Kirklees Council (202308305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308305

Kirklees Council

26 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the property, specifically relating to broken guttering and repointing.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman in May 2024, the resident raised concerns regarding an apparent infestation of bees and related issues with cavity walls at the property. However, these appear to be newer issues and there is no evidence he raised these concerns with the landlord during the period covered by this complaint investigation. It is also unclear if these concerns have been raised with the landlord via any formal complaint.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaint which are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. As such, these concerns will not be considered by this investigation as there is no evidence the landlord has been afforded the opportunity to respond. The resident may therefore wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord if he has not done so already and/or believes other issues reported have not been responded to appropriately.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. He has resided in the property, a 1-bedroom bungalow, since 2021.
The landlord has advised it is not aware of any vulnerabilities affecting the resident.

Summary of events

The resident raised a complaint about damp in his property 12 January 2023. In a voicemail, he reported that he believed the damp was caused by a “leak in the guttering” and that his property “stank” of damp and mould as a result. He asked the landlord to resolve the issue as soon as possible.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It understood the resident’s complaint to regard: leaking guttering at the back and side of the property, causing water ingress; outstanding pointing work; that his property smelled of damp throughout. As an outcome to the complaint, it noted that he sought for the guttering work to be completed “as soon as possible to prevent further damage” and for an apology regarding the “lack of communication”. The landlord went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It had reviewed the property’s repairs history and spoken with operatives who attended previous repairs. As a result, it had arranged an appointment for 10 February 2023 when the gutter would be realigned, and it would “look at the pointing as required”.
2. It believed an order had been raised for a damp inspection but there was a 6-8 week “lead time”. This was due to a high volume of damp related orders at the time.
3. It apologized for “the lack of communication regarding the guttering” and advised it would “look into (its) processes” to improve communication with residents going forward.
4. The landlord advised the resident that, if he was unhappy with its response, he should reply within 10 working days to request a review of the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 September 2023, leaving a voicemail in which he asked that his complaint be escalated. The landlord wrote back to acknowledge his request on the same date. It noted he remained dissatisfied with its response to his complaint and considered that the following concerns were still outstanding: “guttering – joints”; “pointing is degrading” causing water ingress; damp and mould in his back bedroom; kitchen lino had been damaged due to damp. It stated it would investigate his complaint at stage 2 of its procedures and aimed to respond within 20 working days.
Landlord repair records noted that work on the gutter at the rear of the property (“drop outlet and realigned gutter”) was completed on 28 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 11 October 2023. It reiterated its understanding of the complaint as set out in its acknowledgement letter and that it understood the resident’s desired outcomes to include:
1. An apology for stress and inconvenience he had been caused.
2. For the landlord to explain why “all repairs have not been actioned/completed” as had been set out in its stage 1 response.
3. To be given appointments for all outstanding repairs “asap” and for a guarantee that all repairs would be done to a good standard.
As part of its investigation, the landlord noted it reviewed its records, spoken with a relevant Team Leader and called the resident on 6 October 2023 to discuss the complaint. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
1. It noted that, during its call with the resident, he had confirmed “some of the (repair) work was now complete”, including work to repair the guttering.
2. It had identified that repairing the pointing was “more extensive”. As a result, it needed to obtain several quotes before work could begin. It advised it would chase progress on the repair “urgently” and the repairs would be actioned once all the quotes had been received.
3. It had referred the reported damp issues to a subcontractor. However, the landlord advised the company had “not been performing well” and had “let down (the landlord) and (its) resident in recent months”, which had caused a backlog. In response it advised it had “set up an in-house team for damp and mould treatment” and they had now been asked to investigate.
4. The landlord noted the new in-house team had already contacted the landlord, although the resident had advised there was “currently no damp to treat”, he maintained the property was affected by rising damp. A referral had therefore been made to the landlord’s Asset Team who would arrange a site visit “so this can be discussed with you”.
5. It apologised for the “time it has taken to resolve these issues” but the landlord believed it had now “actioned all the things outstanding to date”.
After referring his complaint to this Service, the resident advised the Ombudsman in November 2023 that he did not have mould in the property, nor was there water or damp. However, he stated it “felt” damp and cold and that as a result he was unable to use his bedroom and was sleeping in his lounge. He raised further concerns about the landlord’s handling of repointing repairs and records of the conversation with this Service indicate that he advised he had not yet received the landlord’s stage 2 response. However, as noted above, it is acknowledged the landlord had provided this in September 2023.
During further contact with this Service in December 2023, the resident again advised that “issues were ongoing” and there had been “no resolution”. After again advising that he had not received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint, response a staff member from the Ombudsman read this out to him over the phone. The resident stated he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.
In an update to this Service prior to determination, the landlord advised on 13 June 2024 that “repairs to the pointing” were currently underway and were due to be completed by 17 June 2024, weather permitting. It stated the resident had been “updated regularly” regarding this.

Assessment and findings

From the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord’s repair records should be much more comprehensive and, as a result, they often lack detail. In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord itself acknowledged some repairs were carried out “on paper tickets” and it therefore has no precise information regarding which repairs were carried out on certain jobs, or whether they were completed at all. The Ombudsman has therefore struggled at times to identify whether the landlord’s response to various repair reports was reasonable or not. This is not appropriate and raises concerns about the reliability of the landlord’s repair records and its ability to have appropriately managed repairs during the period covered by this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property, specifically relating to broken guttering and repointing

In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing certain repairs. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord identified that there were delays in completing repairs to the resident’s guttering and pointing. It offered an apology for “the time it has taken to resolve these issues” but did not offer any further form of redress. It also stated it believed it had “actioned all the things outstanding to date”, despite acknowledging within its complaint response that it was still awaiting quotes before it could commence repairs (which were “more extensive” than it had anticipated) to the pointing.
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 assesses 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.
Having reported “dangerous” guttering in October 2022, a repair order does not appear to have been properly raised until 4 months later, in February 2023. This was not appropriate, and the landlord’s records do not provide any clarity as to why repairs were not progressed sooner. Despite this, works were still not completed, and the repair was re-raised in August 2023. Following this, repairs were completed in a timely manner and records show a repair to the guttering was completed in September 2023.
However, this was almost a year after the resident’s original report. This was a significant and unreasonable delay for which the landlord has not provided an appropriate explanation. In the circumstances, the landlord should have recognised that the length of time it had taken to complete the guttering repair, and the impact this would have had on an elderly resident, and considered whether additional redress such as compensation was appropriate. It should also have considered whether any further redress would be appropriate to ‘put right’ the delay with completing repairs to the pointing and it was unreasonable that it failed to do and did not recognise the length and impact of the delay.
The landlord also failed to complete repairs to the pointing within an appropriate timeframe, and there is evidence of unreasonable delay. Its repair records show the resident raised concerns about the brickwork at the property in November 2022. While the landlord’s notes highlighted the fact the resident was elderly, it has not been able to evidence an appropriate response, or that it took his circumstances into account. Its repair records marked the repair note was “completed” the following day and in separate submissions to this investigation the landlord confirmed that “no work was carried out…this was an inspect (appointment) only”. It further clarified it “did not have any notes following the inspection” as the operative was using “paper tickets”. This is unreasonable and raises concerns as to how the landlord managed the repair, as it failed to keep appropriate records and ensure the issue was progressed.
There are no records of the landlord taking further action regarding the outstanding pointing repair until 8 September 2023, when an order was raised for a mason to “rake out and repoint the whole property”. However, landlord records indicate that, while it had received a quote for the works, the repairs were then put on hold pending the outcome of a damp survey. While this was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take, there is no evidence this was effectively communicated to the resident. This was further indication that the repair was not being managed effectively by the landlord and, as indicated by a note from 1 November 2023 which reported the resident had “not heard anything” since an operative attended to draw up a quote for works, its communication with the resident was poor. The landlord’s repair records do not include further reference to the outstanding repair until May 2024.
Aside from its poor handling of the repair, the landlord also failed to learn from the outcomes of its complaint investigation as, following its final complaint response, it took a further 8 months to complete repairs to the pointing at the resident’s property. Records show it carried out a further inspection on 20 May 2024, when the surveyor noted repairs to the pointing were “still required” and works orders were again raised. Following this, the landlord advised this Service that repairs were due to be completed on 17 June 2024.
While positive that the works now appear to have been completed, this is evidence of a further significant and delay which caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience. It also raises further concerns regarding how the landlord continued to manage repairs as they remained incomplete for an unreasonable length of time and, despite the apology and assurances offered within its complaint response, it failed to track the progress of the repairs. Additionally, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord offered the resident any further redress for this additional delay, or that this had even been considered. This was not reasonable.
Within his complaint escalation request, the resident also advised that the lino in his kitchen was “bubbling”, and he believed this was caused by damp conditions. However, the landlord does not appear to have investigated this until its surveyor visited in May 2024, around 8 months later. There is therefore no evidence the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports. This was a failing. While its surveyor determined the flooring did “not appear to be caused by DMC” (damp, mould or condensation), they did not offer any opinion on what may have caused the “bubbling” or suggest any further investigation. Although the landlord’s repair guidance states residents are responsible for repairs to all “floor coverings other than fixed vinyl tiles”, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not appear to carry out any further investigation of the issue or, given the delay that had occurred, consider whether any further assistance could be offered to an elderly tenant. This was not appropriate.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of an apology at the end of its complaint investigation for the repair delays did not constitute reasonable redress in the circumstances. The apology alone – which did not actually address the scale of the repair delays or the impact they had had on the resident – was not sufficient to “put things right” and did not treat the resident fairly. The landlord missed opportunities to consider its own Redress Policy – both at the end of the complaint procedure or at any point prior to the pointing works being completed in June 2024 – which outlines that it can award residents between £250 and £1000 for “serious or prolonged service failures” as well as £10 for an identified failure to complete repairs within a reasonable timescale (and a further £2 for each further day outside timescale, up to £50).
From the information seen by this Service, there is no evidence the landlord considered whether further redress was warranted, which the Ombudsman considers to be unreasonable. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity to properly “put things right” and go some way to repairing a tenant/landlord relationship that had become strained.
Having considered the findings above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration due to the landlord’s delay in completing repairs to the residents guttering and repointing. An order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay the resident compensation which appropriately reflects the length of the delays and the impact this would have had on him. A further order has been made for the landlord to carry out a post-inspection of the pointing works – which it stated were completed week commencing 17 June 2024 – to satisfy both parties that works have been completed to an acceptable standard and have addressed any outstanding issues at the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress

Landlord repair records indicate the resident first reported issues with damp in October 2022, when he stated the side of the house was damp. As noted above, the resident attributed this to issues with the guttering but the landlord’s delay in completing repairs to the guttering will not be assessed again here.
The first time the resident appeared to raise concerns regarding internal damp was in his January 2023 complaint, when he stated the property “stank” of damp and again referred to the property’s guttering. While it was positive the landlord went on to address some of the resident’s concerns via its complaints procedure, it did not appear to promptly raise any orders to investigate the issue further. Records indicate an inspection was not raised until 10 February 2023, over a month after the complaint had been logged, and the resident was advised there was a 6 to 8 week wait for appointments.
Although the landlord acted reasonably by trying to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the time he would wait for an appointment, records indicate an order was not sent to the relevant damp contractors until 17 April 2023, some 2 months later. A survey then did not take place until 18 May 2023, around 14 weeks after the resident had been advised of the “6 to 8 week” wait. At almost twice the originally quoted lead time, this was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait and appears to largely have been caused by an unexplained delay in the landlord progressing the order.
When the damp survey was carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 18 May 2023, it did not identify damp in the property. However, it did indicate that mould was present in the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and front hallway and stated this was caused by poor ventilation, condensation and “other” (further details were not added). It also confirmed that ventilation fans in the bathroom and kitchen were functioning correctly. Despite appearing to confirm the presence of mould, it stated there was “no visible mould spores or stains” and provided photographic evidence of this to the landlord. It also referred to a comment from the resident, who apparently advised he wiped mould from affected areas of the property and mould had previously been “painted over”.
Following the survey, the contractor did not recommend any damp or mould related works for the bedroom, kitchen or lounge. However, it did recommend applying a 2sq metre coat of stain block paint to the ceiling in the front hallway. The Ombudsman considers it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its contractor regarding the reported damp in the resident’s bedroom and other areas. While the resident’s position that he has been unable to use his bedroom due to the presence of damp and mould is acknowledged, this investigation has not seen evidence that confirms this would be the case. It is also noted that the resident appeared to advise the landlord during the stage 2 complaint investigation that there was “no mould” in the property. Other than the delay in carrying out the survey, the landlord appeared to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould in a reasonable manner.
However, the landlord has also acknowledged that the works the contractor did recommend to the hallway ceiling, were not done. This is further evidence of poor repairs management by the landlord. While an entry in the landlord’s repair records in November 2023 noted that the resident apparently advised it he considered the reported damp related to rising damp and that mould treatment was therefore not necessary (leading the landlord to arrange a visit from an Asset Surveyor), there are no details regarding any actions taken by the landlord in the preceding 6 months, nor is there any evidence that the recommended stain block was ever ordered. This is not appropriate.
In its final stage complaint response, the landlord advised it had been “let down” by its damp contractor who had “not been performing well”, which had caused a backlog. While it was reasonable that the landlord provided an explanation for the delays and advised the steps it had taken to resolve the situation (creating a new “in-house” team to deal with damp and mould reports) it should have taken greater responsibility for the delays, rather than apportioning all the blame to a third-party. This is because the landlord retained the ultimate responsibility for resolving the issue and as identified above, the landlord’s own records indicate it was responsible for an initial 2 month delay in engaging a contractor, which its complaint response failed to acknowledge. While the Ombudsman understands issues may also arise with contractors and these may have affected progress later, when and where these are identified, the landlord should take prompt steps to identify alternative solutions.
Regarding the resident’s concerns about water ingress to the property, records show the landlord attended a reported leak in February 2022. While records show it made safe the electrics following an emergency callout, further electrical works were apparently due to take place once the resident’s flat roof had been repaired. However, the repair records make no further mention of any roof works, so it remains unclear what actions the landlord undertook and when. Although the resident does not appear to have made further reports regarding any leaks or raised concerns about the roof, it is again inappropriate that the landlord’s repair records lack the necessary detail to evidence how it responded to the resident’s reports and how it managed the repair.
As noted in paragraph 34 of this report, following its final complaint response, the landlord arranged for an Assets Surveyor to attend the resident’s property. A survey duly took place in on or around 12 December 2023 and identified issues with the window sealants in the kitchen. Repairs were ordered the following day to “remove and renew sealants to all sides” and replace beading with a “wider PVC drip lath/cill and seal”. The surveyor requested that operatives “ensure a watertight seal on completion”.
Records show this repair was completed on 24 January 2024. Considering that some of the work would have been dependent on good weather and this period covered the Christmas and New Year holidays, the Ombudsman considers that this was carried out within a reasonable timeframe and its later survey in May 2024 confirmed that the PVC window unit had been repaired appropriately. This was positive and an example of how the landlord should manage its repairs.
However, as with the landlord’s response to the guttering and pointing repairs, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of an apology at the end of its complaint investigation did not constitute reasonable redress in the circumstances and was insufficient to “put things right”. The landlord again missed opportunities to apply its own Redress Policy and consider whether any further redress, as outlined in paragraph 26, would be appropriate given the delays it acknowledged the resident had experienced.
Having considered the findings above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration regarding the landlord response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress. An order has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to pay the resident compensation which appropriately reflects the length of the delays and the impact this would have had on him.
Additionally, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s Redress Policy could be clearer regarding whether redress can be paid following identified failures by third parties and/or contractors. Section 2 of the policy states it will take responsibility “for any detriment or damage caused to an individual or their property and belongings by a third party (contractor) working on the landlord’s behalf”. However, a table outlining potential compensation awards (Appendix 1 in the policy) states that while compensation can be paid where “there has been a service failure which has caused inconvenience and/or distress” to customers, this excludes situations where there has been a “failure by a third party”. It is unclear whether the landlord applied this aspect of the policy when it did not offer further redress for delays caused by its damp contractor. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to carry out a policy review and clarify its wording to ensure it recognises its responsibility for the failures of third parties and contractors and treats residents fairly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlords:
1. Handling of repairs to the property, specifically relating to broken guttering and repointing.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress.

Reasons

The landlord was responsible for lengthy, avoidable delays when repairing the guttering and pointing at the property. Although it acknowledged the delays, it failed to consider the impact they may have had on the resident, offer appropriate redress or learn from its complaint investigation, leading to further delays. Additionally, there was repeated evidence of poor record keeping.
The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s reports, did not appear to take full responsibility for some of the delays relating to a damp survey and there was further evidence of poor record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident £700 compensation, consisting of £450 for the delays relating to the guttering and pointing repairs and £250 relating to its handling of damp and mould reports.
2. Arrange and carry out an appointment to post-inspect the pointing works due to be completed in June 2024. The landlord should provide an inspection report to the resident and this Service and create an action plan, with dates, for any further outstanding repairs that are identified.
3. Carry out a review of its Redress Policy to ensure there is clarity regarding whether compensation will be paid when failings by third parties/contractors are identified. The landlord should provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman once complete.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord also reviews its recording and data handling processes to ensure measures are in place to track repairs appropriately if operatives have issues with PDAs in future. If paper records are used as a temporary workaround landlord should ensure these are uploaded to the relevant case management system(s) so it can continue to manage repairs effectively. It should also ensure it maintains a suitable audit trail in case of complaints or further investigations and that it is acting in line with the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published in May 2023 and available on the Ombudsman’s website).