Islington Council (202118103)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118103

Islington Council

9 September 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the resident’s property as a result of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat within a block of similar properties. The resident has advised that she suffers with her mental health and has developed breathing issues as a result of the property conditions.
3. The resident initially reported damp and mould in her property in April 2021. A survey was completed on 6 May 2021 which identified damp in the kitchen, hallway and bathroom and concluded that there may be a leak in the bathroom. On 2 July 2021 an operative attended to remove radiators and hack off the plaster in the hallway and kitchen which had been affected by the damp. Dehumidifiers were placed in the property to dry the areas and it was later advised that a further survey was needed as the walls were still damp but no leak had been found.
4. The resident complained in July 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress. She advised that she had returned the dehumidifiers on 14 July 2021 as she could not afford the additional energy costs and did not feel they were working. She added that the damp had spread to other walls in the property and she had not been told what was causing the issues and these were causing significant distress and upset as there had been damage to her carpet and internal decorations which she had recently renewed. She continued to express her dissatisfaction with the length of time the works were taking and the lack of communication from the landlord, noting that she had to repeatedly explain the issues to different members of staff.  
5. The landlord carried out further inspections of the property during August 2021. The wastepipe of the resident’s bath was replaced and dehumidifiers were provided again in September 2021 as the floor was still found to be wet. A gap beneath the resident’s front door was also identified and works to repair the threshold and the door were completed in October 2021. On 8 October 2021, operatives suspected that there may be a leaking mains pipe under the flooring. and proposed to remove the flooring between the bathroom, hallway and kitchen to expose the pipework. It explained that the resident would need to be temporarily moved from the property (decanted) whilst the works went ahead. However, in November 2021 the landlord explained that a decant was not required. A further damp assessment took place and the operative recommended that the floor coverings around the property be removed to allow the floor to dry out. The resident was also given advice on reducing condensation in the property.
6. In December 2021, a plumber attended as a leak from the resident’s property was affecting the property below. The water to the resident’s property was turned off and the landlord supplied heaters and water. The resident tested positive for Covid-19 on 15 December 2021 and needed to self-isolate until 25 December 2021. She was then decanted into a hotel between 26 December 2021 and 10 January 2022 so that she was not left without water in the property over the Christmas period. On 19 January 2022, operatives attended and created a temporary water supply from the mains which made the pipe work below the floor obsolete in order to prevent any ongoing leaks.
7. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing works, the lack of progression and its poor communication. It confirmed that once the works to the leak were resolved it would then complete the outstanding plastering works. It said it that had experienced difficulty sourcing temporary accommodation within the borough and the resident had refused the offers it had made. It confirmed that the offer was still available and the outstanding works would be completed once the resident was successfully decanted. It offered the resident £538.30 compensation, comprised of £208.30 initially for the delay in completing repairs between May 2021 and September 2021, £50 towards the resident’s increased energy costs, £100 for the overall inconvenience, £100 for the time and trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. It encouraged the resident to claim via her home contents insurance or call to discuss the option of submitting a claim regarding her damaged carpet which would be dealt with outside of the complaints procedure.
8. Several attempts were made to carry out a mould wash of the property between January and April 2022. The resident confirmed in May 2022 that she had completed this herself. In its communication to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that it would offer an additional £50 to the resident in view of two rescheduled appointments on 31 January 2022 and 18 March 2022. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the overall length of time it was taking to complete repair work in her property and wanted the issues to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the repair issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the resident’s property as a result of damp and mould.

10. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for installations for the supply of water, including pipework, and for resolving leaks. The repairs policy sets out timescales in which repairs should be completed. Emergency or urgent repairs, such as uncontainable leaks, should be attended within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. In some cases, repairs may take longer due to the need for investigation and planning. The landlord would be expected to provide regular updates on the progress of the works and confirm an expected completion date.
11. In this case, it is not disputed that the damp and leak issues in the resident’s property have been ongoing for a significant length of time and it appears that the works required to repair the mains pipe below the resident’s flooring and the work to the plastering remains outstanding. The evidence shows that the landlord acted in line with its obligations by attempting to find the cause of the damp from the outset. Whilst the delay in identifying the cause of the issue was likely to be frustrating for the resident, it should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue from the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake.
12. There was, however, various avoidable delays in its investigation of the matter and poor communication with the resident who had needed to pursue updates on a regular basis. The landlord initially responded in a timely manner to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property in April 2021, however there was a lack of progression between May and August 2021. Some delay was likely to have been caused by the need to wait to see if the walls and flooring in the property would dry out following repairs which may have been prolonged due to the dehumidifiers being turned off. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more proactive in its handling of the matter, especially given the resident’s concerns regarding her health. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging its failure within its formal complaint responses.
13. The repair to the waste pipe of the resident’s bath in September 2021 following an inspection in August 2021 did not resolve the issues and further investigation was required. The resident was told on 13 October 2021 that there could be a leak to the mains pipe below the flooring and she would need to be decanted whilst the investigation work took place. There was a further lack of progression and on 10 November 2021 she was told that she would not need to be decanted which was likely to have caused confusion. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated effectively with the resident to avoid any unnecessary inconvenience or confusion. However, the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident was reasonable as it would only be expected to carry out intrusive works if it was absolutely necessary and there was no evidence that the mains pipe was the cause as the property below had not been affected.
14. Following a leak into the property below in December 2021, the landlord needed to turn the water supply off to the resident’s property. It acted appropriately by providing water and temporary heating to the resident. Any delay in resolving the issues from December 2021 onwards were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The resident tested positive for Covid-19 during December 2021 and works could not be undertaken during this time in line with Government guidance. Following this, it acted reasonably by decanting the resident into a hotel to prevent any further inconvenience over the Christmas period. The records indicate that the resident did not want works to go ahead whilst she was away from the property and there were limited further steps the landlord could take at this stage.
15. The resident needed to be decanted as a result of the leak and the landlord experienced difficulty sourcing temporary accommodation within the borough. The resident did not feel that the accommodation offered was suitable. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a temporary water supply from the mains pipe on 19 January 2022 in view of the difficulty in sourcing temporary accommodation which the resident would be willing to accept. Social landlords have a limited supply of properties and it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident temporary accommodation outside of the borough in view of its availability. The landlord has acted appropriately by clearly setting out its position; it would need the resident to vacate the property whilst the works were carried out, following which the outstanding works to the plastering would be completed. The resident would need to provide access to the property in line with her tenancy agreement and there were limited further steps the landlord could take whilst the resident was in situ. It also attempted to complete a mould wash to the resident’s property in view of the ongoing issues but there were staff supply issues and a number of no access appointments which delayed this. It acted appropriately by confirming to this Service that it would offer an additional £50 compensation in view of any inconvenience caused.
16. The resident was dissatisfied that the internal decorations of the property and carpeting had been damaged by the damp. In line with the tenancy agreement, residents are advised to take out their own contents insurance to cover any damage to their personal possessions due to unforeseen events such as leaks. Although there is insufficient evidence to show the landlord was at fault for causing the leak or damp, it was reasonable for it to advise the resident to make contact to raise a claim if she did not have her own contents insurance or considered that it was responsible for the damage.
17. In addition, the resident has advised that she had experienced increased energy costs as a result of needing to use dehumidifiers and additional heating as a result of the damp, and that the £50 offered by the landlord was not sufficient to cover the additional costs. The resident has not provided evidence of her increased energy costs to this Service for review. It is therefore recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for costs associated with additional energy usage throughout the period in question as a result of using the dehumidifiers and additional heating. The resident will need to provide evidence to the landlord of her increased energy costs alongside energy statements from the previous year for comparison for the landlord to consider. Failing this, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer £50 towards this.
18. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the delay and its poor communication and attempted to put things right by offering £408.30 compensation for this aspect of the complaint.
19. Whilst it is noted that there were errors in the landlord’s communication following its offer of compensation in August 2021, the landlord’s overall offer of £408.30 for this aspect of the complaint is considered proportionate in view of the impact on the resident as a result of its failings. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which states that amounts between £250 – £700 are proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within 21 calendar days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed. The landlord should then issue a stage one review response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied they can then escalate their complaint to stage two.  At stage two, the complaint will be reviewed by the chief executive and a response should be issued within 28 calendar days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale.
21. The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 16 July 2021 and she pursued her concerns again on 12 August 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 August 2021, which was 22 calendar days outside of its timescale for complaint responses at this stage. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 29 September 2021. The landlord issued an informal response on 13 October 2021 as the member of staff responsible for reviewing the resident’s complaint was not available. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an update, it did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively or provide a date on which she would receive a formal response. The landlord issued its stage one review response on 10 November 2021 which was 20 working days outside of its policy timescales for complaints at this stage. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two on 10 November 2021 and the landlord issued its final response on 22 March 2022 which was significantly outside of its timescales by 104 calendar days. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately informed of any delay in advance and needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concerns which is likely to have caused inconvenience.
22. The landlord has acted appropriately by acknowledging the delays, apologising and offering £175 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its complaint handling. The landlord’s overall offer of £175 compensation is considered proportionate to the impact on the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures in this case. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which states that amounts between £50-£250 are proportionate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint. For example, failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. As such, the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers to be proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to its failings.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of repairs needed in the resident’s property as a result of damp and mould, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
24. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in respect of its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

25. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £588.30 as previously offered if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was made on this basis.
26. It is recommended that the landlord considers reimbursing the resident for costs associated with additional energy usage throughout the period in question as a result of using the dehumidifiers and additional heating. The resident will need to provide evidence to the landlord of her increased energy costs alongside energy statements from the previous year for comparison.
27. The landlord should write to the resident and detail the outstanding works required to the property. It should confirm its position regarding the works and provide estimated timescales. It should also confirm the length of time it expects the resident would need to be decanted for in order to manage her expectations and confirm its position regarding decoration works once repairs have been completed.
28. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that procedures are followed and residents are provided with an estimated timescale for a response where there are likely to be delays.