London Borough of Brent (202325045)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202325045
London Borough of Brent
30 August 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 repairs from the start of the tenancy.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord who is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, however she moved into the property via management transfer to flee domestic abuse with her 3 children in February 2021. She has informed the Ombudsman that she has an auto-immune deficiency and her children suffer from asthma.
- In August 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property upon let. She reported that she was dissatisfied with a number of repairs, including those related to the radiators, poor drainage and the garage roof pooling. She also raised concerns about the presence of mice. The landlord provided the resident with a final complaint response on 14 January 2022.
- On 8 December 2022 the resident reported that there was damp throughout the property which was causing paint to bubble and peel off. She explained that she kept trickle vents open and used dehumidifiers, but it was not making any difference. A surveyor attended on 22 December 2022 and noted that the windows needed overhauling and a larger radiator fitted to the external wall. They also noted a mould wash was required.
- On 26 June 2023 the resident made a complaint. She said that:
- she had been advised that repair jobs had been “closed” despite them not being completed. If the job was closed, she wanted to know why operatives had attended the property, putting her and her children at risk.
- she had spent a lengthy amount of time on the phone to contractors, and no one had responded to her emails. She felt the landlord was “consistently failing”.
- The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It said that:
- its contractors had tried on multiple occasions to make contact, without success. Voicemails and a calling card had been left asking her to make contact.
- because there had been 3 occasions of no access, the jobs relating to the windows and mould wash were closed down in accordance with procedure. New works orders had been raised as a result of her complaint, and someone would be in contact to schedule the appointment by telephone.
- the job related to the radiator remained open, but contractors were waiting for her to make contact.
- The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and advised its records were inaccurate. The works to the radiators had already been completed in May 2023, and no one had left her any calling cards. She reiterated she felt that her family had been put “at risk” if contractors were attending her property without her knowledge. She reported she had been left with “half completed works” and was unable to get through to its contractors.
- The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. It said that:
- it was sorry for the delays in completing the repairs, and the misinformation it had provided within its earlier complaint response.
- it had asked its contractors to keep their telephone lines open to allow the resident to make contact with them. It had requested that its contractors recorded accurate notes on its systems.
- it considered the works to the windows to be complete, and a post-inspection would take place within 3 weeks.
- it wanted to offer £200 in compensation for her experience.
- On 21 September 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said she was dissatisfied with the way the landlord had handled her reports since the start of her tenancy. She said despite assurances the landlord had made in its final response, it had not arranged for a post-inspection which she felt demonstrated it was “over promising and under delivering”. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, she reports that she continues to experience damp and mould in the property and whilst the landlord has attended to complete ad-hoc repairs, she remains unclear as to what the cause of the damp is and what its long term plan is to resolve it.
Assessment and findings
Jurisdiction
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
- It is not disputed that the resident reported issues with repairs soon after she moved into the property in 2021. These were dealt with as a formal complaint by the landlord and she was provided a final response on 14 January 2022. Within the response, the resident was advised that if she remained dissatisfied, she could contact the Ombudsman.
- The resident did not approach the Ombudsman until September 2023, approximately 21 months later. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs from the start of the tenancy are outside of jurisdiction.
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced damp and mould in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on the health of herself and her children. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident and her children have diagnosed medical conditions. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The resident made a report of damp and mould on 8 December 2022. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report of an issue, it will arrange for a qualified surveyor attend the property to carry out a thorough inspection. The policy does not stipulate how quickly the appointment will take place, but in this case it attended within 11 working days which was reasonable.
- The surveyor assessment concluded that 3 repairs were required. These were to overhaul the windows, replace the radiator which was against the external wall and complete a mould wash. In accordance with the landlord’s procedure, surveyors should explain to residents what the landlord’s responsibilities are, what they can expect in terms of repairs and by when. There is no evidence that the landlord followed this action, and rather than taking ownership of the repair, it placed responsibility on the resident to liaise with contractors directly which was unreasonable.
- A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
- There were failures in the repairs record keeping which were not disputed by the landlord. It is clear that there was a disconnect between the contractors repair attendance notes and the landlord’s records. As a result, the landlord provided the resident with incorrect information as part of its stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023.
- The information the landlord gave the resident with regards to its position on no access appointments was incorrect. There is no evidence which demonstrates it has a procedure that says it will close repairs down after 3 occasions of no access. On the contrary, its damp and mould procedure explains that it will instead liaise with colleagues in the tenancy services team to consider seeking an injunction. The landlord failed to follow this action, nor has it been able to demonstrate sufficient evidence that it was unable to attend the property on 3 occasions. This supports the finding that there were failures within its record keeping.
- The landlord has been unable to evidence that it informed the resident of when appointments for the repairs had been booked in, or that it gave her sufficient notice prior to her making a complaint. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her concern that if the landlord been attending the property without her knowledge, it had placed her at risk as a survivor of domestic abuse. The landlord failed to respond to these specific concerns, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the potential impact unannounced appointments had on the family.
- The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she has an auto-immune deficiency and 2 of her 3 children have asthma, therefore she has been concerned about the impact the situation has had on her health. Conversely, the landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. It is important that it has a full understanding of any additional needs or risks posed to the family so that the landlord can make reasonable adjustments to adapt its service accordingly. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the vulnerabilities of her household.
- The landlord’s final response to the resident on 5 September 2023 was an opportunity for it to have adopted the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the repairs and that it had provided misinformation within its initial response, which was appropriate. It made an apology and offered £200 in compensation but the amount was insufficient to put matters right and it did not take adequate learning from the resident’s experience.
- The landlord had an opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident and complete the post-inspection works as it had advised, within 2 weeks of its final response. However it failed to do so, compounding the resident’s feeling that it was not taking her concerns seriously. To date, the property post-inspection remains “active” according to the landlord’s repair records, which is unreasonable.
- Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. It is noted that since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, a surveyor visited on 29 September 2023 and recorded that despite its interventions, there remained issues with mould and concerns about the windows. It is unclear what further steps the landlord took to resolve the issue and there is no evidence that it has considered arranging for a damp specialist to attend. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 12 June 2024, the landlord recorded that all works concerning damp and mould had been “completed”.
- The resident disputes that this is the case, and said she remains unclear of the cause of the damp, leaving her confused as to what remedial works need to take place if any. An order has been made for the landlord to visit the property with a damp specialist and report back on its findings.
- Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It placed the onus on the resident to make direct contact with its contractors and failed to take ownership for the repairs. There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping and it failed to take into consideration vulnerabilities within the household when arranging the repairs.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
- The resident first made her complaint on 26 June 2023. Prior to issuing the stage 1 response, there is no evidence that the landlord made contact with the resident to discuss her concerns. This was a missed opportunity to have a full understanding of the complaint and what the resident was seeking as a resolution.
- The resident made it clear to the landlord on the same day she received the stage 1 response that she felt that the information it had provided was factually incorrect. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, the resident should have expected a further complaint response within 20 working days. However the resident experienced time and trouble chasing the landlord for a update and the stage 2 response did not follow for 43 working days, which was unreasonable.
- The landlord did not recognise its complaint handling failures. It failed to offer the resident an apology, put matters right or take any learning from her experience which was inappropriate.
- Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to establish the full circumstances surrounding the complaint at stage 1 of its process, which meant that it did not respond to all of the resident’s concerns. The stage 2 response was later considerably delayed. The landlord made no acknowledgement of its failures and as a result it failed to put matters right and learn from outcomes.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
- In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs from the start of the tenancy are outside of jurisdiction.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to:
- apologise for the failures noted within this report.
- establish what her current repair concerns are and inform her of the plan of action to resolve them.
- establish what vulnerabilities exist within the household, and update its records accordingly.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The amount is made up of:
- £200 it offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process on 5 September 2023 if not already paid.
- a further £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould.
- £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
- The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the property post-inspection referenced within the stage 2 response and evidence that works to the windows, radiator and mould wash were completed to the required standard, within 4 weeks.
- The landlord is ordered to arrange for a qualified damp specialist to attend the property and report back on the findings within 4 weeks.
- The landlord is ordered to complete any remedial works identified in the specialist damp report within a further 2 weeks.
- Within 4 weeks and in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a management review to include:
- an explanation of what it has understood its failures to be in relation to the its handling of damp and mould, what it has learnt from the resident’s experience and how it will improve services in the future to ensure residents feel supported.
- an explanation of its process for instructing a specialist, if the cause of the damp is unclear.
- what steps it has taken to ensure its staff are trained on the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
- The landlord is ordered to confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation made below, within 4 weeks.
Recommendation
- It is recommended that the landlord utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre of Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance to its workshop on attitudes, respects and rights.