Lewisham Council (202231986)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202231986
Lewisham 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:
- Handling of damp and mould.
- Handling of repairs to the resident’s window, door, and stairs.
- Handling of heating issues.
- Handling of repairs to the roof.
- Handling of asbestos in the resident’s property.
- The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant in a 3 bedroom house and lives with her partner and children. The tenancy began in January 2022.
- The resident raised her stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2022. She said:
- She was unaware of the issues with the property when she accepted the keys. She had received a leaflet which said there was an asbestos inspection completed in the property, but she was not informed where it was in the property.
- She also raised concerns about a lack of heating and hot water as the property was cold. She had been told after contacting its contractor that the next available appointment was on 24 January 2022, and this meant she could not carry out essential decorating. She also did not receive the decorating vouchers which she was told she would receive.
- She had raised other issues with her housing officer but was then told 2 weeks later to raise them with the landlord’s repairs team. There had been more issues, and she was told to contact its voids team but was unable to contact either team.
- Her bathroom light had remained on for 3 weeks as the cord had snapped, and no one had come to fix it.
- Her husband had hurt himself with the outside gate when he leaned on it with a heavy box as he was unaware it was not safe.
- The entire process made her anxiety worse, and she would appreciate it getting in touch to help her resolve the issues.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 March 2022 and apologised for the delay. It advised this was due to technical issues which caused delays in replying to her email. It told her it would provide a response by 8 April 2022.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response by 6 April 2022. It said it had checked its repair records and liaised with the relevant teams and contractors. It:
- Apologised that:
- She did not have heating and hot water in her home at the time of collecting the keys.
- Its contractor was unable to attend prior to 24 January 2022, but they had confirmed the boiler was working on that day. The contractor had advised they were willing to award £42 as per their compensation policy for the delay in recommissioning the boiler.
- She did not receive a decoration voucher at the time of her sign up and she had since received them.
- There were outstanding repairs when she moved into her home and her partner was hurt outside.
- Provided her with a copy of the asbestos report from its contractors.
- Said relating to the heating and hot water issues, all new residents were advised to contact its gas safe contractor. This was to arrange to turn on the gas to the property and turn on the boiler which was shut down during the void works for health and safety purposes.
- Said she had discussed the outstanding repairs and lack of heating and hot water with the housing officer and other members of the housing management team. All her reports were forwarded to the repairs team to raise.
- Told her residents were requested to report any initial repairs (within the first 4 weeks) to the voids team to address. Its contact centre staff were unable to enter any repairs to a property prior to the commencement date of the tenancy. It acknowledged that regardless, there was a delay in resolving the repairs.
- Stated that the repairs had been logged and completed for the roof tile, bathroom pull cord, and staircase overhaul. If there were any further repairs outstanding, it provided a contact number for its contact centre and said she could also report them by logging into its resident’s portal.
- Apologised that:
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint on 22 August 2022. She:
- Said the issues with the stairs in the property were still ongoing. “Workmen” had attended on and off to resolve the issue, but she was informed before Easter that an outside contractor was required to fix the issue.
- Stated she had been told she would be contacted within 5 days, and it took nearly 2 months to have a contractor attend and take measurements.
- Explained she had then heard nothing and had to follow up with the repairs team to be updated. She was told it would chase it up, but she had heard nothing since.
- Identified issues with the windows and doors which she said she raised when she moved in. She said she had heard nothing back until she called in July 2022 when the door started coming apart from the heat. When it rained there was water ingress into the house and into the wall.
- Reported her kitchen window again and not being aware of when it would be inspected.
- Said during this time she had also noticed issues with the bathroom and toilet windows. There was water pouring outside every time she had a shower and the toilet window had gaps.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 request on 16 September 2022. It apologised for the delay in acknowledgement and that her complaint was not dealt with at stage 1. It told her it aimed to provide a response by 20 September 2022. It later corrected the deadline for the stage 2 response to 23 September 2022.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022. It apologised that the resident felt the stage 1 response did not resolve her issue. It said:
- From looking at the past reports there were sufficient radiators in the property, and it was advised not to install any additional units. It is unclear if the advice came from its own operative or a contractor.
- It had inspected the property and investigated the minor damp issues. The reports and orders were due to be issued the same day. It confirmed it would keep her informed about the required works necessary to resolve the mould and damp issue to ensure she could continue to live comfortably at her home.
- Its contractors had apologised about the delays in resolving the issue with the stairs as staff shortage and IT issues had impacted their business. They were currently reviewing the status of her property and were aiming to resolve the matter urgently. As soon as a date was available for the operatives to attend, they would contact her directly and ensure they monitored the execution of the works and to communicate with her should any issues arise.
- The job to resolve the window issues in the property had been raised. Its multi-skilled operatives would attend on 31 October 2022 to complete the necessary works to resolve the issues with her bathroom, kitchen windows and the rear door.
- It wanted to apologise again for the delays in responding to her queries and thanked her for her patience.
- Following the stage 2 response, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 12 January 2023 to the landlord’s independent adjudicator. She reiterated her concerns and said it had let her down several times and were untrustworthy. She said she was only informed after complaining that there was asbestos in the windows used to ventilate the property, and also outside in the passage. She told it that it was “horrible” to know this was in the property and there were young children living in it. The stairs had been partially fixed as that was all the landlord would authorise after her many reports. It had taken months to act despite her following up many times.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 January 2023 and said it had completed an external survey, but some aspects of the resident’s home were not visible. It wanted to attend to access her front and rear garden on 26 January 2023 to take external photographs.
- The independent adjudicator provided their findings on 24 February 2023. The landlord said:
- The resident had been informed by the landlord’s operatives that the doors could not be properly fixed so needed to be replaced.
- The presence of asbestos was not always a health risk. It could be a problem when works were being carried out because such works may release asbestos into the air, but the rest of the time it is not harmful. It did not believe she had been exposed to a health risk by the presence of asbestos, but this should have been explained to her.
- The leaflet she was provided at the start of her tenancy was not enough. It said it should have double checked that any asbestos identified in the home did not present any risk to the resident.
- It upheld the complaint as the landlord did not complete essential repairs before the tenancy began or within a reasonable time. It did not keep its promises to the resident and did not communicate effectively with her.
- The landlord:
- Apologised to the resident.
- Offered £500 for the impact of the situation.
- Suggested it would provide a copy of the heat loss reports and commit to acting upon the report recommendations.
- Said it should double check the asbestos situation in her home and provide a clear explanation of the situation to reassure her that there was no risk to the health of her and her family.
- Said it would ask for a senior officer to inspect the home and provide a clear schedule of any outstanding works, with timescales, or a clear written explanation of why it did not consider works to be necessary.
- Between March 2023 and December 2023, the resident continued to raise concerns about the property and seek updates. The landlord arranged inspections of the resident’s property for asbestos, damp, and mould. It also chased updates around the works to her property. It provided her with a copy of the heat loss surveys in April 2023 and the asbestos survey in June 2023.
- The resident raised a new complaint on 22 March 2023, about the length of time it had taken the landlord to repair a leaking roof. She said its contractor had looked at the roof on 20 January 2023, and advised scaffolding was required. She had then not heard anything, and no repairs had taken place. She had been following up with its repairs team who had no idea what was happening. She said she had also spoken to the contract that day. She said she would be grateful for the works to begin as the issue had been ongoing since before, she moved into the property.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in the works and the issues it was causing her. It upheld her complaint and advised its quantity surveyor had reviewed the scope of works and provided the contractor with the approved quotes on 11 April 2023. It said there was a backlog, and the surveyor was working through this. Its contractor managed their own schedule so would be conducting the roof repairs in due course.
- The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 June 2023 and explained:
- There had been 3 failed attempts by its contractor to put up the scaffolding. This remained outstanding and the contractor was no longer answering the phone, and this meant the roof remained in disrepair.
- She raised the issues of damp and mould the previous year. She had an appointment for 2 May 2023 which was cancelled and never rescheduled. She had been waiting for over a year to have the damp addressed and it was unsafe as she had children in the house.
- When the radiators were installed, it was identified that the bedroom window on the first floor was not installed properly. The plaster needed to be replaced and an appointment was scheduled for 26 May 2023 which was cancelled on the day. She had been told that its contractor would contact her to repair it, but she had not received a phone call about this. The window was also not secured properly.
- Another asbestos survey was completed, and she never received a copy of it. She was shown a copy of it by the landlord’s contractors. Its contractors were aware of the window and door scheme and that they needed replacement, but when she made enquiries no one was able to provide her with any information. She was told by a manager who visited the property she was not due new ones until 2030, but her current windows were not fit for purpose and its contractor had confirmed this. She had moved into the property with broken windows and doors and had spent a lot of money trying to keep the property warm.
- She had emailed a member of its staff about these issues, and other concerns which were not address prior to her moving in but had not received an update.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2023. It:
- Apologised that its service had fallen below expected levels, resulting in delays. It said it roofing contractor attended on 3 July 2023 to erect the scaffolding and aimed to complete the repairs on 5 July 2023. It said the repairs would be to the front of the building and alleviate the issues she faced with the leaks.
- Said she had spoken to a senior member of its staff on 27 June 2023 about the damp and mould. She had expressed she would not allow any mould washes to be carried out in the property as she wanted the root of the matter addressed rather than temporary measures. She was advised that it had provisionally arranged for a technical surveyor to attend on 13 July 2023.
- Thanked her for bringing the condition of the windows and doors in the property to its attention. It advised as her property was in a conversion area, any window and door renewal would need to go through a planning application with the local authority. It had asked for an application for renewal to be investigated.
- Confirmed that a copy of the asbestos report was issued to her by email on 27 June 2023.
- It partially upheld her complaint as it had failed to complete repairs to her home in a timely manner and apologised.
- The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord’s independent adjudicator on 29 August 2023 as she said repairs were still not completed to resolve the problems with the property. She explained her concerns around the damp and mould and the cancelled appointment in May 2023. There had been 4 appointments booked in for an inspection and no one had attended. When she enquired, she was either informed there had been an emergency, or a change of plans. She advised this had been inconvenient as she had to rearrange her schedule. She also raised her concerns around the window repairs. The landlord had told its contractor that the issue was with a living room window and the plaster was coming off. She had told it that the issue was with a window in the bedroom which was not installed property. She advised that she had a visit from the landlord’s roofing team on 21 August 2023 and they had knocked on this occasion. She explained there had been a previous incident with a contractor attending without notice and climbing on the roof which alarmed her husband as he thought someone was breaking in. She said the landlord had also erected the scaffolding on 3 May 2023, but nothing had been done.
- The landlord provided another response on 25 September 2023 which found that the repairs to the resident’s property remained outstanding. It upheld the resident’s complaint, and:
- Asked the landlord to apologise for its failings.
- Committed to completing all outstanding repairs as a matter of urgency.
- Told the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1000 to acknowledge the impact on her.
- Check it had properly applied its compensation policy for missed repair appointments and make the appropriate payments if not.
- The Ombudsman had requested that the landlord provide information in relation to the resident’s complaint of March 2022. The landlord failed to provide the requested information and was issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO).
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation.
- The resident has raised concerns about injuries to a member of her family. She had also raised concerns about the effects of the situation on her family’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. Personal injury claims must be decided by the court as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on hers and her family’s health.
- The resident has raised a further complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2023 about the delay in completing the previous repairs, and new concerns about a leaking roof and damp in the attic. The landlord’s independent adjudicator provided a final response to this in September 2023. The Ombudsman considers that there is a sufficient link between both of the resident’s complaints, as they relate to issues she had previously raised and has decided to investigate both within this report. The Ombudsman approached the landlord for further information about the resident’s complaint of March 2023 in May 2024. The landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with the requested information.
Handling of damp and mould.
- The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what it expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach, and this is unacceptable.
- There were issues of damp and mould affecting 3 areas of the property. Two of these were reported to the landlord during the resident’s 2022 complaint, and the final issue was reported during her 2023 complaint. The resident reported her concerns with damp in her child’s bedroom, and mould in her kitchen in 2022. She said she raised her concerns with damp in the attic of the property due to a leak from the roof in 2023 to the landlord.
- The landlord has provided no evidence that it took any action to address the resident’s reports around damp and mould in a timely manner. She advised she initially called the landlord to raise her concerns in February/March 2022 and it said a “further” damp and mould inspection was completed in October 2023 and works raised. This represents a delay of 18 to 19 months before taking meaningful action to address the issue and this was unacceptable. This caused the resident frustration, distress and may have contributed to her lack of confidence in the landlord. It was noted that the landlord stated that a “further” damp and mould inspection was completed in October 2023, however the landlord has provided no information about an initial inspection. This raises questions with the landlord’s record keeping.
- The resident advised that an operative attended in April 2022 and suggested the reason for the dampness in her child’s room was because the bed was too close to the wall. It was also identified that there was black mould behind the cabinets in her kitchen and rising damp behind the washing machine. She said she was advised that she would be contacted in April 2022. She also confirmed to the landlord in an email on 25 April 2023 that no one had attended to address the issue over a year later. The landlord has provided no information to suggest that it did contact her as stated. The evidence provided shows that the resident took a time seeking an update around the damp and mould works. It was inappropriate for the landlord to leave the resident in a position where she felt she had no option but to chase an outcome on the issue.
- The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 September 2022 advised that the inspection report and its “orders” were due to be provided to address the “minor” damp that day. It also said it would keep the resident updated and works would be completed to allow her to live comfortably within the property. Following this, the resident said that she did not receive any further communication as promised until November 2022 where she said she was told that it was busy. This was unreasonable, as the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations on when she was likely to be provided with information around the issue, and the required works. It then failed to take appropriate action within a reasonable period of time.
- The landlord has provided no evidence that following the resident’s reports, and its inspection, it took any action to remedy the issue. It has not demonstrated that it took any temporary measures such as the provision of dehumidifiers, and this was unreasonable. This may had added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord. It has also failed to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the initial inspection report which identified its findings and recommended actions.
- The evidence also shows that the resident was asked to provide a list of outstanding issues within the property in April 2023. Within this she raised issues of damp and mould. She then continued to seek updates around the matter in May 2023 and raised concerns about a cancelled appointment around this. She identified that an appointment had taken place, and this was after a 1 year delay. This level of delay in addressing her concerns was unacceptable as she was left to live with what is considered a category 1 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System for a substantial amount of time. The landlord has also not demonstrated that it considered the impact of the situation of the resident and her family’s health and safety. This is especially important as issues of damp and mould are more impactful on vulnerable people such as children.
- As at May 2024, the resident advised that the issue of damp and mould remained unresolved in the bedroom and kitchen, and this was unacceptable. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord was due to attend on 23 May 2024 to complete works to the bedroom. Whilst positive, that it was now addressing the issue, there was a delay of over 2 years since the landlord became aware of the issues and failed to take prompt action to identify a permanent solution to the issues. This caused the resident frustration, distress, and a loss of confidence in the landlord.
- The resident also informed the Ombudsman that the issues of damp in her attic which she had noticed in December 2022, and reported to the landlord in January 2023 also remained outstanding in June 2024. This represents another delay of around 17 months in which it has not dealt with the issues, and this is unacceptable. This may have added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord.
- The Housing Health and Safety System (HHSRS) regards the presence of damp and mould as category 1 hazards within a property. The landlord through its inaction has left the resident and her family exposed to such risks for a substantial amount of time and this is unacceptable. Section 9a of the of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on landlord to ensure that properties which they rent are fit for human habitation. It states that a property may be unfit for such a purpose because of disrepair, damp and mould and health and safety hazards such as inadequate heating. Some of these issues are present in this complaint.
- The role of the Ombudsman is to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its obligations when handling the repairs to the resident’s property. Where the landlord has offered compensation, the Ombudsman will determine whether the compensation offered appropriately reflected the likely level of distress or inconvenience caused by its failings. The Ombudsman will also consider whether the compensation offered was in line with this services published remedies guidance.
- In this instance, the landlord has accepted that there were unreasonable delays and issues with its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. It has offered £1500 across both complaints as compensation. Whilst this goes a way in address its failings, it failed to identify how much was apportioned to each issue. Further the issue of damp and mould continued to remain outstanding after its compensation offer. As such, the Ombudsman does not believe that this was sufficient. An order has been made for a compensation amount based on approximately 5% weekly rent. This is during the period of February 2022 to June 2024. This amounts to £800 and this additional compensation is awarded in recognition of the inability to appropriately enjoy the property due to the repair issues. This is not a rent refund or intended to be an exact calculation of rent paid for that period.
- In summary, the landlord failed to take a proactive approach towards the damp and mould concerns, and this saw the resident having to chase for updates and works to progress. Although it acknowledged there were issues with its handling of the matter, the delays continued, and the issue remained outstanding for over 2 years without resolution. This saw the resident raise another complaint about the delays. There were also missed appointments which the resident had to chase the landlord about. All the delays led to the resident and her family being exposed to a category 1 hazard for longer than was necessary. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it considered taking any temporary measures or that it reevaluated its position due to the longstanding nature of the issue. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.
Repairs to windows, doors, and stairs
Windows and doors
- The resident explained that after she moved into the property in January 2022, she started to raise concerns about the repairs required. She identified several issues including the stairs, damp, and issues with the windows and doors. She was then advised to contact multiple people, but the repairs were not effected until she raised her complaint. The landlord should have made it clear to the resident at the start of her tenancy, who she needed to contact to ensure her repairs were logged in promptly. It has not demonstrated that it did this in a timely manner and this was inappropriate. This led to frustration for the resident, contributed to the delays, and added to her loss of confidence in the landlord.
- The landlord has explained that some of the delays were due to issues with its contractors such as staff shortages and technology issues. However, it has not demonstrated that it adequately monitored the works and realised the issues, prior to the resident raising them with it, and this was unreasonable. Landlords should have proper checks in place to ensure any contracted works meet the relevant service levels. The failure to demonstrate that it did in this instance raises further concerns with the landlord’s record keeping, and internal communications.
- The landlord said in February 2023 that some of the works identified during the void period, such as the repairs to the bathroom window, and the stairs, remained outstanding for nearly 1 year after she had informed it of them. This was unacceptable and raises further questions with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord should have proper checks in place to keep accurate information in relation to repairs and identify any outstanding repair issues.
- The evidence shows that the landlord continued to try to repair the windows and doors between October 2022 and June 2023. There were, however, issues around cancelled appointments, and some repairs remained outstanding in August 2023. This was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s frustration, distress, and may have led to her believing it was not taking the matter sufficiently seriously. This also contributed to her need to complain about the issue again.
- The resident continued to raise concerns about the fitness of the windows and doors, as she had been told in 2022, they were due for replacement in 2030. The landlord identified in its response of February 2023 that the resident was told by an operative that one of the doors could not be properly fixed and needed replacing. She was informed between April 2023 and the school summer holidays that the windows required replacement. The landlord’s chronology shows that it was awaiting a planning decision about the windows as at 11 July 2023. The landlord potentially could have reached this decision earlier, given that the resident continually raised concerns about them in 2022 and it identified that some void works for the windows were outstanding. It had also reached the conclusion about one of the doors needing replacing and did not demonstrate that it took prompt action around this.
- In its complaint response of February 2023, the landlord committed to ensure an effective resolution to the windows and doors would be put in place. The landlord also took this opportunity to explain to the resident it would exhaust its ability to repair the issue, which it was entitled to do. However, as the matter had been ongoing for a protracted period, it would have been useful for it to demonstrate that it had evaluated the repairs which had already taken place. This would have allowed it to see if this remained the most appropriate course of action, given its commitment to resolving the issue. There is no evidence it did this and it missed an opportunity to resolve the matter sooner.
- On 21 May 2024, the resident said that she was informed by the landlord’s contractor between April 2023 and the summer school holidays that nothing could be done with the windows and doors, and she required replacements. She had been raising her concerns since January 2022 about these issues. This represents a delay of 15 months before she was provided with any conclusive information on what could be done around the issue. She further informed the Ombudsman that the matter remains outstanding. This represents a total delay of over 28 months, and this is inappropriate.
- The landlord’s email of 27 June 2023 stated it had attended, repaired windows and the resident was satisfied. It had received a quote for the door renewals and had placed the job on its planned programme provisionally. Taking this into consideration, as well as the fact it said it was awaiting a planning decision in July 2023, its actions were suggestive that it had considered bringing the planned works forward for completion, which was positive. This is especially so as the resident had identified that the issues with the doors were allowing water ingress into the property. However, it has not provided any substantial evidence that it has done so.
- The resident also explained to the Ombudsman on 18 June 2024 that no replacements have been completed to her doors and windows, and this was unsatisfactory. This represents a delay of 14 months since it potentially decided to replace the items. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it kept the resident updated during this time about any delays, and this is unreasonable. This contributed to her frustrations with the landlord.
Stairs
- The landlord had arranged for repairs to be completed to the stairs by its contractor, however, some issues remained. Its contractor had explained to her that it could only complete the repairs which were approved by the landlord, and as such some repairs were left outstanding. It is unclear what the remaining repairs were, however, responsibility for repairs to the stairs was that of the landlord’s in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. She told it in her escalation in January 2023 that the matter had only been partially resolved. This was an opportunity for it to inspect and identify what other repairs were required. It failed to do so, and this was inappropriate.
- The landlord’s response of February 2022 also identified that concerns with the stairs were raised during the void period, and after a year, they remained outstanding. This is unacceptable due to the potential health and safety impact, especially with young children living in the property.
- The resident also explained to the Ombudsman that she had stopped reporting her concerns with the stairs despite her belief that they remained in disrepair. She told the Ombudsman the reason for this was because she did not believe the landlord would take any action to repair them. This demonstrates that the resident has lost her confidence in the landlord due to its repeated failings to take proactive, appropriate, and robust action to ensure her repairs were completed and this was unacceptable.
- It is acknowledged that the resident did not subsequently raise the issue with the landlord again due to her lack of trust in it taking action, and this may have contributed to the delays. However, it is a landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it has sufficient systems in place to ensure it accurately records repairs and ensure that they are actioned in a reasonable timeframe. It was reported that the issue was for an independent contractor to resolve, however, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took any action around this. It is unclear who told the resident the matter needed to be resolved by an independent contractor. Following its own suggestion that it should identify whether it believed any further repairs were unnecessary, and explain why, it has not demonstrated that it did so in relation to the stairs. It also did not show that it completed any works to inspect if any further works were necessary after she raised her concerns in her escalation, and this is unacceptable. Its actions around this issue were inappropriate, raised concerns with its record keeping, and communication. As at the time of issuing this report, the issues with the stairs remain outstanding. This represents a significant delay of over 2 years between April 2022 when she was informed an external contractor was required and June 2024.
- In summary, the resident began identifying the concerns with the required repairs in the property soon after moving in. Some of these issues were also identified during the void period and remained outstanding. Although there were issues with some of these due to its contractors, it has not demonstrated that it adequately monitored the repairs. It also did not demonstrate that it reenforced the level of service it expected its contractors to provide its residents. It appropriately tried to complete repairs to the windows and doors between October 2022 and June 2023, but could have acted sooner to identify that replacements were required. The resident also informed the Ombudsman that although it had provided notice that it had requested planning permission, the replacements remained outstanding. Although it had attended to address the issues with the stairs, they remained unresolved. She identified this in her complaint escalation, and the landlord did not demonstrate that it took any action, and the issues remain outstanding. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
- The issues raised by the resident continue to remain outstanding and this is unreasonable. The landlord offered the resident compensation to address the detriment she faced at the time. As the concerns are ongoing, the Ombudsman has awarded the resident further compensation in recognition of the ongoing distress, inconvenience, and inability to appropriately enjoy the property. An order has been made for the resident to be paid an additional £400.
Handling of heating issues
- The landlord said in its stage 1 response that residents were expected to contact its gas safe contractor to reinstate their gas upon beginning their tenancy. It has however not demonstrated that it explained this to the resident within a reasonable time, either before beginning the tenancy or at the start of the tenancy and this was unreasonable. The resident also explained in her complaint that no instructions had been provided on how to operate the heating.
- Although the contractor acknowledged the delays and offered the resident compensation of £42, the landlord has not demonstrated that it appropriately addressed these issues with them. It should have shown that it reenforced the level of service it expected its contractors to provide and shown that it continued to monitor the situation. The failings by the landlord’s contractor saw the resident taking the time to request updates, for example when she was informed, she would be contacted in 5 days, but was then not contacted for 2 months. This was inappropriate and added to the resident’s frustration.
- The resident raised concerns with the landlord that the property was cold when she moved into the property in January 2022. She advised she reported this to her housing officer. The resident advised the Ombudsman on 21 May 2024 during a telephone call that she had spoken to her housing officer, they were unsure of who to speak to about the insufficient amount of radiators in the property. Although the housing officer was unsure who to refer the issue to, it is of concern that the landlord did not have mechanisms in place for its front line employees to find answers for residents and make appropriate referrals. She continued to raise the issue and seek a resolution, and it was not until July and August 2022 when an operative attended, that she was made aware that she needed to speak to her housing officer again about the concern. It was unreasonable that the resident did not receive a sufficiently clear answer on who she needed to contact about her heating concerns for a period of about 6 months. This may have contributed to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
- It is unclear why the resident did not follow up for this amount of time, as this may be suggestive of a lack of significant detriment. However, the landlord was aware of her concerns through its housing officer, so should have been taking steps to identify a solution/ how to address the issue. It should also have been providing her with updates. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took appropriate action during this time, and this was unreasonable. It has provided no records of any actions it took to address the resident’s concerns, raising questions about its record keeping. This may have contributed to her lack of confidence in the landlord.
- This is especially important, due to the time of year involved during some of the resident’s heating issues, and the fact that she had young vulnerable children within the property. The Ombudsman understands that for some time during this period, the resident may not have required her heating, however, it should still have looked to solve the matter at a much early time than it did. It failed to demonstrate that it considered whether the cold temperatures within the property could have an adverse effect on the resident and her family and this was unreasonable. It did not take a customer focused, or considerate approach. This may have contributed to the resident’s frustration.
- The landlord addressed her concerns in its stage 2 response and said that past reports identified that there were sufficient radiators in the property, and it was not advised to install additional units. Whilst this may have been a reasonable position to take based on the evidence it held, it should have explained this to the resident much sooner than it did. Giving the resident’s repeated reports about the temperature, it should have looked to assure both itself and the resident that the temperature in the property was appropriate, and there were enough radiators in the property much sooner than it did. The failure to identify the lack of appropriate level of heating prior to the resident notifying it was unsatisfactory. This was a concern that should have been identified by the landlord during the void period, while the property was empty, and it should have rectified this prior to letting to the resident.
- The landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered any temporary measures to try to ensure that the property was adequately heated for the family such as the provision of temporary heaters. Its lack of consideration of the impact of the temperature especially given the time of year she initially made her report, and provision of temporary measures was unacceptable. This caused the resident frustration and distress.
- The landlord appropriately completed a heat loss survey, following the resident’s reports around the temperature of the property, and there not being enough radiators. However, it is unclear when this was done as a copy of this was not provided to the Ombudsman. What is clear is that there was a delay of at least 6 months before the survey was completed, as the resident had to raise the issue again in July/August 2022, and this was unreasonable. The resident explained that the landlord completed 2 heat loss surveys, one in 2022 and another in 2023. Both surveys reportedly identified that there were not enough radiators in the property. The landlord then arranged for additional radiators to be installed in the property in April/May 2023. From the time the resident reported the issue until it employed an appropriate solution, there was a delay of 15 months, and this was unreasonable.
- The landlord has not evidenced that it provided the resident with any explanation of the delays in completing the necessary works to her property. This saw her repeatedly requesting updates from it around the issue. The Ombudsman understands that arranging works can sometimes be challenging due to the availability of operatives and contractors, however, a landlord must keep a resident adequately updated. The failure to do so in this instance was unreasonable.
- In summary, there were issues with the landlord’s communication with the resident around her concerns with the heating of her property. Despite the delays, she continued to have heating in her property, however, it was not sufficient. It failed to show that it considered and took any temporary measures to aid the resident during this time. The landlord explained it had been advised not to install more radiators, but after the resident’s repeated concerns, completed a heat loss survey which identified that there were not enough radiators in the property. It then installed the radiators in April/May 2023. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
Roof repairs
- The landlord attended in January 2023 to inspect the leaking roof, as at March 2023, it had taken no action. This was a delay of over 2 months which was unreasonable. It has also not demonstrated that it explained any delays to the resident, and this saw her taking the time to request information from both it and its contractor. This demonstrates poor communication by the landlord and was inappropriate. The delays caused the resident frustration.
- Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not seek an update around the works until 5 April 2023. This was 10 working days after her complaint, and this was inappropriate. It failed to be proactive in its efforts to rectify the issue in a timely manner. Its records then show that it did not approve the works until April 2023, 3 months after it was informed and became aware that scaffolding was required. This was unreasonable and raised questions about the landlord’s record keeping. It demonstrates that it did not take a customer focused approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns.
- The parties also discussed on 23 March 2023 arranging an inspection of the property. The landlord said that the resident had refused an appointment which she denied. The landlord did not then request the inspection until 12 April 2023, 13 working days after the conversation between the parties. This was unsatisfactory, as it did not take a timely resolution focused approach around the issue.
- The landlord found that there was a 6 month delay in it arranging for scaffolding and carrying out works to the roof between January 2023 and July 2023. It also found that it had also delayed in completing an inspection as this was done 2 weeks after it carried out works. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide dates of completion of works, however these were not provided raising further questions with its record keeping.
- The stage 2 response of July 2023 said that it aimed to erect the scaffolding on 3 July 2023 and complete works on 5 July 2023. The records available show that it adhered to these dates and inspected the roof on 23 July 2023. The landlord’s independent adjudicator’s report, however, says that it is unclear what the situation was as the inspections aim was to inform whether additional works were required, or the scaffolding struck. The information provided to the Ombudsman offers no clarity on this and this was unsatisfactory. As the landlord has failed to provide the necessary required information, the Ombudsman approached the resident on 12 June 2024.
- The resident advised that works were last attended to in November 2023. She told the Ombudsman that the landlord’s contractor had tried to engage with it to identify what works were required, however the works remained outstanding. This represents a delay of about 17 months, and this is unacceptable. This may have contributed to the resident’s frustration and distress with the landlord.
- Further, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered or took any temporary action to ease the issues with the property. This is especially prudent as the resident reported issues of damp in the loft space underneath the roof. It could have for example considered the installation of a tarpaulin if there was water ingress which led to the damp from the roof. Its failure to take such a consideration shows a lack of customer focus.
- The landlord has provided no information to suggest that it kept the resident updated around these repairs, or that it explained the reason for the delays to her prior to its stage 1 response. It also has not explained to her how it planned to deal with the works, such as if it was a routine repair, or planned works. Its communication with her was inappropriate. The Ombudsman understands that roof repairs can be complex, however, appropriate communication around how it was dealing with the matter, and any delays would have allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations. The failure to appropriately communicate saw her taking the time to seek updates and caused her frustration.
- The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. In total it offered her £1500 for its handling of all the issues across the two complaints. Whilst this goes a way in addressing the landlord’s failings, it does not go far enough. This is because the Ombudsman believes it does not appropriately reflect the level of distress, frustration, and inconvenience caused to the resident. The repairs to the roof also remain outstanding following the landlord’s final complaint response and works are still required to rectify the issue. An order has been made for a compensation amount based on approximately 5% weekly rent to be paid to the resident for the lack of enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s failings. This is calculated to be £516 between the periods of 20 January 2023 and 18 June 2024.
- In summary, there were delays in the landlord handling of the repairs to the roof and attic. Although it has completed some repairs, the issues remain outstanding as at June 2024. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
Common themes.
- Though out this report, a common theme which was identified was with the landlord’s communication across all the repairs. It may have been prudent for it to have established and agreed communication frequency with the resident in which it would provide her with updates across all the repairs. This would have allowed it to appropriately manage her expectations around its communication, and potentially reduced her frustration, and the time she took to repeatedly seek updates.
- Across all of the repair issues, the landlord lacked clear plans of action or risk assessment to determine whether the property remained safe and habitable for the resident and her family’s occupation. This was especially relevant given the amount of concerns raised by the resident including category 1 hazards under the HHSRS, and the length of time the issues were ongoing. The failure to assess the potential risks to the family was inappropriate and shows a lack of customer focus.
- As a result of the issues with the property, the resident raised concerns about the effects of the situation on her mental health. The landlord has failed to show that it offered her any support, or that it signposted her to obtain any assistance, and this was unreasonable. It failed to take a sympathetic or empathetic approach and demonstrated a lack of customer focus.
- With each of the repairs, the ombudsman has observed that the landlord failed to consider the effects of the situation on the family. It failed to take consideration of whether there were any vulnerable individuals within the home who may be adversely affected by the issues in a timely manner. It failed to demonstrate that it had due regard for the impact of the situation on the resident’s family life and her ability to enjoy the property peacefully and appropriately.
Handling of asbestos in the resident’s property.
- The landlord appropriately completed an asbestos survey prior to the resident moving into the property. This allowed it to assure itself that the property remained safe for the resident to move into, and that the asbestos containing materials had not been damaged or disturbed. The Ombudsman has, however, not been provided with a copy of the asbestos report and this raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. The results of the survey were discussed in an internal email on 23 March 2023. Its independent adjudicator also reached the same conclusion and said that it did not believe the resident had been exposed to a health risk through the asbestos, but the landlord should have explained this to her. It also found that the leaflet provided was not enough.
- Further to the findings of the landlord’s independent adjudicator, the Ombudsman believes the landlord should have informed the resident where the items containing the asbestos were. It should also have done more to reassure her that she was still safe to occupy the property despite its presence. It could have reassured her by for example summarising the results of its findings for her, providing her with a copy of the report, or completing an air purity test. The failure to take any such action was inappropriate and led to distress for the resident.
- The landlord subsequently completed a further asbestos survey in April 2023. The resident told it on 12 April 2023 she had not received a copy of the report but had received the heat loss survey. She then chased it on 24 May 2023 for an update on the asbestos report, as its contractor had attended and had more information than she did. She expressed her disappointment about the lack of communication. The resident also mentioned to the landlord in June 2023, that another asbestos survey was completed. It is unclear if she meant another survey after the one completed before her occupancy of the property, or another since April 2023. The landlord then confirmed it had provided her with the asbestos report on 27 June 2023.
- Although the landlord provided her with the report, as the resident had requested it in April 2023, it delayed by over 2 months in doing so. It should have done more to ensure that it kept her adequately updated. It should have managed her expectations, and explained to her if it was unable to provide her with the report, or why there may have been a delay in doing so. The failure to do so was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s frustrations with the landlord.
- The landlord appropriately identified that it had not acknowledged how long the resident had been waiting for the asbestos report. It awarded compensation of £1000, however this was in relation to all the failings across all the issues including the windows, roof, asbestos, damp, and mould. It did not apportion the compensation, as such the Ombudsman is unclear how much was offered for the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused to her because of the landlord’s actions. An order has been made for additional compensation to be paid to the resident.
- In summary, the landlord acted appropriately by completing an asbestos survey prior to the resident’s occupation. However, it should have done more to reassure her that she was not exposed to a health and safety risk. It completed a second survey and delayed in the provision of the report to the resident. It should have done more to manage her expectations and explain any reasons why it was not providing the report or was delayed. Although it offered compensation around the issue, it is unclear how much of this was for the issues faced by the resident around its failings in relation to the asbestos. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
Record keeping.
- Throughout the report, the Ombudsman has identified concerns around the landlord’s record keeping which contributed to the delays in the repairs to the resident’s property, or its communication with her.
- These issues were also identified by the landlord during its investigation in February 2023 as several relevant documents were not provided or available to it. The inability for the landlord’s own staff to access important records relevant to the investigation causes the Ombudsman cause for concern about its record keeping. This is because a fully informed view was prevented by the lack of appropriate records.
- The Ombudsman also requested further evidence around the resident’s second complaint, and the landlord failed to provide all the requested information. This is also despite further communication advising it that the Ombudsman would continue its investigation, but it should still provide any information it believed was relevant. Following this it provided an “adjudication casebook, and its stage 1 and 2 responses.
- It is important that landlords have robust record keeping systems and practices in place to allow them to provide residents with the best possible service. The failure to do so can often lead to frustration around issues and cause unnecessary delays (as seen in this case with repairs). Based on the record keeping issues identified throughout this report, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was:
- Severe Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
- Maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows, door, and stairs.
- Maladministration with the handling of heating issues.
- Maladministration with the handling of repairs to the roof and attic.
- Maladministration with its handling of the asbestos.
- Maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
- Provide the resident with an apology from its chief executive officer around the failings identified within this report.
- Pay the resident compensation of £3716 consisting of:
- £1500 previously offered if this has not been paid.
- £800 for its handling of the damp and mould.
- £400 for its handling of repairs to the windows, doors, and stairs.
- £300 for its handling of the heating issues.
- £516 for its handling of roof repairs.
- £200 for the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident around its handling of the resident’s asbestos concerns.
- Complete an independent survey of the resident’s property, which is to include damp meter readings. It must also complete a risk assessment on the impact of the works on the family and if it is reasonable for them to remain in the property whilst the works are completed. The landlord must provide the resident with a copy of the survey and risk assessment. The landlord must also provide the resident with a schedule of works, and timescales for completion of any works identified. This is especially in relation to the bedroom which must be treated as a priority. Any works identified must begin within 28 days of this report.
- Provide proof of compliance with these orders.