Haringey London Borough Council (202200806)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200806

Haringey Council

31 March 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of this complaint.
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a two-bedroom ground floor flat under a secure tenancy which began on 6 February 2017 with her daughter. While the landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, the resident reported that she suffered from anxiety and depression and her daughter from ill-health.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the structure and outside of the property (including drains, gutters, and outside pipes) in repair and to carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of time.
Under the repair policy, the landlord categorised repairs as a) emergency repairs which would be addressed within 24 hours b) reactive repairs to be addressed within 28 days. Examples of reactive repairs included roof leaks, tiling, and water running from overflows. C) planned minor repairs which needed to be assessed, for example joinery, and would be inspected within 28 days and a date given for the works to be carried out at the inspection.
According to the complaints policy, the landlord aimed to respond quickly to a complaint by proving the service required and keep residents informed of progress. It was a two-staged process. Having investigated the complaint, the landlord would aim to propose a resolution to the complaint. It would send a response within 10 working days. The resident could request a review which could include a summary of the steps the landlord would take to resolve the service failure and provide the service required. The final response would be given in writing within 25 working days from the request to escalate.

Chronology

The landlord did not provide the resident’s reports or communications made in 2019 to this Service. According to the resident, her initial complaint was made on 13 December 2019.
According to the landlord’s repair records, a surveyor inspection was raised on 11 December 2019 to inspect “condensation and mould growth”. The outcome was to hack and renew plaster and decorate. The job was marked as “completed” on 22 January 2020. A job was raised on 3 September 2020 to apply mould treatment and was marked as “completed” on 23 October 2020. It was not disputed that a plasterer had attended to hack off and renew defective plaster to the bedroom ceiling and walls on that date.
There followed a gap in the evidence.
On 1 December 2020, the resident wrote forwarding a complaint she had sent on the 22 November 2019 (a copy of which the landlord did not provide to this Service) as follows:
1. She referred to a “message” of 13 December 2019, a copy of which the landlord did not provide to this Service.
2. She asked for an explanation of why her communications of “28 January until 26 August” went unanswered.
3. She had been promised a number of appointments to carry out plastering and painting in September 2020.
4. The wall was finally plastered on 23 October 2020 but it had still not been painted. It had taken nearly a year to plaster and paint one wall, and it was still not completed.
5. She had been sharing her bedroom with her daughter for nearly a year, and her daughter’s health had declined.
6. She requested that the landlord finish painting the wall.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord wrote stating it would log the complaint and it would investigate the matter.
According to the repair records, a job was raised on 11 December 2020. This was annotated as a “follow-on” of the job raised on 3 September 2020 and that painting and decoration was required and to inspect and treat damp and mould. The job was marked closed on 20 January 2021, but the landlord did not provide any further details.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident as follows:
1. It apologised for not responding to her communications to get her repair issues addressed.
2. It had “manged” (sic) to bring the job forward to 7 January 2021. (The job described was that raised on 11 December 2019.)
3. It thanked her for her patience during “these very testing times”.
4. It added: “Regarding the lack of response to previous communication efforts, these have not been shared to further investigate why these went un-replied (sic)”.
5. It apologised and repeated its thanks with the same wording as above.
6. It would use this as an opportunity to improve its procedures and learn from its mistakes.
On 24 January 2021, the resident reported that the damp had returned. An inspection was due to have taken place on 20 January 2021 and no-one had attended. The damp was “obviously” coming from upstairs but it was not checked despite her asking the surveyor to do so. Her daughter was unwell and sleeping in the resident’s room and was having breathing issues.
According to the landlord’s repair records, a job was raised on 12 March 2021 to inspect damp in the property. It was marked as closed on 21 January 2022. A job was also raised to investigate a leak from a flat above, which job was marked as “allocated” on 19 March 2021.
An extract from the landlord’s repair records detailed the job raised on 12 March 2021. It noted that on 8 April 2021, the job was to investigate ongoing water penetration from a flat above (flat “A”) and damage to the resident’s bedroom “at upper level”. The notes stated that the landlord attended flat A on the same day but did not get access. It would contact the neighbour for a “further” appointment. The landlord was to trace the source of the leak and carry out remedial works, including replacing and redecorating the affected areas.
The job raised on 12 March 2021 was recorded on 6 May 2021 as cancelled in accordance with a conversation with a named resident of a neighbouring flat (“B”) but there was no evidence in support of the cancellation.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord raised a job to repair the gutter as the leaks were affecting the resident’s flat. The job was marked closed on 26 August 2021 and the landlord provided photographs to this Service by way of confirmation.
The job raised on 12 March 2021 was logged again on 12 October 2021 as a joint investigation (a plumber and a surveyor) of the water penetration to inspect the neighbouring properties.
On 17 November 2021, the resident wrote requesting an update, and to ask the landlord to treat the bedroom wall for mould which she had been enduring for the previous two years.
On 10 December 2021, the resident wrote that she had reported leaks on a bedroom wall and a serious damp issue two years previously and had chased more than 20 occasions. The landlord had not replied to her emails and the matter had been “on hold”. The wall had been treated for damp and repainted but without proper investigation so that the issue had re-occurred. A surveyor had attended on three occasions but nothing had been done. She was awaiting to hear when the landlord would be inspecting the neighbouring flats. She had requested that the damp be treated in the bedroom a number of times. The wall has been “redone” one year previously. The paint and plastering were peeling off, under which was a layer of black mould. She attached a photograph. She reported that her daughter woke up with headaches due to black mould in her room and had been having issues breathing for the last two years.
An internal email of 14 December 2021 noted that there had been no action since March 2021 and the landlord would escalate the complaint to stage two.
On 21 January 2022, in accordance with the job raised on 12 March 2021, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection with a plumber to obtain more conclusive proof of damp effecting the resident’s flat. It identified that a leaking waste pipe was concealed behind the skirting board of a neighbouring flat. The remedial action would require the removal of a neighbour’s inbuilt wardrobe (neighbour C) in order to access the party wall and to replace the pipe. It would then replaster and redecorate the affected area in the resident’s bedroom. It would contact C.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
1. The damp and mould had been treated but the leak had caused the damp to return.
2. The landlord had inspected the roof and gutters but had not identified any fault except that a blocked gutter was cleared on the same day.
3. It referred to the joint inspection of 21 January 2022. It had traced the leak and would contact the neighbour to arrange remedial works. It would then carry out follow on works including the hacking off, renewing the plaster and redecorating the bedroom. The joint inspection should have “highlighted any contributing factors and would be addressed asap (sic)”.
4. What information it could share regarding the neighbour was limited, however the landlord should still be clear. The resident’s communications should not “go unanswered” and this had raised a “learning point.“
5. It “found fault” with the length of time it had taken to investigate the source of the damp and the standard of its communications. It apologised.
According to the landlord, a repair to a gutter was carried out in March 2022.
The landlord reported to this Service in June 2022 that there had been suspected leaks from boilers in neighbouring properties. The landlord had referred B to contact “heating contractor” but it was not clear from the report whether this was the landlord’s contractor or whether the leak referred to was the issue. A leak was identified in a third flat (“C”) and repaired. A leak was subsequently found from kitchen sink in B’s flat in March 2022 and was to be repaired in July 2022
Remedial works were to be booked after the boiler leaks were resolved. A plasterer was due to attend to assess damage on 14 July 2022. The note of the surveyor’s report provided by the landlord was blank.
According to the landlord’s report of March 2023, plastering works were completed on 18 November 2022 and painting to an unspecified wall and ceiling was to be carried out on 10 May. The year was unspecified but it is assumed to be 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

In her complaint of 1 December 2020, the resident reported not having received replies to her various communications. Given the poor record keeping highlighted in this report, and lack of evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord failed to respond to the resident as she has reported.
There was a significant and inappropriate delay from 2019 to October 2020, when works were only partially carried out. The works raised in December 2019 were resurrected in September 2020 and again in December 2020, it would appear as a result of her complaint 1 December 2020. It is unsatisfactory that the resident would have to raise a complaint in order to get the works done. This demonstrated a lack of monitoring of repairs. While repairs were affected from March 2020 by the coronavirus pandemic, either by lockdown or a backlog of repairs, this did not explain why the works were not carried out in early January 2020. Moreover, the landlord did not provide an explanation for the delays or any updates. The Ombudsman concludes that this was at least partially due to the poor record keeping and lack of oversight by the landlord so that it provided a reactive rather than a proactive repairs service.
While the landlord carried out some redecoration in the property in October 2020, there was no evidence of the landlord considering investigating the underlying cause of the damp and mould until March 2021. There was then a further significant, and again, inappropriate delay following the resident’s fresh report of 24 January 2021 to the date the inspection took place in January 2022. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the investigation of the water ingress involved a number of flats, there was no evidence that the inspection was followed up, or that the visit to flat A or any other flat was followed up. In addition, there was no evidence of the landlord updating the resident, so that she had to chase, as well as enduring the condition of her property throughout a considerable period.
While the events after January 2022 post-dated the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, they are sufficiently connected to the resident’s complaint for the Ombudsman to consider. There was no evidence that the works identified in January 2022 were carried out. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord determined there were leaks in flats above and that plastering works were completed on 18 November 2022. Given leaks can be multi-factorial, it is not satisfactory that the diagnosis of January 2022 was not followed up and there was no explanation why, and, in addition, this constituted a significant and inappropriate delay.
The resident reported that her daughter’s health was impacted by the damp and mould. While the Ombudsman is very aware of, and would expect the landlord to be alive to, the real risk of damp and mould on a person’s health, the Ombudsman does not have the required expertise to determine whether damp and mould has affected a person’s health, but can make an order that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complaint by a particular service failure by a landlord.
There were significant delays throughout the landlord’s management of the repairs, from 2019 to late November 2022, despite the resident’s reports of the effects on her child’s health. Given her concerns, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be proactive in ensuring any repairs were completed within a timely manner. Moreover, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the causes of the leaks have been addressed satisfactorily. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in relation to this complaint. The evidence showed that the resident’s bedroom was impacted by damp and mould for nearly three years and the order the Ombudsman will make will reflect this. The Ombudsman has taken into account there was some relief, given the treatment and works in October 2020.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There was a significant, unacceptable and inappropriate delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint from 22 November 2019 to 21 December 2020. The response of 21 December 2020 did not address or explain its delay. It did not demonstrate any meaningful investigation of the repairs or at all, as demonstrated by it claiming credit for “bringing forward” the job of 11 December 2019 to 7 January 2021, without noting the delay.
While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord department would have been working under pressure, the first stage response showed little care by its errors in its language, as highlighted in the chronology.
While the second stage response openly acknowledged its failures, including its delays and lack of communication, it did was inadequate overall. It set out a summary of the works without any dates, it did not propose a resolution or even a timescale for the further works. Stating the inspection would be addressed “asap” was not satisfactory. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have monitored the repairs to their conclusion. While it correctly explained that it was limited in what it could share regarding the resident’s neighbours, and it openly acknowledged it should have been clear, it did not rectify this by a clearer explanation.
It stated the complaint had raised a “learning point” as did the first response but did not specify what that learning points was and how it was going to address it. The Ombudsman did not feel confident the landlord had identified how it was going to improve its service. There was no evidence of any improvement so that there were further delays and no evidence of an explanation why or whether the works identified in January 2021 were followed through. The complaint review itself was unable to identify an explanation for delays which indicated there was little or no contact between the repairs team and the complaints team and/or the complaint did not or could not access the repair records.

The landlord’s record keeping.

This investigation has highlighted a number of gaps and limitations in the landlord’s record keeping.
There were at least three sets of repair records, with differing levels of detail. The records were not clear. While some jobs were marked “closed” it was not clear whether they were closed for an unspecified reason or because the works were carried out. For example, the job was raised on 11 December 2019 and marked as “completed” on 22 January 2020 but the evidence indicated that the works were not carried out until October 2021. There was little evidence of inspection reports, although this Service made a subsequent specific information and document request in that regard. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord does not appear to have kept records of the inspections it completed There were significant gaps in the evidence, again despite a specific request, apparently due to records being held in different areas of the business and being inaccessible.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain clear, accessible and accurate records. Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of its actions and decisions. Records are central in order to monitor its repairs, to provide a consistent repairs service, to demonstrate to itself, the resident (and ultimately the Ombudsman if necessary) that it took all reasonable steps to meet its obligations. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord in its managements systems and information.
The Ombudsman considers that the lack of explanation and lack of analysis by the landlord is at least partially explained by the apparent lack of communication and record-sharing between the repairs, contact and complaints teams. The poor record keeping also affected the landlord’s ability to effectively manage the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. The Ombudsman would have expected the complaints team to have collated all the evidence in order to have carried out an investigation and a review of the resident’s complaint in any event.
Given the extent of the issues this investigation has highlighted with the landlord’s record keeping, the resulting impact on its ability to ensure that repairs were completed to an appropriate standard, and the missed opportunity to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of this complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

There were significant and inappropriate delays in the repairs, and despite the resident’s concerns about her child’s health. The landlord only belatedly investigated the causes of the leaks which findings were themselves contradictory, only to be followed up by further significant and unexplained delays. There was a lack of monitoring, poor communication and an absence of proactivity.
There were significant and inappropriate delays in the complaint handling. While the landlord identified its own failures with its record keeping and demonstrated transparency in doing so, it did not undertake a sufficient review of its own performance, offer to monitor the repairs, offer a resolution and put things right.
There were significant gaps in the landlord’s records, There was a lack of inspection records. The investigation evidence a lack of accessibility to records and lack of cohesion between the teams which in the view of the Ombudsman caused a lack of internal monitoring and poor communication with the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology from the Chief Executive to the resident, and a copy to the Ombudsman, within three weeks of this report.
2. The landlord should, in agreement with the resident, record with all its services any household vulnerabilities in order to inform the appropriate standard of response from the landlord within four weeks of this report.
3. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £3,650 within four weeks as follows:
  1. The sum of £3,000 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The sum of £400 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. The sum of £250 in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping.
4. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within three weeks of the report to enquire whether the damp and mould has been resolved and whether she is experiencing any leaks into her property.
5. If the damp and mould has not been resolved satisfactorily, the landlord should:
  1. Arrange an inspection of her property and flats A, B and C above to take place no later than six weeks after this report.
  2. Consider carrying out the remedy identified in its inspection of 21 January 2022 and, if not, explain to the resident, within the limits of data protection, why not, with a copy to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of this report.
  3. Write to the resident within eight weeks of this report with a schedule of works and a timescale for works to be undertaken no later than two weeks thereafter.
6. If it has not carried out a review within the last 18 months, the landlord should, within eight weeks of this report, carry out a review of its record-keeping in the light of the findings of this report including as follows:
  1. It ensures it keeps a clear record of outcomes of any inspections and repairs, so that it can provide accurate feedback to the resident and monitor its repairs.
  2. It ensures that there are clear lines of communication and record sharing between teams.
The landlord should, within four weeks of this report, confirm compliance with the orders under paragraph 50 a, b and c.
The landlord should, within eight weeks of this report:
1. Confirm compliance with the orders under paragraph 59 d and e by either sending to the Ombudsman a copy of the resident’s response to its enquiry under paragraph 59 d or with its inspection and letter under paragraph 59 e of this report
2. Confirm compliance with the orders under paragraph 59 f by sending to the Ombudsman a copy of its review.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review any reports and/or complaints it may have received from other residents in the building, to ensure there are no outstanding actions and it has provided appropriate redress.
2. The landlord should ensure that it takes steps proactively, monitors its repairs and investigates the underlying cause of reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord should review its complaints handling, if it has not done so already, to ensure that it:
  1. Responds within its policy timescales.
  2. Undertakes a meaningful second stage complaint review and consider reviewing the relevant records itself.
  3. Considers monitoring the repairs a resident is complaining about to ensure that they are properly resolved.
  4. Ensures it addresses all aspects of a resident’s complaint.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.