Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202217188)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217188

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

3 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of water ingress, damp, and mould at the property
    2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor.
  2. The resident told this service that she first reported water ingress to the landlord on 5 January 2021, although the landlord has not provided evidence to corroborate this.
  3. The landlord’s contractor visited on 24 May 2021 and believed the ingress was coming from the cladding above the flat. The landlord’s contractors inspected the flat above on 1 July 2021 but failed to attend follow-up appointments on 15 July 2021 and 25 August 2021. The landlord then completed repairs and redecoration between 17 September 2021 and 5 October 2021. The resident reported new ingress and stains on the ceiling on 12 October 2021. The landlord completed its second set of repairs and redecoration on 7 February 2022. On 11 April 2022, the resident reported further ingress and that damp stains had re-emerged for a third time. She also informed the landlord that the dampness and mould was in her newborn child’s room.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 July 2022. She was unhappy that the matter remained unresolved and wanted a senior manager to attend to inspect and have a clear understanding of the problem. She stated the ongoing water ingress was causing dampness, odour, stains to the ceiling and wall, and a great deal of distress. The resident informed the landlord she had a newborn baby in the property and felt the landlord was showing a lack of sympathy and understanding. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 August 2022. It acknowledged the leak had been ongoing since 2020. It offered the resident £50 for its delays in completing the roofing works and an additional £30 in decoration vouchers. It confirmed that its contractors would be onsite to complete the roofing works on 12 August 2022 and any follow-on works raised after this.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 10 August 2022. She felt the landlord had recognised the ongoing nature of the issue but failed to understand the distress or offer appropriate compensation. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 August 2022 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 16 September 2022. It raised its compensation offer to £600. The landlord said contractors had found a small crack in the external render that they would repair. They stated, however, that the previous roofing works had been successful. It also outlined the steps it would take once it had confirmed no further water ingress. The landlord completed these repairs in October 2022.
  6. The resident contacted this service on 3 November 2022. The resident said she had been traumatised by the constant complaints about the leak in her second bedroom. She said this had caused extensive damage, mould, stains, and odour. This bedroom was her newborn child’s, but she had been unable to use this due to the dampness. She felt the landlord had not treated her empathetically, had not investigated the issue seriously, and failed to undertake the necessary remedial action to resolve this. The resident would like a formal apology from the landlord and an increased offer of compensation.
  7. The resident raised issues with further water ingress on 10 January 2023. The landlord has told this service that the cause of the new water ingress was due to capping on the roof. The landlord performed additional repairs in March 2023. The resident confirmed in a call to this service that no further water ingress has occurred since these repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould at the property.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will perform routine repairs in 15 to 30 days. The listed scope of issues under these repairs includes “leaking roof, gutters or downpipes if they are causing dampness in the property”.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 February 2021. However, they did not know which flat had reported the damp. This was a failing in the landlord’s record-keeping. The landlord’s next visit to inspect was on 24 May 2021, 104 days later. The resident advised that contractors had previously missed an appointment on 12 May 2021, although this is not listed in the landlord’s records. Contractors inspected the flat above believing that it was the drain and outlet causing the issue. The landlord appears to have rescheduled 2 appointments that were due on 15 July 2021 and 28 August 2021. The landlord appears to have taken until 5 October 2021 to complete its first set of repairs – 238 days after the resident had first raised the issue. This was a clear failing under the landlord’s policy to complete the repairs in the timescales it sets out.
  3. One week later, the resident reported further water ingress. This demonstrates the landlord’s previous repairs had not correctly identified the cause of the water ingress. The landlord attended on 22 October 2021 to investigate again. During the visit, it found no defects in the suspected outlet. At this stage, the landlord should have considered having a professional survey performed or itself performed an extensive investigation. The landlord does not appear to have done this. The landlord’s records do not make it clear what actions it took in relation to this, but state that plumbing repairs were undertaken on 3 February 2022. From the evidence it has provided this service cannot be sure exactly what repairs these were. On 11 April 2022, the resident reported water ingress for the third time.
  4. The landlord’s record keeping makes it difficult to determine exactly what repairs were done at each of its contractor’s visits. It should review it’s record-keeping to ensure that it has detailed records of what repairs it completed at what time.
  5. After the third report, the landlord completed flood testing of the internal and external parts of the property for water ingress. This inspection occurred on 9 September 2022, 18 months after the resident first reported the issue. Following this, the landlord completed work to toughen the glass on the dividing balconies and fixed a small crack in the external render. It is not clear why the landlord did not identify these required repairs at an earlier stage.
  6. As early as 7 January 2022, the resident informed the landlord she was pregnant, with a baby due in March. Despite this, the landlord failed to properly identify the issue until 9 September 2022, 8 months later. Its actions did not reasonably consider the circumstances of the resident. Its failure to escalate the matter and perform the repairs in a reasonable manner of time represents severe maladministration.
  7. The landlord has told this service that the resident’s most recent report of water ingress in January 2023, her fourth, was caused by a different issue. The landlord states the original water ingress issue was resolved with its October 2022 repairs. It has said the fourth reported water ingress issue was caused by capping of the roof which was letting a substantial amount of water into a cavity. Given the evidence, this appears to have been ongoing for some time. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to this service that this was not the original cause of water ingress. The subsequent damp and mould have appeared in the same areas and room. The resident has said that the landlord’s repairs from March 2023 have repaired the situation and feels its previous repairs did not address the correct issue. This service cannot determine the exact cause of the water ingress, however, the fact that further ingress occurred 2 months after the landlord’s inspection and repairs suggests that had the landlord performed a more comprehensive inspection at an earlier date, it would likely have identified this issue. The landlord’s failure to properly inspect has led to avoidable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  8. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of water ingress, dampness, and mould at the property. The landlord failed to properly respond to the resident’s reports. It missed several appointments, failed to properly organise repairs, did not sufficiently investigate the cause of the ingress, took too long to complete the repairs, and failed to resolve the issue completely until 26 months from the first report. Considering the landlord’s policy states it will complete repairs of this nature within 30 days, the handling of the issues and the timescales taken to do so constitutes severe maladministration. Given the circumstances of the residents of the property the landlord should have treated this repair as a priority. The resident has told this service the undue delays caused her extreme distress and inconvenience particularly given she had an infant in the property.
  9. For its failings and the distress and inconvenience these caused to the resident, the landlord should pay the resident £1,000. There was a single significant failure in service or a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The resident expressed she was unable to use a bedroom for her newborn child and she experienced distress and inconvenience because of the water ingress that led to damp and mould. It took 26 months from the first report until it was finally resolved. This compensation is in line with this service’s remedies guidance. The landlord should also issue the resident an apology from a senior member of its staff.
  10. The landlord should review its repairs policy to consider when it would be appropriate to perform a survey to investigate the root cause of issues.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and aim to provide its response within 10 working days. At stage 2 the landlord says it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days. If it is unable to make the deadlines set out in stages 1 and 2, the landlord will agree to a revised timescale which will not exceed a further 10 working days.
  2. At stage 1 the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. As it was still investigating the complaint it requested a 10-day extension on 1 August 2022 and provided its final response on 5 August 2022. The landlord’s actions were fair and in line with its policy.
  3. At stage 2 the landlord took 14 days to acknowledge the complaint, and 27 days to respond to the resident’s complaint. However, before acknowledging the complaint the landlord did have discussions with the resident. In these, the landlord discussed possible resolutions to the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord may have failed to respond within the timescales it set out, its engagement with the resident means this service would not consider this a service failure.
  4. The landlord’s responses were fair in content and tone.
  5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this letter the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £1,000, this is inclusive of its previous offer of £650, for its failure to properly handle the reports of water ingress, damp, and mould in line with its own internal repairs policy.
    2. Provide a written apology to the resident for its poor handling of the reports. This should be issued from a senior member of staff.
    3. Provide evidence to this service it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of this case to learn from its failings and to see what steps can be put in place to ensure that these do not happen again. Included in this it should review its repairs policy to consider when it would be appropriate to secure a full survey to review ongoing issues.
  2. The landlord should review its record-keeping policy to ensure that it has detailed reports of the repairs it completes. The landlord should utilise this service’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management to support its review.