London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202311480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311480

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

18 July 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 the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom terraced house and holds a secure tenancy with the landlord.
The resident reported to the landlord that a leak into her bathroom had been worsened by heavy rain on 10 October 2022. She advised that the bathroom light had not worked for the previous 3 weeks due to the water ingress.
A surveyor attended on 1 November 2022 and identified damp and mould in a bedroom and in the bathroom. They raised mould treatment works and identified that a roof inspection was required due to the ongoing leak.
Over the following months, the landlord scheduled mould treatments as per the survey recommendations. The landlord was unable to complete these works due to ongoing water ingress from leaks. It noted that the damp and mould would not be resolved until the leak was addressed.
The resident made no reports of damp, mould, or leaks to the landlord from March 2023 until November 2023.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 23 October 2023 and requested it to log a formal complaint for the resident. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould affecting rooms in her property. To resolve the issue, she wanted the landlord to address the cause of the leak and to resolve the associated damp and mould.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 19 December 2023. In summary it said:
1. It raised a job in November 2022 for damp and mould issues and completed recommended works in March 2023.
2. A new job was raised in November 2023 due to recurring damp and mould. A further survey was completed, and the landlord outlined recommended repairs.
3. It would open boxing to check pipes for a leak and investigate a possible leak from the neighbouring property.
4. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the recurring damp and mould and delays to complete repairs.
On 20 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She remained dissatisfied that the leaks, damp, and mould affected her for many years. She did not feel that the compensation was reflective of the significant impact on her and her family. She advised that the damp and mould had caused health issues in her household.
On 3 January 2024, the resident provided further information to the landlord. She was dissatisfied that the landlord had not addressed the root cause of the damp and mould and that it kept recurring.
The landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 4 April 2024. In summary it said:
1. It could only investigate matters raised within 12 months from when the resident raised her complaint. It would not consider damp and mould reports prior to October 2022.
2. Its records suggested that roof works were completed on 28 February 2023 to address the leak.
3. It acknowledged there were some delays to remedy the leaks and that the resident was left without electricity in her bathroom for some weeks.
4. It offered a total of £400 compensation and apologised for distress and inconvenience caused.
On 16 April 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remains dissatisfied that the leaks and associated damp and mould remain outstanding and is concerned about the impact of the living conditions on her family’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident expressed concerns regarding the impact that the damp and mould caused to her family’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her family’s health. However, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and problems with the household’s health. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould date back to April 2021. However, in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As the Ombudsman raised a formal complaint on behalf of the resident on 23 October 2023, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from October 2022 onwards. The assessment will not consider events between April 2021 until September 2022 as these matters did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. This is also in accordance with the timeframe which the landlord considered in its complaint responses.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 of the Act. Freedom from damp is listed within the Act.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the resident’s property. This includes drains, gutters, and outside pipes.
Records show that the resident and her family have been living in a home affected by leaks for a prolonged period. This resulted in damp and mould affecting the resident’s property.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 November 2022 and 29 November 2022 in response to the resident’s report of a leak, and associated damp and mould. Following both visits, contractors recorded that further investigations into the roof were required before mould treatment works could be carried out. However, no action was taken to address the matters in the following months. This was unacceptable given the report of water pouring into the bathroom when it rained. The landlord’s initial response to the damp, mould, and leaks fell short. It did not respond in a timely manner.
The landlord intended to complete mould treatment works to the bedroom and bathroom on 30 December 2022. However, upon attendance the landlord noted that the job could not go ahead as there was still a severe roof leak. It was unreasonable that the landlord repeatedly failed to inspect and address the roof leak despite requests for this to be carried out.
The resident reported that she had no electricity in her bathroom whilst the leak was ongoing and that the light did not work. A repair log from 6 January 2023 showed that a contractor attended the property to reinstate the light in the bathroom but was unable to do this as it was full of water. As the leak ran into the light fitting and affected the bathroom electrics, the landlord should have identified at an early stage that this presented a health and safety hazard to the resident and her family. In such circumstances, the landlord should have raised a priority job for the leak to be resolved so that the electrics could be reinstated. Records do not show it completed any follow on works to address the water running into the light fitting over the following months. Its failure to prioritise this matter is concerning.
On 25 January 2023, the resident reported that damp and mould primarily affected her daughter’s bedroom which had spread to the walls in the living room and kitchen. She described the damp and mould as ‘vast’ and ‘uncontrollable’ in correspondence with the landlord. She said that the water ingress made the bathroom ceiling unstable. The landlord’s ongoing lack of action would likely have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord advised in its complaint response that it completed roof works on 28 February 2023. However, the Ombudsman has not seen records to substantiate this, only that a roof inspection was completed. Following this, the leak continued. A contractor attended to complete damp and mould treatments on 15 March 2023 and reported that a wall was wet to touch, and that water continued to enter the property when it rained. They said that the roof leak had not been resolved and again recorded the need for the roof to be inspected.
The contractor added that operatives would do what they could to make good the damp and mould but that the works could not be completed. They reported that damp and mould would persist until the roof leak was resolved. Although the landlord took some remedial action, the damp and mould recurred as the cause of the leak was not addressed. It is troubling that the resident experienced several unsuccessful visits and was not provided with a schedule of works, or an expected timeframe for the repairs to be completed by. This was likely to have affected her confidence in the landlord to resolve the issues.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised no disrepair reports between 15 March 2023 until 22 November 2023. This suggests that the leaks, damp, and mould may not have been as prevalent during these months. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange any follow-on works during this time. The landlord was aware that there were outstanding inspections and repairs it had not completed.
The landlord recorded again that the roof leaked around the bathroom light in November 2023 and December 2023. Records do not suggest that the landlord re-attended to address the water running into the light since its unsuccessful appointment in January 2023. The Ombudsman has not been able to confirm whether the leak affecting the bathroom light was an intermittent or continuous issue. However, the landlord was reasonably aware that the light fitting was affected, but it failed to handle the matter with urgency over a prolonged period. It is reasonable to conclude that the household’s use of the bathroom would have been compromised whilst the leak affected the bathroom light.
On 28 December 2023, the landlord completed an inspection of the roof due to the ongoing issues. It identified that there were 3 separate leaks from the roof. This included a leak from the main roof which affected the back bedroom, a leak which affected the bathroom skylight, and a leak from the rear roof over the kitchen where it joined the house. It added that a leak may be affecting the resident’s property from her neighbour’s house. It is concerning that it took 14 months for the landlord to identify where the water ingress stemmed from.
The landlord had not previously investigated possible other leaks prior to this point despite the damp and mould being reported as affecting the back bedroom, living room, and kitchen since January 2023. The landlord’s approach was not proactive, and the resident incurred time and trouble repainting and plastering walls when damp and mould recurred. Although the landlord took some steps to try and resolve the damp and mould, its attempts only provided temporary fixes whilst the leaks remained ongoing.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord said that it completed roof works on 15 December 2023. It continued that all roof works were completed by 17 January 2024. The Ombudsman has only seen a record which suggested that the bathroom leak was resolved on 17 January 2024. Aside from this, no records substantiate this claim. The landlord did not acknowledge the extent of its delays to address the roof leaks within its complaint responses. Records suggest that a repair to address a roof leak into the bedroom, kitchen and lounge was addressed on 22 March 2024. However, records do not confirm what works were completed on this date.
The resident raised health concerns to the landlord about the damp and mould, including that her daughter had an autoimmune condition and that the conditions affected her family’s health. The Ombudsman has seen a supporting doctor’s letter which outlined that the resident’s daughter complained of chest tightness and breathing difficulties. The doctor asked for the resident’s housing conditions to be urgently investigated due to the reported damp and mould. We have not seen confirmation that this was sent to the landlord. However, it is clear that the resident made reports to the landlord throughout the duration of her case about health concerns due to the property condition.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould highlights the importance of landlords demonstrating empathy in such situations. It was unacceptable that the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to any of the resident’s health concerns raised throughout the case. The landlord should have recognised the prejudicial health impacts of damp and mould and considered the household’s wellbeing.
The Ombudsman would expect to see some assessment of the conditions which the family were living in to identify whether it was suitable for their continued habitation. The landlord failed to show regard to its responsibilities under the HHSRS. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear her living conditions impacted her household’s health. As such, the landlord is ordered to risk assess the property to identify whether it is suitable for the family’s continued habitation.
The resident reported damp and mould recurring in April 2024. A recent inspection from May 2024 outlined that large damp patches were identified in the hallway, kitchen, and bedroom. Further works were raised, and the landlord again identified the need for a roof inspection. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that follow on works or inspections have been completed since this.
Further, the resident informed the Ombudsman in July 2024 that the leaks, damp, and mould continue to affect the bathroom, living room and bedroom. As such, the landlord is ordered to instruct an independent survey of the resident’s property. Once this has been completed, the landlord must act on the recommendations to address the leaks and associated damp and mould without delay given the length of time the matter has been outstanding for.
Overall, the landlord did not take sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould. Although the matters may not have been continuous between October 2022 until the present day, there were significant and repeated failures for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns. It is reasonable to conclude based on the evidence that the back bedroom, bathroom, living room and kitchen were compromised to varying extents by the landlord’s ongoing lack of remedial action. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord has resolved the recurring leaks, damp, and mould.
Further, the landlord’s response to the reported loss of electricity in the resident’s bathroom during the leak was unacceptable. Records suggest the loss of use of the bathroom light affected the resident for a longer period than the landlord’s assertion of a few weeks. Further failings were identified where the landlord did not respond to the resident’s health concerns or communicate with her on its intended actions. Considering the above, a finding of severe maladministration is deemed appropriate.
Within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged delays to attend to damp and mould repairs and noted the resident was without electricity for “some weeks”. It compensated the resident £300 for these failings. It offered an additional £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing the landlord. The Ombudsman does not consider this amount reflective of the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Moreover, the landlord failed to acknowledge the extent of the failings in its complaint responses. Given the detriment caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its significant failings as identified in this report.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by the Ombudsman in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of use and enjoyment of a property. Whilst it is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine the full extent of the condition of the property, based on the evidence available it is reasonable to conclude that the resident had limited respite due to the property condition.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent charge, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The compensation ordered is based on the weekly rent of £117.13 per week (for the financial year 2022-2023), and £135.37 weekly (for the financial year 2023-2024). The order considers the weekly rent specified above from the date of the resident’s report on 10 October 2022 up to the date of the week of this determination as the issue remains unresolved. This totals at 91 weeks. The Ombudsman concludes that compensation based on 30% of the weekly rent for the above period should be paid to the resident. This amounts to £3,564.20 to recognise the loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
In addition, to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident an additional £800.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide a written response within 10 working days. It continues that should there be any delays, it will inform the resident in writing.
At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 final response within 30 working days from the date of the escalation request.
A formal complaint was logged with the landlord on 23 October 2023. The landlord did not adhere to its published response time for stage 1 complaints. The resident did not receive a complaint response until almost 2 months after the complaint had been logged. These delays were excessive.
Having said this, it was positive that the landlord issued an extension letter to advise the resident that it would be unable to meet its target timeframe. This ensured that the resident was aware that the landlord was addressing her complaint. However, the landlord should have provided a reason for the delays.
It is concerning that the resident experienced difficulties escalating her complaint to stage 2. She escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2023. Following this, the landlord asked for further information which the resident provided. It was unreasonable that on 5 January 2024 the landlord said that it felt the compensation offered at stage 1 was sufficient and there were no grounds to escalate the complaint. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction at the level of compensation offered at stage 1 and raised concerns about the health impact from the living conditions on her family. In accordance with the landlord’s policy, the escalation request did not meet any of the landlord’s grounds for it to refuse the complaint. Its decision not to escalate the complaint was unreasonable and caused unnecessary delays.
The resident subsequently reiterated her request to escalate the complaint and provided further information. The landlord eventually accepted the review request on 10 January 2024. However, this was over 2 weeks after the resident originally requested for her complaint to be escalated.
The resident experienced further delays after the landlord accepted the complaint at stage 2. She did not receive a final complaint response until 4 April 2024. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s 30 working day timeframe. Whilst the resident waited for her final response, she received extension letters from the landlord, but again these provided no reason for the delays. Due to the ongoing delays to receive a final response, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 21 March 2024 and 3 April 2024 and asked it to respond to the complaint.
Although the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there were delays which it offered an apology for, it failed to acknowledge the extent of its complaint handling failures. The landlord did not mention the delays at stage 1, its refusal to escalate the complaint to stage 2, or the associated time and trouble incurred by the resident for the complaint to be responded to.
Due to the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the Ombudsman has identified maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £150.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and associated damp and mould affecting her property.
2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive is ordered to apologise to the resident for the significant failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident a total of £4,514.20 comprised of:
1. £3,564.20 to recognise the resident’s loss of use and enjoyment of the property whilst the landlord failed to appropriately respond to leaks, damp, and mould.
2. £800 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. This amount is inclusive of the £400 already offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response.
3. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders in paragraphs 52 and 53 within 4 weeks from the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to complete an independent survey of the resident’s property to identify the causes of the leaks. Once it has completed this, it should communicate with the resident a programme of works it will take to address the leaks and associated damp and mould. The landlord must provide timescales of when works will be completed, ensuring these reflect the urgency of the situation. A copy of the programme of works must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks from the date of this report. From thereafter, the landlord should provide weekly updates to the resident until the leaks, damp, and mould are resolved.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case. As part of this, it should consider what caused the repeated failings in its response to the leak. The review should address the landlord’s ongoing delays to inspect the reported leak, complete repairs, and to reinstate the electricity in the resident’s bathroom. It should also consider why it failed to respond to the household’s reported health concerns from the damp and mould. Following this, it should identify steps to take and if necessary, implement new processes or training to prevent reoccurrences of similar issues to this case. The landlord should present the findings to its senior leadership team and share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks from the date of this report.