Islington Council (202118263)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118263

Islington Council

26 September 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 relates to the landlord’s:
1. Response to leaks and damp at the property and the subsequent repairs.
2. Response to the resident’s request for ventilation at the property.
3. Handling of a fly infestation at the property.
4. Handling of the resident’s queries regarding the layout of the kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident has occupied the property, a ground floor studio flat, since October 2012, and is a secured tenant. The resident has said she has health issues; that include asthma, sinus problems and arthritis.
The resident complained to the landlord, that flies were getting in to her property, on 10 October 2019. She said she could not open windows with the flies coming from outside; although they were coming in with everything closed.
Emails exchanged between landlord staff on 24 October 2019 acknowledged the resident’s issue with flies. A works order was created, for the drain outside the resident’s property to be inspected as the tarmac around it appeared to be in need of repair. An order was also raised for the drain to be cleared of any blockages.
In a telephone call with the resident on 28 October 2019, the landlord said, the flies were likely to be seasonal. However, the resident complained that she had been unable to open her bathroom window for months, and had paid a private company at least three times to deal with the flies, in the past. The following day, on 29 October 2019, an inspector emailed the landlord, having visited the property. He said he looked in the heating duct but was unable to locate a leak and said it would be advisable to have the loose cover replaced by the drainage team, with a sealed drainage cover.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 October 2019. She made the following points:
1. It was not just drain flies in her property. There were drain flies, fruit flies and gnats. Swarms of which exited the hatch/manhole cover (at the front of the property).
2. She kept windows closed to avoid flies; however, they still got in to the property.
3. A pest control company had pointed out that there were gaps in the tarmac surrounding the hatch at the front of the property.
4. She was unhappy that she had paid privately to have the fly issue, caused by something outside of her property, looked in to.
On 31 October 2019, the landlord provided its stage one response, to the resident’s complaint of 10 October. It said:
1. The fly infestation had been reported to pest control, that said there were drain flies, usually present when there was an issue with a drain.
2. Someone attended the property on 25 October 2019 and it noted, “tenant does not have any problems with drain flies any more but would like tarmac around the manhole filled.”
3. It also arranged for the ducting to be inspected on 29 October 2019; but, no issues were found.
4. Someone from Estate Services and the Drainage Team, visited and inspected the property and the feedback was that there was nothing wrong with the drains.
5. In term of damaged tarmac around the manhole cover, it said although this was outside the remit of the Customer Service Team, to let it know if there was a delay to that repair.
The resident requested a review of the complaint on the same day. On 26 November 2019, the landlord said:
1. No defects had been found on inspection, other than a tarmac repair – which it would be completing.
2. It would therefore not refund money the resident spent on a private treatment and no further action would be taken by the Responsive Repairs Team. In its view it had made reasonable attempts to address the issues raised and until such time that it could be clearly confirmed what repair was required, there was not more that it could assist her with.
3. She had reached the end of its complaints procedure but could ask for a Chief Executive review.
On 15 June 2020, the resident reported lots of flies, and a job was raised to inspect the drains. On 17 June 2020, following an inspection, the landlord noted, “no blockages found checked all drains in area plus used disinfectant on area”.
On 30 July 2020, the landlord raised a job for pest proofing works. However, it is unclear what these related to. On 5 August 2020, someone visited the property and the notes say, “Lifted cover to communal heating pipes and found large amounts of rat waste. Recommend for… smoke test to void area as suspect flies maybe entering this way”. It is unclear what action was taken following the visit.
The resident complained about the fly issue with the landlord again, on 29 October 2020. She said:
1. The fly problem had been ongoing since September 2019 and it was still an issue.
2. Pest control had only visited once and every suggestion had already been carried out.
3. She had had to make lots of telephone calls to difference departments.
4. She had paid a private pest control company to treat areas inside and outside the property, which she should not have had to do.
5. The issue began once building work started for new homes.
6. She had taped up drain holes in sinks and put plugs in to try and stop flies getting in.
The landlord’s carried out a visit on 17 November 2020 and it noted there was no obvious problem in relation to flies.
On 18 November 2020, the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint dated 29 October 2020, about flies in the property. It made the following points:
1. Work to a manhole cover was completed on 23 December 2019.
2. A works order was issued on 12 November 2020, for someone to attend the property on 17 November to investigate the fly issue. Not many live flies were found, but there were several dead flies, and a neighbouring property had flies in the window.
3. An appointment was to be made for the neighbouring property to check if that was the source of the flies and it said it would endeavour to update the resident. It went on to say, “I am sorry to advise that the Repairs Team have yet to confirm a date, however I have chased them for an update.”
4. The landlord accepted there had been a lack of communication, and accepted there was a problem. In recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident, it said it would pay her £100, for the length of time the problem had been going on for. It accepted it had not considered the flies as a pest until recently.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord reviewed its stage one response from November 2020. It said, a works order was issued on 12 November 2020, for someone to attend the property and inspect the issue of flies in the kitchen and bathroom. It said there were not many live flies, but there were dead ones, and a neighbouring property had flies in the window. It said it would chase the Repairs Team for an update in relation to the action it was taking. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 June 2021 to complain that “gnats, drain flies and apparently some kind of red flying ants keep coming up the drains into my property”, and that this had been the case since 2019.
An internal email between landlord staff, dated 21 June 2021, referred to the fly issue being closed down in December, as there were no flies at that time; however, it asked that the fly issue now be reinvestigated. The following day, the landlord told the resident, the fly issue had been referred to the Home and Communities Team.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident about a separate matter. However, within its correspondence, the landlord also acknowledged a complaint about the fly infestation. It said the engineering section did not deal with that, but it had referred the complaint to the relevant department.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord attended the property and the drain was cleared.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 August 2021, to raise a further complaint. She said:
1. There had been damp issues, lack of ventilation, black mould and there was “a black circular thing in the kitchen ceiling with a wire hanging out of it”. A job had been raised in relation to this, but nobody showed up.
2. The configuration of the kitchen was wrong as the fridge was directly next to the cooker. She expressed concern that this was “not to code”.
3. The issue with the flies was also continuing.
The resident chased a response on 4, 7 and 9 September, and asked about progress in terms of getting a report from a visit to the flat above hers, which was leaking toilet water and causing mould in her kitchen. She said it was unsanitary and was getting worse and pointed out that she had asthma and was a singer/actor in theatre and was worried it could be affecting her lungs. Within those emails, she also complained about the person that had inspected her property. She said they had referred to there being cobwebs on the ceiling and this was not true.
In response the landlord arranged for the leak to be investigated. It also noted that the resident had raised concerns about flies previously, but that it needed to be explored further as the situation as persisting.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. On 25 August 2021, the resident reported various problems within the property and a works order was issued so an inspection could take place.
2. The resident complained no one attended the appointment on 31 August 2021; however, the landlord said although a Charge-Hand did not attend in the morning, they did attend in the afternoon. The inspection found:
  1. There was mould in the corner of the kitchen and on the ceiling, which needed to be washed down, treated and painted.
  2. The resident had asked for a fan in the kitchen as she could not open windows due to flies.
  3. Items hanging from the ceilings were cobwebs; however, as the resident didn’t agree with that, a second inspection on 20 September 2021, was arranged. The landlord was waiting for the outcome of that and would follow up with the repairs team.
1. The repair to treat mould in the home, was cancelled until the resident of a neighbouring property carried out the repairs in their home. The landlord said it had referred this to the Homes and Communities Team and asked that it contact the owner of the property above and ensure that they provide proof of the repair that they carry out. It said it would also follow up with the Repairs Team to track the progression of the repair and ensure that the mould treatment works were carried out as soon as possible.
1. It upheld the complaint, as repairs remained outstanding. It said notes on repairs had not been kept well, so it was difficult to know the status of repairs. It apologised for the failings and the inconvenience caused to the resident. It added that while the resident had raised complaints in relation to repairs, the matter had not been escalated appropriately. It was therefore necessary to chase up the repairs, and it would do so accordingly. In recognition of the inconvenience to the resident, it would credit £125 to her rent account. This was made up of:
  1. £50 for the failure to follow up outstanding repairs.
  2. £25 for delays.
  3. £25 for the time and effort to complain.
  4. £25 for the inconvenience caused.
The landlord arranged for the owner of the property above (the leaseholder) to be contacted to tell them about a leak at the property above the resident’s, asking them to carry out repairs to prevent dampness and mould. It asked for photographs to show completed repairs. It also noted an appointment had been made with them for 12 October 2021, to fix the leak on the 4” soil pipe, and that the fly issue was probably caused by the collapsed manhole and drain right outside her front door , which was being excavated and renewed.
On 22 September 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter. She said it was not owner of the property above that she was waiting on, it was the landlord that needed to fix the stack pipe as that was where the problem was coming from. She also said there was a separate complaint about ventilation as the issue with the window pane affected the main room, although there were ventilation issues with the kitchen also.
The landlord acknowledged the additional information provided by the resident, the same day.
On 12 October 2021, the landlord’s records state a plumber did attend the property and disconnected the electrics and made safe where the leak was. A survey was also carried out to see if an extractor fan could be fitted in the kitchen. The landlord’s records also show that on 21 October 2021, someone attended the property to paint the kitchen ceiling and walls.
In November, the resident contacted this service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. Further correspondence was exchanged between the landlord and the resident, and it confirmed that it would issue a formal response. During this exchange, the resident expressed concern that she had received the same letter with different dates on it in September.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with its stage two response to her concerns. It said her email dated 22 September 2021 had not asked for her complaint to be escalated, but as it had been informed by this Service that she remained unhappy, it responded as follows:
1. In relation to the stack pipe, it apologised for being unable to provide a response sooner due to staff resources. It awarded the resident £75 compensation to recognise the delay.
2. It confirmed the repair of the leak on the cast iron downpipe (stack) was completed on 12 October 2021, and the making good remedial redecoration works were completed in December 2021.
3. The landlord explained this complaint did not relate to heating issues, it said, it was about dampness, mould, flies and the kitchen. It noted drainage work had been completed, so there should have been an improvement in terms of flies. That the drain flies had probably been caused by the collapsed manhole outside the property. It awarded the resident, £250 towards the costs she incurred to rid her home of the drain flies. This amounted to a payment of £325, which including the compensation awarded at stage one of £125 brought the total compensation awarded to £450.
4. It concluded by adding, that it noted there was a works order to install an extractor fan in the kitchen window for better ventilation, and it had asked the Repairs Team to ensure that the repair was progressed.
The same day, the resident contacted the landlord, and sought clarification on the offer of compensation. She asked if the offer related to only the “damp, fly, kitchen etc issues only”. She also mentioned she had contacted the Repairs team that day due to mould in the main living space, and poor insulation, as there was a draught above her bed. She said she had seen stones packed in the wall rather than bricks.
The landlord responded the same day and confirmed the compensation was not related to the resident’s other complaints about heating and/or hot water. It went on to say, when leaks occur from leasehold properties it was generally not responsible for the repair, unless it was in a communal area. However, the owner of the property from where the leak seemed to be emanating, was informed to carry out a repair and there was an escalation process if the leak continued.
The resident emailed on 15 January 2022, and asked for payment of the complaint settlement figure, to be paid to her. She also explained that in February, she was due to have a surveyor visit regarding the mould and insulation issues.
On 17 January 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it had forwarded her payment request for processing and she could expect to receive it within two to six weeks. As for her enquiry, she was advised to report it and ask for it to be referred to a manager.
The resident emailed the landlord the same day, and said the issues had been mentioned before in her complaints, and she wanted the matter referred to a team leader. The landlord responded and confirmed her query had been passed to the Repairs team. She was signposted to how to contact that team.
On 27 January 2022, someone attended the property to fit a window with a small hole for a fan. It is noted that the job was also to include the fitting of a kitchen fan.
On 1 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said the works to install the an extractor fan in the kitchen window took place on 27 January, but were left incomplete. The resident said she had chased the matter, and cancelled a teaching job to facilitate access that day. However, nobody attended. She wished for this to be added to her complaint.
The landlord paid the resident £325, on 3 February 2022, as it had promised in its 14 January 2022 response to the complaint.
The landlord’s job records show that on 11 February 2022, an extractor fan was reviewed and corrected in the kitchen.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 23 February 2022 in response to the resident’s complaint of 1 February. It said it did not uphold the complaint. It said a works order was issued on 31 January 2022 for an electrician to inspect a fan and carry out the required works. An operative attended on 11 February 2022 and rewired the fan in the kitchen. It could not identify any service failures by the repairs team as the works were carried out with the allocated time frame.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 April 2022, and said even though the ceiling in the kitchen was treated in December 2021, there were mushrooms growing back. That there was water damage from the stack pipe and condensation on the wall. On 16 April 2022, the resident sent the landlord photographs of the leak in her kitchen, to show the impact over the course of a week.
On 18 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, in response to her complaint. It said her concerns had been considered before and it had resulted in a works order being issued on 18 February 2022. The following works were to be carried out:
1. Hallway- overhaul front entrance door and frame. Piece in missing sections of frame.
2. Bathroom- extend bath splashback to ceiling height.
3. Kitchen- remove tray unit on right hand side of the cooker, reposition cooker and install tray unit between cooker and fridge freezer.
4. Main room- remove redundant vent on the right-hand side and make good wall.
5. Main room- treat rear wall with bactdet and halophen as per manufacturer specification 8 meters square.
6. Main room – refix PVCU windows sills.
The landlord said an appointment had been scheduled for 23 May 2022 as well as other work to be carried out, the same operative would address the mould wash works in the main room.
The landlord concluded by saying the vent would not be blocked as recommended by the surveyor, as this would contribute to an increase in the growth of mould and damp in the property. The vent cover would be replaced with an open and close vent to help the resident control the draught. An appointment was booked to fit the vent cover on 6 May 2022. The complaint overall was upheld, and the landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out works. It said the repairs team would monitor the works to ensure that they were completed in a timely manner. The landlord said a job had already been raised for the leaking stack pipe, but its records showed the job had been cancelled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 April 2022 and said there was still a stack pipe leak issue which had resulted in mushrooms growing back through the ceiling (of her kitchen). She also mentioned she had made herself available for appointments, for no reason, and as she was self-employed, she had missed teaching work.
On 3 and 4 May 2022, the resident chased the landlord for a response. She commented that she had been unable to contact anyone by telephone. The landlord emailed the resident the same day and having acknowledged the email, it sent a further response and apologised for any delay and inconvenience caused.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 6 May 2022. She said:
1. Someone attended her property, but they had not been told of the specific vent needed, so it had been a “wasted day”.
2. It was the third call out in two months for the same job.
3. The communication between departments was poor, and that she had been given the wrong email address for the major works department.
4. She was waiting for the stack pipe work to be done, and was unhappy at how long she was spending chasing the landlord.
5. She wanted to speak with someone from the rehousing team, as it was a breach of her tenancy.
The landlord offered an apology the next day; and on 9 May the resident advised that she was still waiting for a response to the repairs issues. The resident contacted this service again, and we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint in the circumstances.
On 12 May 2022, the landlord emailed the Ombudsman and said it was treating it as a stage two complaint. It said it was unable to respond within 20 working days, and would send the resident a holding letter explaining this. The landlord also wrote to the resident on the same day confirming that the complaint would be escalated, but that it not received any prior requests for escalation. It added that a formal acknowledgment letter would be sent when the investigation began.
The landlord’s records show that work was carried out at the property on 17 June 2022, in relation to removing a redundant vent at the property.
Following the report of a further leak in April, the landlord created a job on 20 June 2022, which was cancelled on 26 June, as it was allocated to the wrong team. A new job was issued on 23 June and someone attended the property on 7 July 2022. It is recorded that in a cupboard in the neighbouring flat, there was a hole in a four inch plastic pipe and this was directly above the resident’s property. The repair was then logged and the repair is recorded as being completed on 15 July 2022.
On 1 September 2022, the landlord sent a Chief Executive complaint response, to the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, and it offered £75 compensation to recognise that. It went on to state that her complaint was:
1. The dampness had returned very quickly therefore the resident believed the remedial works referred to in the response, were not effective.
2. The landlord had not taken overall responsibility for her kitchen and not met regulations. The email address given for the Major Works team in the response did not work.
3. The resident had had a surveyor attend since the response and five appointments had since then been completed but no works had been done.
4. The resident felt that the compensation offered in the response did not adequately reflect the inconvenience she had suffered.
The landlord said:
1. It was sorry to learn of the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of matters; and acknowledged the issues had been going on for some time.
2. In terms of previous complaints:
  1. One in October 2019 related to a faulty window and damp and mould in bathroom. This was not upheld.
  2. One in December 2020 concerned fly Infestation and heating and hot water issues. This was partly upheld as there were instances of delay and it awarded £100 compensation.
3. In relation to the current complaint:
  1. Windows were replaced on 14 April 2021 following a report on 25 February 2021 of condensation between windowpanes and initial inspection on 4 March 2021.
  2. Following the resident’s report on 25 August 2021 a Charge Hand was booked to visit on the 31 August 2021. Due to an administrative error the Charge Hand was not informed, and the resident chased the matter. They were able to attend that same afternoon.
  3. The Charge Hand recommended a mould wash and paint with a rub-down and paint of a ceiling.
  4. On discussion the resident confirmed she wanted a kitchen fan because did not open windows due to a fly issue related to a blocked manhole which was being cleared by the council’s drainage contractor.
  5. The Charge Hand said it was cobwebs handing from the ceilings. The resident disagreed and believed them to be exposed wires. As such, a second inspection was raised for 20 September 2021.
  6. The mould wash was cancelled until a neighbour completed repairs in their home, which was to be progressed via Homes and Communities Team.
  7. Regarding the fridge and freezer, the resident was referred to Major Works who manage cyclical repairs/refurbishment of council blocks.
  8. The complaint was upheld because of outstanding repairs; and £125 compensation was awarded.
In relation to the fly issue, the landlord referred to its response in December 2020. It reiterated the history of the complaint and said following a smoke test on 1 September 2020, the pipes were not considered the source of flies entering properties. It acknowledged other properties had dead flies and the complaint had been partially upheld and she had been offered £100 compensation.
The landlord also mentioned the resident had raised further issues, that an operative turned up three times at 3pm which was insufficient time for them to complete all tasks. In addition, operatives twice hung up on her and on 20 June 2022 she received a last-minute call cancelling a Friday appointment.
The landlord sent out a chronology of the actions it had taken between May and August 2022, to the resident. The landlord went on to say:
1. Two new non-standard vents, to be specially made, were ready to be installed on the 11 October 2022.
2. It acknowledged the resident had had to deal with multiple repairs and trade persons, involving different departments, over several years which had been stressful and at times inconvenient. It acknowledged and apologised these matters were made worse due to missed appointments or insufficient time allowed for appointments, wrong trades booked, and dropped calls. However, it said matters had been complicated with overlapping complaints, new issues raised, and multiple departments involved.
3. It apologised for giving an incorrect email address for the Major Works team.
4. The resident’s main escalation reason was that she felt the £450 compensation award was insufficient. It said she had received a cheque payment for £325 and £125 was paid to her rent account. It found this award was appropriate.
5. However, in relation to repairs since February 2022 the landlord accepted these had not been progressed in a timely manner and it acknowledged the resident had experienced further time, trouble, and inconvenience for which it sincerely apologised. It went on to award a further £200 for time and trouble and delay, bringing the total compensation awarded to £650. This amounted to an additional £200 compensation for additional inconvenience and another £75 for the late response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2022, and provided her bank details. She said all her issues were separate and she awaited a response to her then current questions.
On 11 October 2022, the landlord’s job records show it completed work on replacing air vents at the property.
On 12 October 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, and said:
1. She had been waiting for the stack pipe and roof to be fixed before the mould/mushrooms in her property, would be treated.
2. Someone was at her property treating the rear wall but nothing was happening in the kitchen, as she was told it would be.
3. She had called the landlord but the staff did not know what she was referring to and she had been told another survey was needed.
4. She was having to explain the issues again, and she did not believe that she should have to constantly chase for the work to be done, as it was stressful.
5. She wanted to know why there was no note on the system referring to mushroom re-growth, when the same issue was treated in December 2021.
6. she believed that the issue had returned as the stack pipe was still damaged. She was confused as to why this seemed to “slip through the cracks”.
The resident sent a further email the same day, and said an appointment had been scheduled, but nobody had turned up. The resident expressed dissatisfaction and stated that her time had been wasted. It is unclear what transpired following this.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement and relevant statute

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimizing potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure properties are free of category one hazards for damp and mould this means taking preventative measures that could have a significant effect on likelihood and harm outcomes relating to moisture production and ventilation including damp proof courses and ensuring that the external fabric of the building is kept in good repair and that the roof and under floor spaces are well-ventilated to ensure timber remains air dry.
The landlord’s Conditions of Tenancy also says it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including the internal structure. It says the resident must tell the council, as soon as possible about any problem that it is responsible for repairing. It goes on to say, “Where there is outstanding disrepair at the property for which the landlord is responsible, you must give the landlord notice of the disrepair as soon as possible by reporting the disrepair to the council or Partners for Improvement in Islington where applicable”.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide confirms it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property, in repair. The resident is responsible for maintaining and repairing the inside of the property. It also says, “Due to the complexity of some types of repair on occasion it may be necessary for a Diagnostic Surveyor/Gas Quality Assurance Inspector to visit your home. During the visit they will either: carry out a survey to diagnose the cause of a defect or problem and raise the necessary works to rectify the issue or complete a post inspection following works. You will be advised when a survey is needed and it will attempt to complete the survey within 10 working days. Post inspections may be carried out up to 20 working days following our completion of repairs or servicing works.”
In respect of damp and mould, the landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide says that sometimes damp problems in the home are the result of a leak or water penetration from outside the property, for example a blocked gutter causes overflowing rain water to make an internal wall damp and mouldy. The landlord is responsible for water leaks and water penetration issues affecting the resident’s home.
In relation to repairs, it says emergency repairs are where there is an immediate danger to a person or risk of serious ongoing damage to the property. There is a two hour response time for emergency repairs. Repairs that “affect a tenant’s day to day living” are categorised as “urgent” and have a response time of 24 hours. For routine / non-urgent repairs, the landlord will attend on the next available appointment, within 20 working days and some jobs may need an inspection first.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, sets out how it will deal with complaints. The landlord operates a two stage procedure. At stage one, the policy states that “the first stage and first stage review is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated”. The second stage is the Chief Executive stage which is handled by the landlord’s corporate central complaints team.
In terms of timescales, the policy states that a complaint should be acknowledged within three calendar days, and a response should be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt of the complaint. If the complainant requests the escalation of their complaint, it can be dealt with as a stage one review. Once a stage one response and a stage one review has been completed, and if the complainant remains unhappy, the matter will be referred to the corporate central complaints team so that a review of the complaint can take place. A full response should then be issued within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide also says the landlord aims to be impartial in dealing with complaints and aims to improve service standards by being customer focused to ensure that delays are minimised and customer satisfaction becomes an achievable outcome. It says it aims to:
1. “Learn from the situations when we have paid compensation and take steps to reduce the risk of them happening again.
2. Ensure the size of payments are kept to fair and reasonable levels.
3. Offer other sources of redress when appropriate.
4. Provide training to relevant staff in carrying out this policy and related procedures.
5. Record details of the types of claims so that we can identify service areas where improvements are needed.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that the landlord can award between £100 and £300 for “time and trouble”. It can award £25 for each month there is a delay in service. For “severe or prolonged” distress the landlord can award up to £1000.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to leaks and damp at the property and the subsequent repairs.

In correspondence to both the landlord and this Service, the resident has advised that the damp and mould has been difficult to deal with, due to her medical problems. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident 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. While 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 resident reported a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling in August 2021, which she said was an issue with the property above hers, leaking water from their bathroom. The evidence shows the landlord took steps to contact the leaseholder about that, and the resident has confirmed this issue was resolved. However, there was still an issue with a leak from the stack pipe, and this also led to water leaking through her ceiling and creating mushrooms/fungus on her ceiling.
Upon inspection, the landlord noted a circle had appeared on the ceiling in the resident’s property and there was evidently confusion as to what that was. There was a report of a ‘wire’ coming from the ceiling, and it was also noted it could be a cobweb. However, the resident has said it was not a cobweb; rather, it was the start of fungus/mushrooms developing on the ceiling, and this went on to develop fully.
In September 2021, the landlord acknowledged its notes had not been kept well, so it was difficult to know the status of repairs. It said it would ensure it followed up and escalated the issues complained of, but accepted in January 2022, that it had not done that.
The landlord said the leak on the downpipe (stack) was repaired on 12 October 2021 and redecoration works were completed in December 2021, but the resident has told the Ombudsman that the issue was only resolved temporarily. This may not have been the same issue recurring; but, that the resident was affected by a further ingress of water which was traced back to the stack.
The landlord’s records show a hole in a four inch pipe was fixed in July 2022 and the resident has confirmed the leak was fixed, and a further wash/redecoration treatment was carried out. However, there was clearly an unreasonable delay between the report being made in April and the repair being undertaken in July.
The onus was on the landlord to resolve the issues and minimise any delays, and in the Ombudsman’s view, when it was presented with a report of damp and mould, it would have been reasonable for it to have dealt with it as a matter of urgency in order to identify, resolve, and prevent damp and mould from entering the property; or certainly, not getting any worse. It is highlighted in this Service’s damp and mould spotlight report (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published October 2021 and available on this Service’s website) that landlords must take a proactive and urgent approach to reports of this issue.
The landlord accepted it had failed to communicate with the resident as it had promised. The landlord advised that it had logged the report in April 2022 under a particular reference number. However, the repair logs provided to this service do not refer to such a job. It is unclear why there is no reference to the repair; however, the absence of information relating to the repair is evidence of poor record keeping. It is noted that the landlord had previously acknowledged that its record keeping had fallen short. Given that this had already been identified as an issue, it is unclear why the landlord did not take more care in maintaining a clear audit trail in relation to jobs raised. In addition, although the leak was fixed in July, the landlord’s records show the work was initially scheduled for June 2022; but the job was cancelled as it was with the wrong team. Therefore, the repair took longer than 20 working days to fix.
The resident has explained that the water coming through the ceiling in the kitchen, led to her not being able to use the light and she had to chase the landlord to get the work done. She is also unhappy with the communication from the landlord; not only because she had to chase for action to be taken, but because there was a lack of communication between the different departments, and she was also referred to different teams.
This Service considers that landlords need to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp as set out in the Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). That was not the case here. The evidence does show the resident was referred to different teams in general, and that appointments were either missed, cancelled late, or someone attended but could not finish the job. The resident says she is self-employed, so taking time off for appointments would have meant she was inevitably inconvenienced. In addition, she was given the incorrect email address for the Major Works team, did not receive prompt updates as promised by the landlord, and the leak took longer than it should, to be resolved. The evidence actually shows that the landlord was generally reactive throughout, rather than proactive, as on the whole, it provided updates or information, when prompted to do so, having been contacted by the resident, or this Service.
The resident has also said that although the issue with the stack pipe has been fixed, there is still an issue with damp in the kitchen. She says there is damp behind tiles and there is a wall without any bricks behind it. Something she complained about to the landlord on 14 January and 10 April 2022, but the landlord did not adequately address this point, and it is an issue that is still outstanding. She says she has experienced slugs coming through the walls as a result. While the leak from the ceiling seems to have been fixed, the evidence suggests the further investigations are required.
The landlord, in September 2022, acknowledged there had been further delays in repairs (although not just in relation to the leak), from February 2022, and offered further compensation of £200 for that. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
There is an overlap with some of the compensation offered by the landlord, being paid for general delays and inconvenience, but the amount of compensation paid to date in recognition of delays and inconvenience relating to the leak, is very modest. It failed to consider the resident’s individual circumstances, and did not then go on to learn from its mistakes. It is not easy to ascertain from the information provided, how many appointments were missed or cancelled to specifically deal with the leak.
The resident has commented that she is self-employed and had to take time off work for appointments. No evidence has been provided by the resident to substantiate a financial loss; so it is not possible to know whether she lost out financially as a result of the landlord’s actions, as she claims. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their additional costs, time off work or loss of wages whilst repairs are carried out. However, it is accepted the leak caused difficulties for the resident, not being able to use her kitchen light. Having damp and mould on the ceiling for several months (August – October 2021 and April – October 2022), would have inevitably affected her enjoyment of the property. There was certainly a total of eight months delay on the landlord’s part, in fully addressing this issue.
The landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide says the landlord aims to “learn from the situations when we have paid compensation and take steps to reduce the risk of them happening again and record details of the types of claims so that we can identify service areas where improvements are needed.” It did not do that here. It had already investigated a report of damp and mould in the past; so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up with the resident after the initial leak occurred, to check whether there were any further problems.
As it was, in April 2022, when the resident reported regrowth of mushrooms and mould in the kitchen, this was not addressed. Although somebody is reported to have fixed the stack pipe in July 2022, the resident had to remind the landlord in October 2022, that it had overlooked the treatment of mushrooms/mould at the property. In addition, the resident made the landlord aware that she believes that there is damp in the property, and that it is exacerbating her health conditions. Despite this, the landlord has failed to take action to investigate the matter further.
The landlord’s poor record keeping, in terms of its repairs, has contributed to the distress and inconvenience the resident has suffered, as she was not kept as up to date, as she should have been; which, the landlord has accepted. The resident was also inconvenienced by staying in for appointments when either no-one arrived or work could not be completed. This inevitably would have added to the frustration and upset she was experiencing. Something the landlord could have avoided, had it kept proper records, and ensured someone actively managed the case, to ensure all repairs were carried out within a reasonable time, and that the resident was liaised with.
There has been an ongoing damp issue, and the landlord did not adequately consider the effect on the resident; especially as she had health issues that could have been negatively affected. The evidence to this Service does not demonstrate that the landlord has taken the full circumstances relating to the complaint into consideration. As such, its offer is not proportionate in the circumstances. Therefore, it is reasonable to increase the level of compensation, to recognise that this issue has gone on far too long, and has been difficult for the resident to not only deal with, but to live with.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for ventilation at the property.

The issue of ventilation was raised by the resident in August and September 2021, and addressed by the landlord in its complaint response dated 21 September 2021. The evidence indicates the initial request for air vents was as a result of there being an issue with flies at the property, which meant the windows could not be left open. However, there was a general issue with a lack of ventilation at the property, which needed to be resolved; especially, due to leaks at the property, causing damp and mould, and causing the resident concern for her health.
A job was recorded on 19 October 2021, which was to install an extractor fan. However, the landlord’s letter to the resident dated 14 January 2022 noted that remained outstanding and it said the Repairs team had been asked to ensure it was progressed. The landlord’s records show someone attended the property on 27 January 2022, when a window was fitted with a hole for a fan to be fitted; however, the job could not be completed. Although this Service has seen no evidence of the resident being told someone would complete the job on 1 February, the resident did complain that day, that no one had shown up to finish the work.
The landlord did not uphold the complaint because it said a job had been logged on 31 January 2022 and the work was completed on 11 February; therefore, within its 20 working day allocated time frame to complete the work. However, it failed to take in to account, that it was in its stage one response in September 2021, when the job was first raised. It arranged for a survey to be done on 12 October but then failed to take action until the resident escalated her complaint with this Service. This prompted the landlord to send a response to that complaint on 14 January 2022. It said work was planned; however, the job was then not logged until 31 January, and fully completed until 11 February 2022. It took five months (from September 2021 to February 2022), for the extractor fan to be fitted. Having had the survey done on 12 October 2021, the work should have reasonably been completed by November, in line with the landlord’s repair timescales. There was a three–month delay in completing the repair, and the evidence does not show that this was unavoidable. As such, the resident should be compensated for, at £25 a month, in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Guidance.
An internal email from the landlord dated 4 April 2022, refers to a contractor attending the property; however, the contractor could not deal with the other ventilation work. It mentioned the resident had reported that the Repairs Team had attended the property three times that year regarding this matter, and on all three occasions the operative who was sent was unable to action the job, but reassured the resident, a report would be written up and a further appointment scheduled.
The landlord arranged for the vent cover to be fitted on 6 May 2022. However, the resident informed the landlord that day, that the person who came to the property to do the vent work, had not been told about the vent needed. As a result, it was another wasted day for the resident. She said it was the third call out in two months for the same job.
The landlord did apologise again on 1 September 2022, for the delay in dealing with the reports, and any inconvenience caused. However, the resident was unhappy with the number of visits and the work not being completed, resulting in days off work. The landlord noted that on 23 May 2022, a redundant vent was removed, and on 2 July two new vents were needed. The landlord then said these would be fitted on 11 October 2022.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were missed appointments, insufficient time booked for appointments, wrong trades booked and dropped calls. However, it advised that the situation had been made more complex by “overlapping complaints and new issues”. The air vents were fitted on 11 October 2022, according to the landlord’s records, and the resident has also confirmed the work was done. However, it took over a year for the air vents in the resident’s property to be installed, and throughout that period, the resident had to chase for updates, appointments were not adhered to, and all of this clearly added to the resident’s frustration. It also took several months for the extractor fan to be fitted.
The landlord was aware there was already aware of a leak and mould at the property, and the resident had also made it aware of her health concerns. Therefore, it was important the landlord took steps to address the ventilation at the property, promptly. It failed to do that, so did not comply with HHSRS, and it did not ensure the work was done in line with its Housing Repairs Policy.
Aside from its comment that repairs had been delayed from February 2022, and its general offers of £125 initially and then £200 compensation later, to recognise that, there was no specific compensation offered to the resident, to remedy the delays in the ventilation work or recognition of how the issues were likely affecting the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view, there should be additional compensation offered to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as a result of the ventilation issue taking so long to resolve as well as the three–month delay in the installation of the extractor fan.

The landlord’s handling of a fly infestation at the property

Having reported an issue with flies getting in to the property, in October 2019, the landlord did arrange for a pest control company to attend and inspect the property promptly. Other than repairing some tarmac around a manhole cover, no other defects were found, as such it was not unreasonable that no further action was taken at that time.
The resident reported further issues with flies in the summer of 2020, and following a visit on 5 August 2020, it was noted that there was a large amount of rat waste in the communal heating pipes; and that may have been the source of the flies. A smoke test was then recommended. No evidence was provided, of the landlord carrying out a smoke test; however, it states one took place on 1 September 2020, and no smoke entered the property. It concluded therefore, that the heating pipes were not causing the fly issue.
The landlord could have certainly been more proactive, in terms of addressing the fly infestation. It did not then explore other possibilities, until the resident made another complaint in October 2020. Even then, when the landlord noted a fly issue with the neighbouring property and paid the resident £100 compensation, while promising to update her on its investigations, it seems to have not taken any further action. Instead, it apparently closed the job down in December 2020, until the resident raised the issue once again in June 2021.
The resident was left to continually raise the fly infestation issue with the landlord, until it was resolved, around September 2021, when a manhole cover and drain was excavated outside her front door. It was only when the resident complained about other issues, that on 14 January 2022, the landlord referred to how the fly issue had probably been caused by the collapsed manhole and drain. It then said it would pay the resident a further £250, towards the costs she incurred in her efforts to rid her home of the drain flies.
The landlord missed an opportunity to try and put things right, earlier than January 2022. Having had the fly issue reported again in 2020, and then saying it would update the resident in December 2020, it failed to do that. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord having corresponded with the resident about the problem, until she raised the issue again in June 2021. It did remedial work in September 2021. It would have been reasonable for it to have checked with the resident whether that resolved the problem. It could have then reviewed the matter of compensation at that point, to recognise the inconvenience caused over a two year period; albeit it that the fly issue seemed to be seasonal. Instead, it only offered additional compensation, when the resident complained about other issues, later.
The landlord has paid the resident a total of £350 compensation, in recognition of the impact the fly infestation had on her, the fact she took action privately to try and deal with the flies, and due to it not having dealt with it, as effectively as it could have. The problem went on for about two years and based on when the resident made reports, it seems the summer months were when she was worst affected. The compensation offered goes someway to recognising the impact on the resident, but the landlord’s response to this issue did not acknowledge that it failed to regularly update the resident. Its communication was poor and it did not take a proactive stance, in trying to resolve the issue. It only took action when prompted by the resident reporting further issues, even when it knew no solution had been found.
Taking all this into account, in addition to the £350 already paid to the resident, the landlord should pay a further £150 compensation to the resident; thereby increasing its overall compensation for dealing with the fly issue, to £500.

Handling of the resident’s queries regarding the layout of the kitchen.

Within her complaint correspondence the resident has expressed concern about the layout of the kitchen. She has advised that since 2014 she has had five fridges. She believes that they broke because they were located next to the cooker, and that the kitchen was not “to code”.
The Housing, Health and Safety Rating System assesses hazards in a property, and there is nothing within that to suggest that cookers should not be near fridges. Therefore, the landlord was not obligated to change the layout of the kitchen in response to the resident’s request.
Having said that, the landlord took reasonable steps by installing a tray unit between cooker and fridge freezer. It also referred the resident to the Major Works team, in order for it to consider any changes that could be made to the layout of the kitchen as part of its continuing works/refurbishment. However, the landlord did accept that it provided the resident with the incorrect email address for the Major Works team; therefore, this resulted in some minor delay, which could have been avoided. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the error, once it was brought to its attention. However, given the delay it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered some compensation for the inconvenience that was caused to the resident. The Ombudsman has made an order accordingly.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident initially complained to the landlord on 10 October 2019, and it issued a response on 31 October 2019; within the 21 day period its Complaint’s Policy allowed for. The Complaints Policy, said a stage one response could be reviewed, if requested, and a review took place on 26 November 2019. The resident complained again on 29 October 2020 and due to the time that had passed, it was recorded as a stage one complaint again. A response was sent on 18 November 2020, and £100 compensation was offered. A review of this response then took place on 9 December 2020. It was here, that the landlord said it would update the resident with its planned works; however, no evidence has been provided that it did comply with its promise.
This led to the resident complaining to the landlord again on 21 June 2021, and a response was sent promptly on 23 June 2021. However, the resident went on to complain further on 31 August 2021, and followed this up with additional emails on 4, 7 and 9 September. The complaint contained several issues, and these included damp and mould on the kitchen ceiling and a lack of ventilation. The landlord’s stage one response was sent on 21 September 2021; which was in line with its Complaints Policy. The complaint was upheld, and £125 compensation was paid to the resident, via her renter’s account.
The resident did respond to the landlord the following day, but she did not ask explicitly for her complaint to be escalated. Rather, she elaborated on the complaint she had made. Section 5.9 of the Code says, “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies.” In the circumstances therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have escalated the complaint to stage two or sought clarification from the resident, on whether that is what she wanted. It was only having contacted this Service that the landlord noted the resident remained unhappy, so it certainly should have escalated the complaint at that point. The resident was then advised on 8 November, that the landlord had said it would consider her complaint at stage two, week ending 17 December 2021.
Having been aware by November 2021, that the resident remained unhappy, the landlord did not send a letter to the resident acknowledging the complaint at the next stage, until 12 January 2022. It did apologise for the delay and sent a full response at stage two, on 14 January 2022; however, this was a month later than it should have done. Having not provided a response in line with its Complaints Policy or within the timeframe it said, it mismanaged the resident’s expectations, causing her detriment as a result. It said it was going to pay the resident £75 compensation for having delayed responding to her concerns.
It is noted that the landlord also offered £75 compensation in other complaints considered around this time, where there were delays in providing a stage two response. It is noted that this sum was offered for differing periods of delay. This indicates that rather than giving due consideration to its compensation guidance and the individual circumstances of the complaint, the landlord may have fettered its discretion and applied a set level of compensation for delays at stage two. A relevant order has been made to the landlord in this matter.
The resident added to her complaint on 1 February 2022, as she wanted to specifically complain about contractors not completing work to insert an extractor fan in a window, and having taken time off work to be in for that appointment. In a response dated 23 February, the landlord did not uphold the complaint, as it said the job had been logged on 31 January and the work was completed on 11 February 2022. However, it did not address the resident’s concern about having to take time off work, in order to wait in for a job to be done, which was not initially completed.
Having advised the landlord that the leak had returned on 10 April 2022, the resident made it clear on 6 May that she was unhappy with how long things were taking and she said the landlord’s actions were a breach of the tenancy. The following day, the landlord apologised that the level of service had not met the resident’s expectation and for the inconvenience this caused. The resident chased for the repairs to be done, on 9 May.
It was after the resident contacted this Service again on 11 May 2022, the Ombudsman escalated the resident’s complaint to the landlord, the same day. The following day it emailed the Ombudsman and said it was treating it as a stage two complaint. It added that it would not be able to respond within 20 working days, but that it would notify the resident of this accordingly.
The landlord then sent a response to the resident the same day, on 12 May 2022, noting she wanted her complaint escalating to the next stage. It stated it had not received a request prior to this, but would send a formal acknowledgement letter when the investigation began. The letter did not explain that a response could not be given within 20 working days, as the landlord said it would. Therefore, the landlord did not do as it said it would, and the resident’s expectations as to when a response would be sent, were again, not properly managed.
The landlord did not send its response to the complaint until 1 September 2022. Around 84 working days after the complaint was made. While the landlord referred to this as stage two, it had previously sent a stage two response. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, and it offered a further £75 compensation to recognise that. The same amount that it had offered previously; indicating it was a predetermined amount; again, with no evidence of it having considered the individual circumstances of the complaint/resident. As well as addressing the issues that had been raised previously, that remained unresolved, it mentioned new issues had also been raised.
The landlord should not have referred to the complaint being at stage two again, as this was confusing. Any new issues would have been better recorded separately and noted as being at stage one. The landlord did seek to address each of the issues put to it by the resident and it also recognised its failings and apologised for them several times. This is certainly a positive approach to complaints. However, it did not adhere to its own Complaint Policy, or that of this Service which led to delays in dealing with the resident’s concerns and a mismanagement of the resident’s expectations.
Overall, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not follow its Complaints Policy and it did not sufficiently consider how its actions were affecting the resident. It offered £150 compensation, made up of two £75 payments, for delays in its responses. Although apologies were issued, it continued to repeat patterns of behaviour, in the way it dealt with complaints; therefore, adding to the resident’s frustration and diminishing the apologies given. It also does not demonstrate the landlord learnt from situations when it had paid out compensation, in accordance with its Housing Repairs Guide.
This has all been taken in to account, as well as the lack of empathy from the landlord in its responses to the resident, in terms of considering the impact the repairs may have been having, upon her health and day to day living. This has led to the view that the compensation offered by the landlord, in relation to its complaint handling, does not sufficiently remedy the poor service identified, and should be increased.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to leaks at the property and the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for ventilation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of a fly infestation at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries regarding the layout of the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s 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 delays dealing with repairs at the property. The resident was inconvenienced by not only having to follow up with the landlord on when work would be done, but also taking time to be home for appointments, that sometimes did not take place when they should have. The landlord’s communication between departments and its record keeping was also lacking.
There were delays in fitting ventilation at the property. While the landlord acknowledged the delay, it failed to demonstrate that it had fully considered the impact on the resident.
The landlord delayed dealing with the fly infestation, and it failed to update the resident as it had promised.
The landlord provided the resident with the incorrect email address for its Major Works team.
Complaints were not dealt with in a timely way, and despite apologies being made, and compensation offered, the landlord did not improve the way it dealt with complaints or reports of repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1,950 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £325 it has already offered for the delays and inconvenience in its handling of repairs of a leak and requests for ventilation (if it has not already paid that).
  2. £300 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, due to its handling of repairs of a leak.
  3. An additional £200 compensation to recognise eight months of delays in dealing with repairs.
  4. £200 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its handling of requests for ventilation.
  5. An additional £75 compensation to recognise three months of delays in relation to installing an extractor fan.
  6. The £350 it has already offered for the inconvenience in its handling of the fly infestation at the property (if it has not already paid that).
  7. An additional £150 for poor communication and delays dealing with the fly infestation.
  8. £50 for the inconvenience of providing an incorrect email address for the Major Works team.
  9. The £150 it has already offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so)
  10. An additional £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused as a result of its poor complaint handling.
3. Within 28 days, the landlord to inspect the property in relation to ongoing reports of damp in the kitchen and schedule the necessary repairs.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should
1. Carry out a root and branch interrogation of its databases to ensure that it has a full repair record history of the resident’s property.
2. Carry out a review of its record keeping and put a procedure in place to ensure, all future jobs are logged, updated and monitored.
3. Review its processes for communicating repairs between teams.