London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202346624)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346624

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

1 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of bathroom repairs which caused leaks in the property.
    2. The presence of damp and mould in the property.
  2. This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives with her family in a 3-bed terraced house that is owned and managed by a local authority landlord. The property was let under a secure tenancy agreement in July 2017. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable due to a disability.
  2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a wet room floor in a property that has been adapted to accommodate disabled residents. The wet room flooring came away from the wall which caused tiling repairs, leaks into the kitchen below, and damp and mould in the property. The landlord attempted to complete remedial works to address the presence of leaks, damp, and mould on more than 1 occasion. The resident incurred property redecorating costs.
  3. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2024 in which she said:
    1. The bathroom flooring had been re-laid 3 or 4 times since 2017 but that it kept peeling away from the wall which caused the tiles to blow and leaks into the kitchen.
    2. The extractor fan had stopped working, there was a severe amount of damp and mould in the property and the bathroom was black. Nothing seemed to be getting resolved despite her conversations with her housing officer.
    3. It would be beneficial for a new shower tray to be fitted. However, there were ongoing repair issues behind the tiles and under the floor which needed to be carried out before a new floor was fitted. The landlord was wasting money replacing the floor when there were underlying issues.
    4. She would like all bathroom works to be completed including addressing the mould and damp, tiling, plastering and floor works.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 January 2024. The landlord summarised the complaint and apologised that it had been necessary for the resident to raise the complaint and for the delays and inconvenience the matter had caused her. Additionally the landlord said: 
    1. It had attempted to attend the property to review repair works in the wet room, the kitchen, and the bathroom, but the resident had denied access.
    2. The resident had requested a new floor rather than a repair, but as works had been completed within 12 months a repair recall would take place.
    3. It had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property on 31 January 2024.
    4. There were no notes on its system that the resident had reported a faulty extractor fan, but it had raised a repair appointment for 15 February 2024.
    5. It did not uphold the complaint because the resident had not allowed access to its contractor. If she remained dissatisfied with the response she could appeal by requesting a review within 28 days.
  5. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 13 February 2024 in which she said:
    1. The stage 1 response was rude and dismissive, and she had felt like blame had been pushed towards her for poor workmanship in the property.
    2. She had not denied access to the property, despite contractors arriving without making advance appointment arrangements.
    3. She was told her complaint had not been upheld because she had not permitted access which was incorrect. She could provide recorded evidence that showed the contractors arriving and leaving the property.
    4. It would be the fourth time in 5 years that a new wet room floor had been laid due to poor workmanship and poor repairs. Several people had attended the property and had agreed that a new shower tray would be more effective due to the recurring floor repair.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 15 February 2024. It subsequently sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 March 2024. The landlord summarised the complaint and its response to the repairs in the property. Additionally it said:
    1. It had inspected the property on 1 February 2022 and subsequently booked appointments to replace the bathroom floor which it completed 8 months later on 22 November 2022.
    2. It was responsible for tracing and remedying the possible causes of damp and mould and its failure to do so without investigating the source of the leak and preparing a schedule of works was a failing.
    3. It was unclear if it had exposed the flooring to inspect the joists and pipework on 25 August 2023 before recommending that a standard shower tray and screen would resolve the problem. A surveyor or a qualified officer should have assessed the matter. But a standard tray would not have been an option as the property had been adapted. It therefore apologised that it had raised her expectations.
    4. It had inspected the property on 4 September 2023, but it did not provide the operative with a wider remit to investigate the source of the leak or any further remedial works.
    5. Its failure to coordinate works in a meaningful way, share information with the resident and monitor progress had caused confusion and left the resident uncertain about the way it had managed the case.
    6. A detailed case review should have been undertaken but matters were allowed to drift and were not re-examined until the resident complained on 25 January 2024.
    7. The stage 1 response about no access appointments was not consistent with its own records, or a statement from its contractor. It had misrepresented the facts which was a reason for the complaint escalation.
    8. The landlord had told the resident that it would complete a mould wash when remedial work had been completed but it had applied a mould wash in November 2023 before it could conclude the cause of the damp. Its approach had been confusing, lacked coordination and meant it could not determine if the ongoing problems were due to poor workmanship or another cause.
    9. It would review its repair records, amend a works schedule, share a copy of the schedule with the resident, and complete a post inspection before the case was closed.
    10. It concluded that the resident had grounds to escalate the complaint due to a series of failings it identified. It did not find any evidence to suggest that staff had been rude and dismissive toward the resident, but it apologised if she had been left feeling that her concerns were not taken seriously. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered her a compensation payment of £500 to remedy the areas of fault it had identified. The landlord said the resident could access this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. This Service wrote to the resident on 22 July 2024 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the complaint

  1. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she has made reference to historical repairs in the property going back to 2017. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. This Service does not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint the resident made in January 2024.
  2. In an email the resident sent to the landlord on 23 April 2024 she said that her mental and physical health had been extremely affected. Furthermore that she had experienced chest infections and asthma attacks over the preceding 18 months. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. While the Ombudsman cannot look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs which caused leaks in the property.

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The tenancy agreement also says the landlord will keep the installations, services, fittings, fixtures, the structure, and outside of the property in good repair.
  2. The landlord visited the property on 1 February 2022 during which it identified water penetrating the kitchen ceiling. It completed a temporary repair pending a further investigation and booked an appointment to repair the bathroom flooring on 21 March 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to have completed a temporary repair and for it to have arranged for further repairs to remedy the cause of the water ingress. However it failed to arrange the repair in keeping with its 20-working day repairs policy and this was inappropriate.
  3. The landlord failed to repair the bathroom flooring as it had intended to do until 22 November 2022, 8 months later. This was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had resided in a property with outstanding repairs. Furthermore it caused her time and trouble in chasing the landlord to complete the repairs in September 2022 and October 2022.
  4. The resident reported a fault with the bathroom vinyl flooring to the landlord again in August 2023. It inspected the property 12 working days later. In addition to the flooring repairs it noted that the surface behind the tiles required repairs and that the shower wall showed signs of damp. It subsequently raised a works order to complete further bathroom repairs on 4 and 5 September 2023 which was appropriate under the circumstances.
  5. The resident cancelled a repair appointment on 5 September 2023 as she wanted to discuss her preference for the installation of a shower tray in place of the repairs the landlord had planned to complete. The resident explained to the landlord that she had been advised by a surveyor on an undisclosed date that this could be installed, despite the property being adapted as a disabled property. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have raised the resident’s expectations by suggesting it could install a shower tray if it could not.
  6. It was the landlord’s responsibility to clearly explain that it would not install a shower tray in the property because the property had been adapted for disabled residents. Furthermore that installing a shower tray would mean the wet room bathroom design would no longer be level access. However it did not do so until 5 March 2024, 5 months later. Providing this information to the resident in September 2023, when it became aware of her expectations, would have been appropriate and more reasonably managed her expectations.
  7. Between September 2023 and the final complaint response in March 2024 the landlord completed further inspections in the property to assess the repairs required. Its communication during this time was unclear and uncoordinated which the landlord recognised in its stage 2 response.
  8. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, decisions, and communications. Further it should be able to rely on and share the information it has gathered so as to inform its decisions about the housing management services it provides. A landlord’s knowledge and information management (KIM) is vital to ensure it can appropriately provide and respond to housing management matters cohesively and effectively.
  9. There were identified failings in the landlord’s handling of KIM as the landlord:
    1. Failed to use information it had obtained about the property repairs in 2022 to coordinate bathroom flooring which resulted in a delay of 8 months.
    2. Failed to retain accurate records to evidence how many times it had completed bathroom repairs. On 7 September 2023 it said its records showed that it had completed only 1 repair in November 2022. On 7 December 2023 it shared contradictory information that suggested it had completed bathroom repairs 3 times.
    3. Held an email exchange with its contractor on 7 December 2023 which suggested it could not be certain what works it had instructed or what works had been completed at the property.
    4. Sent an email on 8 January 2024 in which it asked what was happening with the floor repairs because the resident had not heard anything, and the damp was getting worse.
    5. Sent an internal email on 27 February 2024 that said it could not gather any information from its contractor about the works it had completed and the dates it had attended the property. It further said that there had not been any proper system notes and so it was not clear what was happening. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to know the position of the repairs it was responsible for resolving.
    6. Inaccurately said that the resident had denied access to the property in its stage 1 response, instead of explaining that she had refused the completion of works. The landlord later recognised that this was not consistent with its own records or a statement from its contractor in its stage 2 complaint response.
    7. Failed to record that it had repaired the extractor fan in the property and then subsequently raised further extractor fan repairs.
    8. Emailed its contractor on 21 February 2024 in which it asked why damp and mould works had been raised and completed before more detailed investigations had been completed.
    9. Sent an internal email on 1 March 2024 that said it had not received a damp and mould repair for the property and it appeared damp and never been reported.
    10. Said that it had placed the onus on a contractor to resolve the problems with the bathroom floor despite retaining enough information to determine that leaks had been outstanding from visits it had completed in August 2023 and November 2023.
  10. The poor quality of knowledge and information management in this case contributed to the delays in the completion of the resident’s repair. Further, it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to constantly chase the landlord for updates and to act. However, the landlord recognised and referred to its KIM failings in its final complaint response. It also apologised to the resident for the impact this had on her which was fair under the circumstances.
  11. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord had satisfactorily completed the property repairs prior to issuing its final complaint response. It is also unclear to what extent the resident was required to decorate the property whenever property repairs had been completed, as she had referred to in her complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have referred the resident to the insurance advice it publishes on its website and/or advised her to submit an insurance claim to cover the decorating costs she had incurred. There is no evidence to suggest it did so, nor whether it provided information to her about her repairing responsibilities. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have been clear about its obligations, assisted her to recover the decorating costs she had incurred, and regained the resident’s confidence.
  12. The landlord reviewed its handling of the bathroom repairs in its stage 2 complaint response in which it said it should have raised a more comprehensive schedule of works. It also said that it had not managed the resident’s expectations about the installation of a shower tray. Further that it had failed to provide its contractor with the remit to investigate the source of the leaks and any further remedial works which had delayed the flooring repairs for 5 months. As set out above the landlord also recognised its KIM failings. It was appropriate for the landlord to have identified its failings and the impact these had on the resident in its complaint response. Further for it to have apologised to the resident and offered her an award of compensation.
  13. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, an acknowledgement of service failure and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. This Service has not seen the landlord’s compensation policy. However it offered the resident £500 as an award of compensation in recognition of its cumulative failings. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer financial compensation to put right its failings. However it failed to breakdown the award so as to be clear about what elements of the complaint it had provided redress for. This was unreasonable under the circumstances. The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to diagnose and address the bathroom repairs that was not in keeping with its policy timescales and there were failings in its KIM. This resulted in the resident residing in the unrepaired property for an unreasonably long time which caused her distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  15. Consequently, taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs which caused leaks in the property.
  16. As explained, this Service cannot determine the extent to which the landlord offered a reasonable level of compensation for each of the elements of the resident’s complaint as the award was not itemised. However, a proportionate award of compensation to address the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience incurred by the resident in the landlord’s response to her reports of bathroom repairs in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance would be £300. This award takes into account that the landlord has acknowledged some failings and made some attempt to put things right.
  17. Because we cannot assess which part of the £500 compensation award related to which element of the resident’s complaint, this report has assessed the cumulative award of compensation below.

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

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair; this includes an obligation to stop any rising or penetrating damp. The landlord also 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 rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and the landlord is required to consider whether damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 which recommends landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. When assessing the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in this case, the key elements are whether the landlord was proactive in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, the actions taken by the landlord to treat, remove and combat the mould, as well as adherence to the landlord’s relevant policies and expected customer service standards.
  3. In responding to the presence of damp and mould in the property the landlord:
    1. Inspected the property in August 2023 and noted the presence of damp and mould. However it failed to complete any works to remedy this until it completed a mould wash in the property in November 2023, 3 months later. This was inappropriate.
    2. Identified the presence of mould on the kitchen ceiling in photographs it circulated in an internal email it sent on 7 December 2023. However it did not progress actions to address the matter. This was inappropriate and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident while residing in the damp property.
    3. Reported that damp and mould in the property was getting worse in an internal email it sent on 8 January 2024 but failed to progress the matter in keeping with its repair obligations. This resulted in the resident reporting that the bathroom was black with mould in her stage 1 complaint of 25 January 2024 which could have been avoided.
    4. Completed a further mould wash at the property on 13 February 2024, 26 working days after it had itself noted the matter was getting worse. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have completed the mould wash 6 working days later than its 20 working day repairs policy target. Furthermore for it to have allowed the property to remain untreated thereby exacerbating the extent of the damp and mould and the detriment it caused to the resident.
    5. Applied the mould wash to the property in such a way that the wash ran down the walls resulting in the resident requesting a further appointment to rectify the damage. The resident subsequently chased the landlord for a response to her request for a further appointment on 28 February 2024, 15 days later. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have responded sooner to the resident’s email about the streaks its mould wash treatment had caused and for it to have completed the mould wash repair effectively.
    6. Addressed the matter in its stage 1 response in which it said it had requested its mould and damp team to complete follow on works once it had completed and inspection of the property. The landlord’s intention to ensure the damp and mould in the property was addressed by suitably qualified staff was appropriate. However, it failed to provide a timeline for the completion of the bathroom repairs and/or the damp and mould to be remedied and this was a failing.
  4. It is of some concern that the landlord and its contractor referred to the presence of damp as ‘lifestyle issue’ in internal communications it held on 21 February 2024. It explained that an operative had reached this conclusion when it had attended the property in November 2023 and had found wet floors and closed windows in the property. While this view may not have been indicative of all the landlord’s staff, it was nevertheless unreasonable to have reached this conclusion without investigating the condition of the property further.
  5. It is evident that the landlord’s stage 1 response resulted in the resident feeling like blame had been pushed towards her for matters that she considered had related to poor workmanship. The Spotlight report referred to above says that “it is crucial that landlords avoid paternalistic attitudes, automatically apportioning blame or using language inferring blame on the resident. We have seen examples of this with landlords initially assuming that the cause is condensation due to the resident’s ‘lifestyle.’ The term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice to live in that way.” A recommendation about this issue is therefore made below.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord had sought to identify and remedy the cause of the damp and mould in the property between the date it had discovered the damp and mould in August 2023 and its final response in March 2024. It did not recognise that its failure to coordinate and complete the bathroom repairs exacerbated the damp and mould in the property until it reviewed its handling of the matter in its stage 2 complaint response. This was unreasonable under the circumstances given that it was suitably qualified to do so and was responsible for providing a remedy in keeping with the tenancy agreement.
  7. In its final complaint response the landlord recognised that it was responsible for tracing and remedying the possible causes of damp and mould and said that its failure to do so without preparing a schedule of works was a failing. It apologised to the resident and further said that its approach had been confusing, lacked coordination and meant that it could not determine if the problem was due to poor workmanship or another cause. It was appropriate for the landlord to have identified its failings in handling the presence of damp and mould so as to put right the detriment it had caused to the resident over an unreasonable amount of time.
  8. The landlord offered the resident £500 as an award of compensation. However, as previously outlined it did not clearly explain how it had reached the total sum and what elements of the complaint the award was intended to provide redress for. This Service would consider a reasonable compensation award for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property to be £300. This award  takes into account that the landlord had made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment the matters had caused to the resident.
  9. The landlord said that further repairs in the property were required in a further response it sent to the resident on 23 April 2024. Consequently this Service cannot be certain whether the damp and mould in the property has been resolved. Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the presence of damp and mould in the property.
  10. As previously explained this report will assess the landlord’s cumulative award of compensation below.
  11. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service which shows that it has reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021). We have therefore not made a further order for the landlord to review its approach to damp and mould The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  12. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it:
    1. Did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
    2. Did not fully address the resident’s complaint such as by accurately outlining the circumstances surrounding the no access appointments. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    3. Said that it did not uphold the complaint because the resident had not provided access to its contractor. The landlord later found this information to be inaccurate. Its decision not to uphold the complaint based upon inaccurate information was unreasonable.
    4. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 13 February 2024 until 14 March 2024 which was 2 working days later than its 20-day complaint policy timescale.
  13. As previously outlined, the landlord offered the resident £500 as compensation in its final response in recognition of a series of failings it had identified. It was reasonable for the landlord to have reviewed its handling of the complaint and for it to have offered an award of compensation to put right its failings. However as it did not break down the award, nor specify what the award was intended to provide redress for this was a further complaint handling failing.
  14. The landlord identified that it hadn’t previously provided the resident with an offer of compensation which it was entitled to provide in accordance with its compensation policy. Further it recognised that it had misrepresented information in its stage 1 response so as to imply the resident had not granted access to the property. As previously outlined the landlord offered an award of compensation without explaining what it had been intended to address. Given it had identified its complaint handling failings an element of the landlord’s compensation award would have been intended as redress for the time, trouble, and inconvenience these caused to the resident. Consequently, taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  15. While it is not clear how much compensation the landlord offered for its complaint handling failings this Service considers that a proportionate award of compensation would be £100. This award recognises that the landlord’s complaint handling failures did not cause any permanent detriment to the resident and were unlikely to have affected the final outcome. Further that the landlord had made some attempt to put things right.
  16. This Service therefore considered that cumulative compensation payments totalling £700 for the various complaint headings assessed in this report would be proportionate. This total is made up of compensation of £300 for the impact of the landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs, £300 for the impact of its handling of damp and mould in the property, and £100 for the impact of its handling of the resident’s complaint. Consequently, the £500 offer of compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response was not proportionate redress for the cumulative failings this investigation has identified.
  17. However, it is evident that the landlord issued an increased offer of £700 compensation to the resident in an additional response it provided to her in April 2024. Further that it had agreed to complete decorations in the property in recognition of its repair handling failings. This remedy, in addition to the award of £700 was issued after the landlord had exhausted its internal complaint procedure. We have therefore not made any further orders for compensation. This was therefore a further complaint handling failing as the landlord did not properly address the issue of compensation while the complaint was within its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
      1. Response to the resident’s reports of bathroom repairs which caused leaks in the property.
      2. Response to the presence of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of bathroom repairs and its response to damp and mould in the property.
    2. Pay the resident the £700 compensation it offered in its response of April 2024 if it has not already done so.
    3. Inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.