Epping Forest District Council (202014140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014140

Epping Forest District Council

25 April 2022

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 regarding:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
This Service has also made a separate finding regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Scope of Investigation

In correspondence with this Service, the resident raised concerns over the money that had been spent on heating her property and the fact that items of furniture and other personal belongings had been damaged “over the years”, due to damp. However, it is noted that these issues were not referred to in the original complaint, meaning the landlord did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond. It is also noted that the resident advised the issues had been ongoing “since 2012”. This Service considers it has not seen evidence of any previous complaints made to the landlord prior to October 2020 (the complaint under investigation here) or that there had been any reports of damp and mould issues at the property prior to that time, other than one further report of a leak in 2017. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been brough to the landlord’s attention within reasonable length of time and this Service has not seen any reason why issues dating back to 2012 or 2017 could not have been brought to the landlord’s attention before now. For this reason, this investigation will focus on events following the leak reported in October 2020 and the landlord’s response to this.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a Local Authority. She succeeded the tenancy at the property, a one-bedroom ground-floor flat, in August 2008.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. It notes that it will respond to complaints at Stage One within 10 working days and at its Stage Two Review stage within three weeks.
The landlord’s website advises it aims to respond to “urgent” repairs within five working days and to complete “routine” repairs within 30 working days.
This complaint has been submitted by the resident’s daughter on behalf of the resident. She has permission to act on the resident’s behalf, but this report will variously refer to ‘the resident’ and ‘the resident’s daughter’ for clarity.

Summary of Events

On 12 October 2020, information provided by the landlord indicates that it raised an inspection at the property after it the resident reported that a leak had caused her wet room ceiling to “bulge”. The inspection was booked for 14 October 2020 but then moved to the following day at the resident’s request and completed on 15 October 2020. This Service has not seen details of the inspection, but information provided by the landlord indicates that it raised a repair appointment for 19 October 2020 to overhaul the bathroom fan and to deliver a dehumidifier. However, landlord records show that this appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident’s daughter who advised there was no fault with the fan and that she expected additional works to be carried out.
Landlord records show that the resident submitted a complaint via its website on 16 October 2020. In her complaint she stated a “flood happened over 4 weeks ago” but that “no one has come to fix the mould”, which she stated was so bad it meant she could barely use her bathroom. The resident stated that she wanted “the works done and the problem fixed and someone to know what is going on”.
The landlord raised a further repair order on 21 October 2020 for its contractor to remove “asbestos containing material”, scraping the bathroom’s Artex ceiling and removing approximately 9sqm following the leak. It further noted “concrete wet and Artex has mould and wall/ceiling joint has white fungi in one area”. A dehumidifier was subsequently delivered to the resident on 28 October 2020 before being collected on 25 November 2020 as the resident had advised they were not using it.
Landlord records note that it logged the complaint on 16 November 2020, a month after it was originally submitted online.
On 18 January 2021, the landlord issued its Stage One complaint response. In its letter to the resident’s daughter, the landlord noted the complaint regarded the fact that, at the time of the complaint, a floor had occurred at the resident’s property four weeks previously and, since then, the landlord had not attended to “fix the mould” which was affecting her mother’s (the resident’s) health to the extent that she could “barely use the bathroom”. In its response, the landlord outlined the following findings:
1. It had identified “some delays in carrying out works to the property” and that a new contractor had taken over the landlord’s Housing Repairs Service on 28 September 2020.
2. It acknowledged it initially received a complaint on 16 October 2020 but noted the complaint did not advise which address it regarded. The landlord advised it had replied to clarify which address the complaint referred to – although it did not advise when it replied – and, after logging the complaint on 16 November 2020 (as noted in Paragraph 11), it had then spoken to the resident’s daughter on 23 November 2020, when she did provide the address. It noted the resident’s daughter advised she had already replied to provide this information, but the landlord stated it had not received anything.
Regarding the inspections and repairs orders carried out, the landlord noted:
1. It had received reports of a leak from the flat above on 12 October 2020 and that this was causing damage to the resident’s bathroom. It noted that an inspector attended on 19 October 2020 and arranged for repair works to be carried out at the flat above. It noted that the inspector noticed that the property was “poorly ventilated” and advised that this was “contributing to the growth of mould” in the property. It also advised that it had determined there was “no point” in carrying out repairs in the property at that stage as the leak from the flat above was ongoing and any work “would have been ruined”.
2. Repair work to the flat above was carried out by the landlord’s subcontractor during the week commencing 16 November 2020. It noted that, “in the meantime”, it had arranged for its asbestos contractor to “scrape the textured coated ceiling in the bathroom” and also scrape the kitchen ceiling. It advised that, while work to the bathroom was completed, the subcontractor reported they had not been able to work in the kitchen due to it being “too cluttered”. The landlord added the subcontractor had reported its request to clear the kitchen had been declined.
3. A dehumidifier was delivered to the resident on 28 October 2020 to assist with ‘drying out’ the property. However, it noted that the resident’s daughter had advised on 23 November 2020 that the resident was “unable” to use it due to her asthma and doing so would make her health deteriorate. It was therefore collected two days later.
4. On 23 November 2020, while carrying out an inspection to assess how well the property was drying out, the landlord detected “a possible secondary leak from the walkway to the flats above”. A repair to a crack in the asphalt was arranged and completed, although a completion date was not noted.
5. It noted the resident had contacted it on 9 December 2020 to chase progress on outstanding repair works. The landlord noted that, having spoken to its subcontractor, it had been advised they would not be carrying out the required repair work until after Christmas 2020, due to “a backlog of work caused by the (coronavirus) pandemic and working restrictions”. It noted that the resident’s daughter advised the resident would not be able to remain in the property due to her health conditions and, as a result of this, the landlord spoke to its Neighbourhoods and Rehousing Teams to explore the possibility of a temporary decant. However, it noted that the resident’s daughter declined the three properties it subsequently offered the resident and instead agreed that she would remain in the property while works were carried out.
6. It apologised for the delay in “getting the works organised” but again noted that this was due to “the backlog of work experienced by most trades during the pandemic”. It also noted that it considered it had acted reasonably by offering temporary accommodation but advised it could not comment further on the type or location of the accommodation that its Neighbourhoods and Rehousing Teams had offered.
7. It noted that a further inspection had been carried out on 22 December 2020 to assess how the property was drying out and whether it would be ready for follow-on works to begin. It advised that it found the “bathroom ceiling and kitchen ceiling corner were both returning a low moisture reading and were dry to (the) touch”. While the front bathroom wall was “returning a slightly higher reading”, it did not consider this to be concerning, but that the “the wall where the shower unit is…was very damp so more works may be required here”. It also acknowledged that the resident’s daughter had raised concerns that the leak from the flat above had not been resolved as she could hear “dripping” and noted that it had asked its subcontractor to investigate this before they began any repair work. A further order to “clean off” the kitchen ceiling and bedroom wall was also raised as it noted that mould was “constantly growing” due to not having been cleaned off previously.
8. The subcontractors had contacted the resident’s daughter on 4 January 2021 and arranged to begin work on 14 January 2021. However, the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident’s daughter on 13 January 2021, and she had raised concerns that the prescribed works “were not good enough to prevent the problem from reoccurring”, there was still a leak from the property above and that she believed the problems were “structural”. The landlord noted it had agreed to attend the property on 15 January 2021 to post-inspect the works carried out and assess any further works required. The inspection took place on 15 January 2021 and the landlord’s repairs inspector noted that the bathroom ceiling was now “completely dry”, but the external wall was still “holding some moisture”. They therefore raised further works for the subcontractors, which included removing “all plasterboard to external wetroom wall” and providing “ladder access…to roof level to check sleeve around protruding pipe”. It noted that it was still waiting for an estimate from the subcontractor as to how long the repairs would take and acknowledged that arrangements would need to be made for the resident while the wetroom was unavailable for her use.
9. It also noted that during the inspection “a couple of areas of mould” were noticed within the property. It advised that it believed this was down to condensation being caused by “the sofa and curtains creating moisture sweat onto the cold wall surfaces” and stated that “damp and mould caused by condensation” would not be treated as a repair issue and it would provide a booklet on how to reduce condensation within the property.
10. The landlord also noted that the resident’s daughter had advised that her “end goal” was to secure the resident a permanent move to a new property. The landlord clarified that its Repairs Team would be unable to assist with this, but it signposted her to its Rehousing Team.
11. It again apologised for the delays to the repairs and for the delay in responding to the complaint, which it stated was due to staffing issues caused by the coronavirus pandemic, although it acknowledged it should have informed the resident’s daughter of these delays. It reiterated the works it had proposed to remedy the outstanding issue and advised it would arrange these if she was agreeable. It also advised that it would “fully inspect the works upon completion to ensure that all repairs have been completed”.
Landlord records show the resident’s daughter replied on the same day, by both email and phone, and advised she was unhappy with the complaint response. In her email she advised she wanted her mother (the resident) to be moved to a new property. Internal landlord correspondence from the same day notes she repeated this request in her phone call as the “repairs suggested are not good enough”. The landlord acknowledged the request in a letter to the resident sent the same day.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord’s Head of Assets wrote to the resident’s daughter to advise it had completed its Stage Two review of the complaint. in its response, it noted the following:
1. Its Stage One investigation had found “a number of delays and shortcomings in the way in which (the contractor) dealt with the repairs and maintenance works to the property”. However, it noted that the resident’s daughter had now raised further concerns over the proposed remedial work, including that the work would not “remedy the root cause of the damp and mould issues”.
2. Its contractors had carried out an inspection of the resident’s bathroom on 21 January 2021 and, following this, had “produced a specification for the remedial work” which had been reviewed by the landlord’s Head of Assets. It was noted that the proposed work included “exposure works” which were necessary to “establish the root of the problem”. The landlord stressed that “any additional work identified at this time will also be undertaken” and listed the works that had already been specified, which included:
  1. removing all plasterboard to external bathroom wall.
  2. sealing brickwork.
  3. re-battening the wall and installing new plasterboard.
  4. skimming ceiling and newly installed plasterboard.
  5. adding a mist coat to all areas.
3. Its contractor had agreed, with the resident and her daughter, to start work on 10 February 2021.
4. It also provided the resident’s daughter with details of how to escalate her complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy with its response.
On 18 February 2021, the resident’s local councillor referred the complaint to this Service as a Designated Person. The resident’s daughter provided further information regarding the complaint and the issues she believed were outstanding on 23 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that within its submissions to this investigation, the landlord has advised that in September 2020, just before the period covered by this complaint investigation, its repair services were taken over by a new contractor. It has provided this Service with the repair records for the resident’s property prior to this handover, however, this Service has not been provided with any comprehensive repair records from this date onwards. While the landlord has provided numerous emails from its contractor which clearly evidence that it attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions to investigate the reported issues and attempt to resolve them, the lack of easily accessible, comprehensive repair records at times makes it difficult for this Service to establish when or if certain works were carried out and/or completed, particularly the works (and subsequent post-inspection) it proposed to carry out in its Stage Two response.
While it is noted that the landlord requested repairs information from its contractor in order to supply it to this investigation, it should be mindful that, as the landlord, it retains the ultimate responsibility for carrying out and completing repairs in line with its repair responsibility and tenancy agreements. Although the landlord has compiled a timeline of contact it and its contractor had with the resident and her daughter, this Service would still expect it to have readily available records which clearly outline a chronology of events and the works that have been carried out. This would ensure greater transparency and would also benefit the landlord by enabling it to easily evidence the efforts it had made to resolve the issues. A separate finding and recommendation have therefore been made regarding this at the end of this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in her property

As noted above, the lack of comprehensive repair records has made it difficult to establish a clear timeline of events regarding the reported leak, the landlord’s response, and the progression of subsequent repair works. From the information available, much of which is taken from the timeline of events provided to this investigation by the landlord and its Stage One response to the resident, the landlord appears to have responded reasonably after receiving the initial leak report. Notes indicate it first received a report of a leak from the property above, which was causing the wetroom ceiling to “bulge”, on 12 October 2020 and it raised an inspection the same day. Records indicate this was completed on 15 October 2020, having been put back 24 hours at the resident’s request.
Information available indicates that, following the inspection, repair orders were raised to replace the bathroom fan and supply the resident with a dehumidifier to help ‘dry out’ the property. It also appears that a further inspection took place on 19 October 2020 after which, according to the landlord’s Stage One response, it was “arranged for repair works to be carried out to the property above” but which also noted that “the leak was ongoing” and, regarding damage caused to the resident’s bathroom, there “would have been no point…carrying out any repairs…(as) any repair works would have been ruined”. After this, there is a lack of clarity over when the leak from the flat upstairs was rectified. The landlord’s Stage One response advised that it was resolved in the “week commencing 16 November 2020” by a subcontractor.
It is of concern that there are no details available regarding the specific repair that was carried out to resolve the leak from the flat above or the day on which it was done, and there is no information available to indicate why the repair apparently took a month to complete or that it had provided an update to the resident regarding this delay. The lack of information provided to this investigation means the landlord is not able to evidence whether there where unavoidable delays, such as being unable to gain access to the other property, or if the issue took longer to identify for any reason. Indeed, from the information made available to this investigation, it remains unclear what the exact cause of the leak was. This is not acceptable and raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and how it managed its repair responsibilities.
It is further noted that in later internal landlord correspondence regarding its complaint response, a member of its staff reported that they “have been advised the leak has been resolved” but that “no one is able to tell me the door number but have confirmed it has been resolved”. This raises further concerns over the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping and whether it has a suitable system for gathering and sharing repair information with its contractor.
However, information provided by the landlord does indicate that its contractor did attend the resident’s property within a reasonable time to carry out an inspection. It also raised orders off the back of its inspection, including to overhaul the bathroom fan (although this was later cancelled at the resident’s request as she felt there was no issue with the fan) and to supply a dehumidifier to help the property ‘dry out’. However, this was also collected a month after being delivered as the resident advised she had not been using it and records show her daughter had advised its use had made the resident’s health worse. Nevertheless, these appear to have been reasonable steps taken by the landlord’s contractor, having carried out a timely inspection of the property.
Correspondence seen by this Service between the landlord and its contractor show that, following inspections carried out in October 2020, works were raised to repair ‘scrape’ the textured ceilings in the wetroom and the resident’s kitchen. Internal correspondence from the contractor in November 2020 indicate that the works to the wetroom were completed but the works in the kitchen could not be as the kitchen was “cluttered” when they attended, despite their request to clear the area. However, the landlord’s repair records again make it difficult to establish when these works were carried out or, in the case of the kitchen, if they were completed, as internal correspondence from January 2021 indicates it remained outstanding. While it is acknowledged that the landlord’s contractor may have been prevented from carrying out work in the kitchen due to the area not being cleared, the landlord should have followed this up in writing with the resident, making clear why it was unable to complete the repair and whether it would make a new appointment if the resident agreed to clear the area.
Further internal correspondence shows that, in December 2020, its contractor advised that it would not be able to complete any further works (assumed to be the replastering of ceilings) until after Christmas. While this demonstrates a delay, given that the landlord states it aims to complete routine repairs within 30 working days, information available indicates that the contractor explained this was due to a backlog of work and staff shortages during the pandemic. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is a reasonable explanation for why the work was delayed, although it is not clear whether this was explained to the resident at the time, given that records indicate she had contacted the contractor to chase the repairs in November 2020. This meant that the landlord was not acting reasonably by failing to provide the resident with appropriate updates on the progression of works or an explanation for any identified delay.
Records show that a further inspection was carried out in December 2020 to assess how well the property was ‘drying out’ and whether it would be possible for works to commence. The inspection noted that the bathroom and kitchen ceilings were both returning low moisture readings but suggested further works were necessary regarding the bathroom wall which hosted the shower unit, which remained damp. Records show that further works were ordered to investigate this, along with the resident’s daughter’s report that the leak from the flat above may not have been resolved as she could hear “dripping”. A further order to “clean off” existing mould was also raised. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take and it was positive that it continued to carry out further inspections and identify additional follow-on work.
However, it is again the case that it is difficult to ascertain the work the landlord carried out, and when it did so. Further internal correspondence regarding the complaint response indicates that the landlord carried out “external balcony repairs” but it is unclear what these specifically related to or when they were carried out. This is not appropriate and again means the landlord is unable to suitably evidence measures it took in response to the repair.
A further inspection took place on 15 January 2021 and further works were raised, including “removing all plasterboard to the external wetroom wall” and arranging ladder access to inspect an external protruding pipe. However, when referring to this in its Stage One complaint response, the landlord does not appear to have given the resident any timeframe for when this work would take place and this Service has not seen evidence that it relayed such information to her elsewhere. Considering the landlord acknowledged that the work would mean she would be unable to use her wetroom for a period, this is not appropriate and means that, while the landlord was clearly trying to resolve the issue, it was not treating the resident fairly when it failed to provide a reasonable timeframe for the works to be completed, particularly given the fact there had already been delays.
It is noted that the landlord’s Stage Two complaint response noted that a further inspection took place on 21 January 2021, after which further additional repairs were raised which included “exposure works which are required to establish the root cause of the problem”. It is of concern that this appears to be an acknowledgement from the landlord that it was yet to establish the case of the leak affecting the resident’s property, as correspondence seen by this investigation had otherwise indicated that the leak from the flat above and an external walkway had been rectified, while this Service has not seen any correspondence from the landlord that indicates it had identified any further issues with a leak into the property.
While it was positive that its complaint response provided a clear and detailed outline of the works it would be carrying out to finally “resolve the issue”, without comprehensive repair records, it is not possible for this Service to establish the investigations the landlord had carried out and what its findings were. This is not appropriate and means the landlord is unable to demonstrate that it acted reasonably. Indeed, it is of further concern that this Service has not seen evidence that the works outlined in the landlord’s Stage Two response, which it advised were scheduled for 10 February 2021, were completed. Considering the nature of the complaint, this Service would have expected to be provided with evidence that the work had been completed on this date, or with details of any delays and/or additional work identified. To date, while the landlord undoubtedly responded promptly to the initial report and has clearly attended the property on multiple occasions to assess the issue, it remains unclear what the final outcome was and if the repairs were completed. This is not acceptable and amounts to maladministration.
However, it is also noted that the landlord did take other positive steps, including signposting the resident to its Rehousing Team after it noted that the resident’s daughter’s “ultimate aim” from the complaints process was to secure the resident a move. It was also reasonable that it did not respond to this in the context of the complaint, which was abouts its response to the reported repair issues. The landlord had also proactively sought to offer the resident a decant at the end of 2020, taking her health conditions into consideration to offer a temporary move while works took place, although these were declined by the resident’s daughter. Although it is noted that, in correspondence with this Service and the landlord, the resident’s daughter has outlined that these offers were unsuitable, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was again reasonable in not responding to this within the context of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

As noted in the Scope of Investigation section, he Ombudsman will not be investigating historic issues in this case. While it is noted that, in bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident’s daughter noted that the issues in the property had been ongoing “since 2012” and that furniture in the resident’s property had been ruined, causing financial loss, there is no evidence that the issue had been brought to the landlord’s attention prior to the complaint submitted in October 2020. This Service has also not seen any details regarding the items which had been damaged or ruined, or that these matters had at any point been raised with the landlord for it to respond to.
It is also noted that, within their correspondence with the landlord, the resident and the resident’s daughter have both raised concerns over the resident’s health and the impact that the reported damp and mould had had on her health and her medical conditions, including asthma. However, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not able to make findings about the possible impact of the damp and mould on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. This Service would therefore advise the resident, or her daughter, to seek legal advice if they wish to take their concerns further.
Regarding the landlord’s response to reports it received about damp and mould, it is noted that, as with its response to the leak, the absence of comprehensive repair records makes it difficult to fully identify the steps it took to address the issue. However, it is clear it did carry out inspections, and sought to address the damp and mould in the property it attributed to the leak from the flat above.
The timeline provided by the landlord to this investigation indicates that it noted during an inspection on 21 October 2020, when responding to the reported leak, that there was mould on the concrete of the resident’s wetroom ceiling and the “wall/ceiling joint has white fungi” in the living room. However, it is not clear what, if any, works or follow-up assessment were ordered following this inspection.
Despite regular correspondence with the resident and her daughter, the next indication that the landlord raised an order specifically regarding mould treatment was on 4 January 2021. Following a further inspection and damp meter readings taken in the property, while two affected walls were found to be dry and returning low damp readings, it was noted that “possible condensation causing moisture to walls” and ordered a mould wash of the affected walls to be carried out. While it is noted that the property was still ‘drying out’ following the previous leak, there is no indication why there were over two months between the inspections that took place in October 2020 and January 2021 and seemingly no further work carried out in that period. In the absence of any other evidence, this seems to amount to an avoidable delay and meant the landlord had not responded appropriately to the resident’s reports. While it is noted that the landlord’s complaint responses advised that delays were caused by staff issues and a backlog of work related to the coronavirus, it did not appear to provide an update to the resident to explain this at the time.
As above, while the landlord and its contractors do appear to have attended the property on a number of occasions between October 2020 and February 2021 to carry out inspections, including carrying out damp meter readings, there is no evidence that it considered taking further action such as a full damp survey of the property, which it may have wished to do given the resident’s claim that the whole property was affected and that it was impacting on her health. While it is noted that, while attending the property on 15 January 2021, the landlord’s contractor took the reasonable step of carrying out a mould wash of the kitchen ceiling to leave it “mould free”, it is of concern that, when it identified further condensation in the resident’s living room, it immediately attributed this to the number of people in the property at that time and the location of furniture against one of the walls. It is not clear what further assessment of the issue the landlord took, and this investigation has not seen any evidence of further enquiries made.
Despite this, the landlord went on to outline in its Stage One and Stage Two complaint responses that it would not be responsible for treating any mould caused by condensation and that it would not treat this as a repair issue. When issuing its Stage One complaint response in January 2021, the landlord also provided its standard advice on how to control damp in the home. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide relevant advice to the resident, this Service would have expected to see it carry out further investigation of the issue before determining that it was not a repair issue and putting the cause down to ‘lifestyle issues’. This was not appropriate and, in the absence of any formal inspection reports or repair records, its visit on 15 January 2021 appears to be the only assessment of the issue it made before deciding it was not responsible for any further treatment. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered if there were any additional measures it could take to assist the resident, who it has acknowledged has ill health (having originally agreed to decant her when it originally planned repair works in late 2020), such as by making any structural changes to the property which may improve ventilation.
There is also no evidence that the landlord has carried out any further inspections after February 2021, when it was scheduled to have completed to resolve the reported issues. It is noted that the resident’s daughter has advised the Service that the issues still persist and are continuing to affect the resident’s health. It is unclear whether the landlord has carried out any further investigation of this issue and an Order has therefore been made regarding this at the end of the report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s repots of damp and mould.
3. Maladministration by the landlord regarding its record keeping.

Reasons

While internal correspondence between the landlord and its contractor indicates that it initially responded to the report of a leak promptly, from the information seen by this Service, it is difficult to fully establish the actions it took and why it apparently took a month to identify, and rectify, the cause of the leak from the flat above. This Service acknowledges here was then a further delay in its contractor completing follow-on repairs due to staffing issues and a backlog of work caused by the coronavirus lockdowns, however it does not appear that this delay was communicated to the resident or her daughter and this was not appropriate.
The lack of comprehensive repair records mean it is not easy to establish when other works were completed, including asbestos repairs to the bathroom ceiling and external repairs to the walkways above the flat. There are indications that the landlord did act reasonably in carrying out a number of inspections at the property, and this allowed it to identify further necessary work, and the landlord’s complaint responses clearly outlined the works it had identified. However, there are no records to show when, or if this work was completed, or whether it carried out further actions identified in its complaint responses, such as investigating the resident’s concern raised in January 2021 that a leak from the flat above still continued, or that the work it carried out would be post-inspected.
Regarding the reported damp and mould, information suggests the landlord did take measures to address the issue, including carrying out mould washing, taking damp readings and inspecting how the property was ‘drying out’ on several occasions. It also provided the resident with appropriate advice on how to reduce condensation within the property. However, it could have done more to address the concerns raised by the resident and her daughter, particularly having been aware of her health conditions, and it was too swift to conclude that it would not be responsible for treating, or even carrying out further investigation of, further condensation issues it found in the resident’s living room. There is insufficient evidence of it carrying out an adequate investigation of the issue prior to determining it was caused by ‘lifestyle issues’ and it was not a repair matter.
The lack of repair records after September 2020, when the landlord’s repairs service was taken over by a contractor, is of concern. It means this investigation has not been able to easily establish a full chronology of how the landlord responded to the issues raised by the resident, whether it addressed them within a reasonable timeframe or whether there were any avoidable delays. It also meant that the landlord was not able to clearly evidence the steps it does appear to have taken to address the leak and subsequent damp and mould issues.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within four weeks of the date of this letter, to pay the resident £500 in compensation, consisting of:
1. £350 for failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at the property.
2. £150 for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with these Orders by 23 May 2022.
The landlord should also complete a review of how it records repairs carried out by its contractors, to ensure that it has comprehensive, and easily available, records of the actions it has carried out and the status of orders it has raised.
Additionally, as set out in this report, the repairs records did not adequately demonstrate that all the issues reported were addressed appropriately and the Ombudsman notes that the resident’s position is that there are ongoing issues in the property. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to carry out a damp survey at the property, in particular covering the resident’s bathroom and living room. It should contact the resident to make an appointment for the survey within the next four weeks and then ensure that the survey is completed and the outcome shared with the resident within eight weeks of the date of this report. An action plan should be drawn up to address any issues identified and then shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the wording of its complaints policy to ensure consistency between the response timeframes it outlines at Stage One (“10 working days) and Stage Two (“three weeks”). The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code recommends landlords respond at Stage Two within 20 working days, so the landlord’s target it reasonable, but should make clear whether “three weeks” refers to 15 working days or 21 calendar days.
The landlord should consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould cases (Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and should share the findings with relevant staff, including training where appropriate. It should also incorporate the findings of this report in its management of such cases in future.