Kirklees Council (202336416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336416

Kirklees Council

24 March 2025

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. response to reports of a leak from the resident’s bath and bathroom sink, and damage to his belongings.
2. response to reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority. He lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and breathing and respiratory issues. He also has a compromised or deficient immune system. The landlord has recorded these vulnerabilities on its systems.
Operatives attended an emergency appointment on 8 April 2022, 24 hours after the resident reported a crack in his bathroom sink, and that his bath was leaking. The operative raised follow on work for the bath panels which was completed on 28 April 2022. The operative also noted a new sink was needed as it had been damaged by the resident.
The resident instructed a solicitor who wrote to the landlord on 20 June 2022. It used the Pre-Action Protocol for housing condition claims. It set out the disrepair issues, the effects these had on the resident and requested an independent expert survey of the property be carried out.
Between 13 September 2022 and 2 March 2023 the landlord:
1. Raised a routine repair for a leak on the resident’s bathroom sink that was cancelled, as the landlord said it could not gain access on 28 September 2022.
2. Received a call from the resident for an update on the ongoing repair. Details of the call have not been seen by this investigation.
3. Raised a further repair to renew the resident’s sink and pedestal. It stated it was unable to gain access to the resident’s property to complete the repair on 2 March 2023.
4. Raised a damp and mould repair, which was cancelled on 16 May 2023. It is unclear why this was cancelled.
The independent expert survey, requested by the resident’s solicitor took place on 25 March 2023. The survey found several disrepair issues within the resident’s property and recommended the landlord undertake works to remedy these.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord received the independent expert survey report. The report considered the defects were not so serious to warrant the property unfit for human habitation, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord’s records state it completed the repair job to renew the bathroom sink and pedestal on 6 April 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 April 2023 to make an appointment for a survey. The resident said that this had already been done on 25 March 2023.
On 4 May 2023 the resident called the landlord about damp, mould and condensation (DMC) works. He said a survey had been done and wanted to know when someone would attend to treat this. There is no record of the landlord’s response to this request.
The landlord’s records show it arranged a further survey appointment for 22 June 2023 but could not access the resident’s property. On the same day the resident emailed the landlord to request information on a report held by the landlord’s legal team. It is assumed the resident was referring to the independent expert survey.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord, on 3 July 2023, about the repairs to the sink and bath, and damp and mould issues. The resident wanted fair justice, the matter to be taken seriously and resolved in the right way. He wanted compensation for what he described as life changing medical conditions. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not raise this as a complaint.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord recorded, that as the independent expert survey was part of a disrepair claim, the resident would have to discuss requesting it with his solicitor. This investigation has not seen if the resident was made aware of this.
The landlord became aware on 6 July 2023, that the resident no longer had a solicitor acting for him. Its internal records noted that if he wanted to see the independent expert survey, he would need to send a request to the data protection team. This investigation has not seen if the resident was made aware of this. The resident advised this service that the solicitor’s representation stopped as he believed the landlord had agreed to undertake the repairs to his property.
The landlord’s internal records show that it cancelled a repair job on 13 July 2023. This was after it wrote to the resident 8 days earlier to arrange this, but it had not received a response.
On 28 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about damp and mould, and suffering from poor mental health. It requested the issue be given priority and noted that previous attempts to complete the work had been unsuccessful due to no access.
On 14 August 2023 the landlords DMC and asset team were unable to access the resident’s property, as he was in hospital. The DMC and asset team said that it would contact the housing officer with another appointment time.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord’s insurance department rejected an insurance claim about the damage to the resident’s flooring, raised on 23 June 2023. Following the resident’s appeal of this decision on 27 August 2023, the landlord responded on 20 September 2023. It stated:
1. repairs were carried out to the resident’s bathroom sink, unfortunately it was not replaced within a reasonable timescale.
2. repairs to leak under the bath were completed within reasonable timescales.
3. the landlord had tried to enter the property on a number of occasions to do a damp survey, but no access was granted.
4. the landlord accepted responsibility for flooring damage caused by a defective sink, and requested the resident provide three quotes for replacing it.
The resident responded to the landlord’s insurance department on 21 September 2023. In his email he said the landlord’s operatives had attended the property in 2020 and 2021, about the leak and cracked sink in the bathroom. He advised of the negative effect the disrepair issues were having on his physical and mental health.
On 26 September 2023 the landlord’s records show it began gathering information to investigate the complaint. On the same day it advised the resident that the independent expert survey, was not a damp survey and its own contractor needed to do this.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord called the resident to discuss his complaint. He stated he was unhappy and that the repairs had taken too long to be done. The damp and mould had spread throughout the property causing him serious health complications. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement letter on the same day.
The landlord called the resident on 5 October 2023, to agree a two-week extension to its stage 1 complaint process, taking it to 19 October 2023.
While the actual stage 1 extension letter is not dated, we understand this to be 6 October 2023. On the same day, the landlord raised works, marked as urgent. These works had been recommended by the independent expert survey.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 23 October 2023. It outlined the complaint issues, the resolution the resident sought, and who it contacted as part of the investigation. It advised it had not received the estimates for replacing the bathroom flooring from the resident. It listed the repairs history of the property from the initial repair report on 7 April 2022. It advised the resident who his point of contact would be until the compensation for the flooring was complete. It then said the stage 1 complaint had been concluded, yet did not tell the resident if his complaint had been upheld.
On 6 December 2023 the landlord emailed the resident a copy of its stage 1 complaint letter. It asked him to provide as much detail as possible in relation to escalating the complaint. It said it would then send an acknowledgement letter for him to review and following this, the complaint would be sent to the relevant department to investigate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2023, responding to its email twelve days earlier. He stated the outcome was nowhere near what he was expecting and the information and reasons given are false. He felt his stage 1 complaint had not been investigated. The landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the stage 2 complaint on 20 December 2023.
On 9 January 2024 the resident emailed the landlord photos of the damage to the bathroom flooring and sink. He also advised:
1. he wanted compensation for the impact the conditions had on his health.
2. he wanted the mould and damp to be fixed.
3. he had been unable to get three quotes to repair the flooring, due to his health issues. As a result, he wanted the landlord to repair his bathroom flooring.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 January 2024. In its response it:
1. advised that the independent expert survey was prepared in contemplation of court proceedings. It was confidential and subject to litigation privilege.
2. agreed to arrange further investigations and works to be undertaken, in light of the independent expert survey.
3. offered to replace the resident’s bathroom flooring.
4. offered the resident £250 under its redress policy, for the length of time taken to carry out the works and the inconvenience this may have caused the resident.
5. advised it does not accept liability for personal injury or health implications, which the resident mentioned and there is a court protocol for this.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. He felt it had not considered the impact the issues had on his health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his communication the resident has also referenced how the situation has impacted his health. While we do not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord gave due regard for the resident’s health conditions.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the resident’s bath and bathroom sink, and damage to his belongings

The landlord responded to the resident’s initial report of a leak, within 24 hours. The follow-on work to repair the bath panels was completed within 9 working days. Both repairs were done in line with the targets of responding to emergency repairs within 2 working days, and responsive repairs within 25 days, as set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response, that it completed the repair to the sink on 6 April 2023. This was 251 working days after it had first inspected the repair. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord and resident dispute whether access to the property could be gained. During the time the resident was following his solicitor’s instructions, it would have been reasonable for him not to allow the landlord access for the 2 repair jobs to his sink. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken steps to find out the reasons behind the no access issues, to see if a solution could have been found.
The landlord recognised there were delays in conducting the works to the bathroom sink, the inconvenience this may have caused the resident and awarded the resident £250 compensation.
The landlord acknowledged its failure to meet its own repairs target in the compensation it offered. However, it did not apologise to the resident for this in either of its complaint responses. It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact the delay in repairing the issue would have. It’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the concerns raised by the resident. It is also unclear from the evidence whether the repair has been completed.
Our Spotlight Report on Attitudes recommends individual circumstances should prompt how the landlord assesses and respond to vulnerabilities. Despite the landlord being made aware in June 2022, that the repair issues had caused the resident to slip, it did not demonstrate that it proactively progressed the repairs. However, this may have been impacted by the instruction from the resident’s solicitor, not to allow access until after the independent expert survey. Therefore, this investigation cannot determine if the delays were outside the landlord’s control or avoidable, between 20 June 2022 and 25 March 2023. This will be discussed in more detail within the damp and mould assessment below.
The resident had raised concern about being unable to provide three quotes to the landlord’s insurance team, due to his health issues, on 20 December 2023. Its offer to replace the flooring instead, was reasonable to try and prevent any added stress or time and trouble. The landlord had previously raised a repair to replace the bathroom flooring on 6 October 2023. However, it is unclear if it communicated with the resident about this at the time. It is understandable that the insurance claim may have prevented the landlord from completing the work at the time, although, it could have more clearly explained this to the resident.
The delay in resolving the repair to the sink was significant, and the landlord did not meet its targets set out in its repairs policy. The landlord’s records do not show the repair to the flooring has been completed. The resident has told this investigation this is still outstanding. However, this must be mitigated against the disputed no access issue. The landlord has provided photographic evidence of its operatives with calling cards outside the resident’s property. These are dated 19 August 2024, 30 September 2024, 1 October 2024, and 12 November 2024, after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure had ended.
The landlord does not make it clear what proportion of the £250 compensation offered, related to its response to reports of a leak from the resident’s sink. While this went some way to acknowledge the impact on the resident, we find the overall offer was not sufficient to put right the impact in its response to this issue, and its response to the reported damp and mould that is discussed later in this report. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure from the landlord in respect of this issue.

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

The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and the outside of the property. This is in line with its statutory obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether any such problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
At the time of the issue in April 2022, the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy. Its repairs policy did not set out any specific actions upon tenants reporting damp and mould issues. However, it has since completed a self-assessment following the Housing Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report. It has also developed a damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response awarded the resident compensation under its redress policy, due to delays in completing the associated works and inconvenience this may have caused.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould, states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It further states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. Further, that residents living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, which include asthma. The report also highlights the importance of having appropriately skilled staff to identify and remedy damp and mould, as it is crucial to the early diagnosis of issues.
The letter from the resident’s solicitor on 20 June 2022, requested that the landlord complete a property inspection. The letter did not mention damp and mould as an issue. The independent expert survey took place on 25 March 2023, 9 months later. The Ombudsman understands the landlord needed to liaise with the resident via his solicitor at the time, although we have not seen evidence of this communication. The landlord has not explained the reason for the significant delay, and it remains unclear whether this was outside of its control, or whether this could have been avoided. It was a failing that the landlord did not adequately acknowledge the delay.
The landlord raised a repair for damp and mould on 30 January 2023, but there is no evidence to show it did any works until 6 April 2023. It is unclear whether this was due to the no access issue or instructions from the resident’s solicitor.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions, claims and service complaints stresses the importance of landlords remaining committed to inspecting properties as soon as a claim is raised. And to completing the repairs needed as soon as is practicable.
After the landlord had received the independent surveyor’s report on 31 March 2023, it did not order the recommended works for a further 206 working days. It was not until 26 September 2023 it told the resident a specific damp survey was needed through its own contractor. This delay could have been avoided if the landlord had explained this clearly to the resident at an earlier stage. And between these two dates the landlord’s records show several instances of communication with the resident about the damp and mould issue, giving it an opportunity to do so.
The landlord has said in information provided to us, that arranged visits did not go ahead due to access issues. The photographic evidence it has submitted supports this, although the resident disputes it. Given the number of no access visits, it should have done more to assess whether there were any factors which prevented the resident from providing access to allow the work to progress.
Even accounting for the no access issues the landlord has raised, this investigation considers the landlord did not act in a timely manner or treat the issue with suitable priority. It has failed to demonstrate it prioritised the issue knowing of the resident’s health issues. This is likely to have caused avoidable distress to the resident.
The letter from the resident’s solicitor made the landlord aware, the disrepair issues were causing him embarrassment and affecting his health and mental wellbeing. On 28 July 2023 (over a year later) the landlord noted the resident was suffering from poor mental health and requested the issue be prioritised. However, it is not for this investigation to determine any effects on the resident’s health. While the landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time, it’s response should have considered the impact of damp and mould on the resident’s health and wellbeing, as mentioned in the HHSRS operating guidance and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
The repair works the landlord agreed in it stage 2 complaint response, are the remaining recommended works identified by the independent expert survey. The evidence submitted by the landlord shows it considered it completed the repair to the sink in April 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord had previously raised an order for these works, marked as urgent on 6 October 2023. It is unclear why the works did not take place at this time or whether the delay could have reasonably been avoided.
The landlord has advised us that all repairs are complete and there are no outstanding works. However, it has also provided photographic evidence to show it did not gain access to the resident’s property, post internal complaint procedure. The resident has told this investigation that no actual work has been done, and black mould has spread throughout his property.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the potential risk of damp and mould or acted with urgency to resolve these issues. It is still unclear from the evidence provided if the matter has been resolved, which is a concern given the length of time that has passed.
The landlord has failed to demonstrate it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or treated the issue with appropriate priority. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s commitment to improving its approach to dealing with damp and mould issues. It has completed a self-assessment on the issue and now has comprehensive information about damp and mould on its website.
The landlord considered its service failures had a high impact on the resident in line with its redress policy. However, the overall offer of £250, also considering the failures set out above, is not considered proportionate in view of the impact of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
It is the consideration of the Ombudsman that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report of damp and mould in the resident’s property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £400 compensation, which recognises there was a significant impact to the resident, in addition to the £250 set out in its stage 2 complaints response.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.” It says stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and it will provide a final response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s evidence shows it should have registered the resident’s complaint on 3 July 2023. However, it did not send its stage 1 acknowledgement letter until 28 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 October 2023, 80 working days from when it should have been logged, and 17 working days from when it was logged. This was not in line with the 10 working days set out in its complaints policy, or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (“The Code”). It did not acknowledge the delay in raising or responding to the complaint or provide the resident with an explanation or apology for this.
The quality of the stage 1 response was poor and did not engage with the resident’s concerns. The landlord listed the repairs without providing any reasons for delays or failings. It did not give a final decision on the complaint and the reasons for this, as set out in The Code. Despite acknowledging the points raised in his complaint and the desired outcome, it did not comment on these within the response, which is likely to have further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
Our Complaint Handling Code(2022) stated, on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
The resident tried to escalate his complaint on 6 December 2023, as he felt the issues raised had not been responded to fully. The landlord requested the resident provide further information, although it is unclear why it did so, rather than log the complaint at this stage. It sent the stage 2 acknowledgement letter on 20 December 2023, 10 working days later.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 24 January 2024, was two working days outside its timescales. While this did not delay the complaint for a significant period of time, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise to the resident for these delays or the failings of its stage 1 response. It failed to apologise to the resident for its response to the damp and mould issue. It also did not recognise and acknowledge its poor communication.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to use clear, plain language in its responses. Both the landlord’s complaint responses do not do this, which is likely to have caused the resident confusion and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response does provide resolution for the substantive damp and mould issue. However, it does not address the impact that this issue had on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £250 compensation to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the resident’s bath and bathroom sink, and damage to his belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an apology letter to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £1,000, comprised of:
  1. £250 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. £100 to recognise the further delay and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the leak from the sink and flooring replacement.
  3. £400 for the failures identified in responding to reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  4. £250 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Appoint a single point of contact for the resident to discuss the repair issues.
4. Arrange for an inspection of the property to confirm what works remain outstanding to the bathroom and assess the issue of damp and mould throughout the property. The time of this inspection should be agreed in advance with the resident by the single point of contact and confirmed in writing.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to provide the outcome of its inspection. It should include a list of any identified work required and timescales in which it intended to complete the remaining work.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord considers reviewing its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
2. Are keeping relevant records up to date and making sure information is accessible to all relevant departments.
3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Code.