the family.
10. The resident escalated the complaint on 22 September 2024. She said she’d instructed a specialist who confirmed mould was present. She sent the landlord the specialist’s report and lab test results on 9 October 2024.
11. The landlord issued its final response on 13 November 2024. It confirmed the contractor repaired the wet room between 23 September and 1 October 2024. It maintained there was no mould. While the resident disputes this, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its qualified staff. The landlord said it would not consider a screenshot of the lab test results the resident provided as they did not categorically state mould was present.
12. The landlord did not uphold the complaint but offered £200 for the inconvenience while the wet room was out of use during repairs. This offer was not proportionate or in line with its compensation policy as it did not acknowledge the delay that occurred from when the resident first reported the issue in December 2023 and July 2024.
13. The landlord’s repair policy lacks specific timescales and says it will complete repairs within a reasonable time, depending on the urgency. Clear timescales would help the landlord manage residents’ expectations. Generally, routine repairs are completed within 28 working days.
14. In summary, we find maladministration. There was an initial delay following the resident notifying the contractor of the flooring issue in December 2023. There was a further delay when she resident reported it to the landlord in July 2024. It took her to submitting a complaint for the landlord to act on the issue. Following the complaint, the landlord acted promptly and completed the repairs within 19 working days, however this was 9 months after the first report to the contractor. Although she was not without the use of her wet room for this full duration, this would have caused her distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident said she wanted the landlord to reimburse the £180 she spent on the specialist report. There is no evidence the landlord advised her to obtain her own report or agreed to pay for one. The decision to instruct a specialist was made independently by the resident and therefore we would not order the landlord to reimburse this cost.
16. We have considered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings. We order the landlord to pay the resident £600. This includes the compensation previously offered in its final response. This sum recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the 9-month delay in completing the repairs. It recognises the poor communication and lack of action prior to the complaint in addition to the inconvenience of being unable to use the wet room while the repairs were completed. The impact of being unable to use the wet room was exaggerated due to the household’s vulnerabilities. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance.

17. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
18. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the receipt of the stage 1 complaint. This is a record keeping failure. It then issued its stage 1 response 1 day late. Further, it did not acknowledge the escalation request until the resident sent more information on 9 October 2024. This was 11 working days after the initial escalation request. This was not in line with its complaint policy timescales.
19. After receiving the new information, the landlord said it needed more time to respond. While this was reasonable and in line with the policy, the landlord ought to have explained the reason for the extension. This would have helped the resident understand why there was a delay and would have helped manage her expectations.
20. The landlord issued its final response on 13 November 2024. This was 38 working days after the escalation request and 25 working days after receiving the additional information.
21. In summary, we find service failure. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement at stage 1, and both complaint responses were late. However, there is no evidence this caused any serious detriment to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident to recognise the likely frustration and inconvenience caused by the failures set out in this report.

Learning

22. The landlord should comply with its own complaint policy. If the landlord requires an extension to provide its response, it should give the resident a clear and reasonable explanation for why it needs the extension.
23. The landlord should ensure it arranges inspections for repairs promptly and should provide timescales in its repair policy.
24. The landlord should consider what processes are in place to ensure it is notified of any repairs reported directly to a contractor. This will ensure it has oversight of the repairs, will allow it to monitor the completion of them, and will help monitor the performance of its contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord should ensure it provides us with all the information requested. It provided a timeline explaining the events but did not provide evidence to support much of the timeline.

Communication

26. The landlord should keep residents informed of any delays. Prior to the resident’s complaint, there was little evidence to show it kept her updated about its actions. As outlined in our spotlight report on repairs, we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. This depends on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. However, where there is a delay, landlords should be proactive in:

• communicating the cause of delays to residents
• explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
• identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents