London Borough of Ealing (202340627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340627

London Borough of Ealing

17 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
   1. Damp and mould.
   2. The repositioning of the wash hand basin.
   3. Repairs to the balcony door.
   4. Repairs to the front door.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the 1-bed second floor flat since 2020.
4. The resident reported the front door not locking on 19 August 2021.  The landlord completed initial repairs in October 2021 and later replaced the handle in October 2022. In October 2021, she reported a leak from behind the wash hand basin (WHB).
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 March 2022. She referred to:
   1. an internal leak in the bathroom that was affecting the ceiling
   2. damp and mould which was worsening
   3. a leak on the WHB
   4. a broken lock on the balcony door, and a draught from it
   5. the front door being unstable
6. The resident did not receive a response to this complaint. The landlord attended on 31 January 2023 to replace the lock on the front door.
7. The resident complained to the landlord again on 25 September 2023. She referred to:
   1. ongoing damp and mould in the bathroom
   2. a leak in the bathroom
   3. the balcony door letting a draught in
   4. a lack of communication and response from the landlord from 2022
8. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 11 October 2023 when it said a job had been raised for the damp and mould, and a contractor would attend and resolve the issue.
9. The contractor’s healthy homes inspection report from 19 October 2023 confirmed:
   1. there was a possible roof leak linked to water ingress and mould on the bathroom ceiling
   2. the loft could not be checked because of access and recommended scaffolding to allow for a roof investigation
   3. the WHB tilted backwards and required repositioning, which the report documented may be the resident’s responsibility
   4. the mechanical ventilation system was not working, and the bathroom and kitchen had no windows to help with ventilation
   5. the resident did not want the mould to be cleaned and preferred to do it herself
10. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2023. She remained dissatisfied with:
    1. the ongoing damp and mould in the bathroom
    2. the lack of progress in repositioning the WHB
    3. the operation of the front door
11. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 28 November 2023. It confirmed:
    1. it had treated mould in 2021 but had not received any further reports
    2. it closed a complaint made on 28 March 2022 in error
    3. the property had been inspected on 19 October 2023 for damp and mould
    4. orders had been raised for the roof leak and repositioning of the WHB
    5. the ventilation system had been repaired and the front door had been repaired on 25 January 2023
    6. it partially upheld the complaint and offered £100 compensation for the delays in the repairs and for the time and trouble in pursuing the matter
12. The landlord has evidenced several attempts of repairs to the WHB from February to June 2024. It requested an inspection of the balcony door, front door and the loft in February 2024. There is no evidence to confirm any repairs took place following the inspections.
13. In contact with this Service in December 2024, the resident said:
    1. she had not received any communication regarding the roof leak
    2. she was unsure if a leak in the roof had been found or resolved, but she was still experiencing issues with the bathroom ceiling
    3. the WHB had not been repositioned
    4. no repairs had been done on the balcony door
    5. the surveyor who inspected the front door in October 2023 had agreed further repairs were needed, but she had not heard anything more
    6. she wanted compensation for the lack of repairs, the ongoing problems within the flat investigated and the outstanding repairs to be completed

Assessment and findings

Reports of ongoing damp and mould

14. The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.
15. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep tenanted housing safe and free from health hazards. It states it will investigate more permanent solutions to solve problems related to damp and mould.
16. The resident told the landlord of the damp and mould, a leak in the bathroom ceiling and a leak from the WHB in a complaint in March 2022. As the landlord had been put on notice of the concerns, it ought to have responded in line with its policies for repairs and damp and mould. This would have allowed it to assess the property, identify the causes and take action to mitigate any further damage to the property and any additional impact on the resident. While this is reflective of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report – It’s not lifestyle from October 2021, there is no evidence the landlord responded. This was unreasonable.
17. The landlord responded to a further complaint on 11 October 2023 in which it said a contractor would attend and resolve the issue. A contractor completed a ‘healthy homes report’ around 19 October 2023, however 20 months had passed since the original report from the resident but there is no evidence of any repairs being completed. This was unreasonable. The landlord did not recognise how the issues were affecting the resident or the property. Due to the time that had passed it would have been appropriate to prioritise the repairs in attempt to resolving them as soon as possible. There is no evidence the landlord did this – this was unreasonable.
18. Referencing a lack of communication and progress, the resident escalated her complaint. On 28 November 2023, the landlord confirmed orders had been raised for the repairs but did not give any appointment dates. The lack of clarity added to the resident’s frustration who was still unaware of when the repairs would be completed. There is no evidence of any action until 18 February 2024 when an inspection was requested for the doors, the loft and the roof. This was 4 months after the recommendations of the contractor. The prolonged delay in completing any repairs was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s repair obligations.
19. The landlord offered £100 for the time taken to complete the repairs and the time and trouble in pursuing the matter. This was not an appropriate level of compensation for the prolonged delay, the time and inconvenience on the resident chasing the landlord for updates, and for the impact and distress caused. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the inspections or completed any repairs identified because of the inspections.
20. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because:
    1. it failed to respond when the damp and leaks were reported in March 2022, until the time of this report
    2. it did not attempt any interim repairs in attempt to mitigate the damage to the property
    3. it failed to monitor the progress and completion of the work
    4. it failed to communicate with the resident
    5. the work to the roof remains outstanding and the resident continues to experience damp and mould in the bathroom
    6. it failed to acknowledge the impact and distress on the resident caused by the prolonged delays and lack of repairs

Repositioning of the WHB

21. A repair was first raised in October 2021 following a report of a leak from behind the WHB. There is no evidence the landlord took any action in response. The resident raised the issue again in her complaint in March 2022. The landlord did not respond to this complaint or take any action regarding the repairs raised by the resident. This was unreasonable as it was not consistent with the repair policy.
22. The resident chased the outstanding repair on 6 September 2023 and referred to it in her complaint on 25 September 2023. It was unreasonable that the resident had to raise a complaint to progress the issue.
23. The landlord arranged a survey of the property – this was reasonable. The survey report from 19 October 2023 confirmed the WHB tilted backwards meaning the water flowed back into the plasterboard settling below the sink. Repositioning of the sink was recommended.
24. On 27 October 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. On 28 November 2023 the landlord requested a further inspection which was scheduled for 1 December 2023. This was reasonable to confirm the diagnosis was arranged within a reasonable timeframe. However after several appointment changes and attempts of access, it was not completed until 12 March 2024 when the initial diagnosis and recommendation was confirmed.
25. While the landlord’s records state the repair was completed on 13 March 2024, further evidence suggests additional contact was made on 29 April and 26 June 2024 to arrange the work. Up to the time of this assessment there is no evidence to confirm the WHB was repositioned. In discussions with the resident in December 2024, she confirmed the repair to the WHB was outstanding. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord to fulfil its repair obligations.
26. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the repositioning of the WHB. This is because:
    1. it failed to act on the report made in March 2022
    2. the resident had to raise a complaint to progress the matter
    3. it failed to act on the recommendations of the initial inspection in October 2023
    4. a further inspection was requested in November 2023, adding further delay and inconvenience to the resident
    5. the additional inspection did not take place until March 2024
    6. the landlord’s records indicate the repair was completed but subsequent evidence suggests the repair is still outstanding

Repairs to the balcony door

27. The resident raised an issue with the balcony door letting a draught in within her initial complaint in March 2022. As the landlord knew there was a problem with the balcony door, it ought to have responded in accordance with its policy. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this report at the time. This was unreasonable as it was not in line with the repair policy.
28. Following a further complaint in September 2023 when the resident raised the issue again, there is no evidence of the landlord responding by way of a repair. This was unreasonable and a further failure by the landlord to respond in line with the policy and repair responsibilities. Furthermore, the landlord did not address the issue in the stage 1 complaint response which would indicate a lack of acknowledgement to the problem. This was unreasonable and a failure by the landlord as it did not offer a solution to the issue raised.
29. After the final complaint response, the landlord requested an inspection of the balcony door – there is no evidence the inspection took place, or what the findings were. The resident confirmed in December 2024, that the landlord had not completed any repairs.
30. Considering the circumstances above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door.

Repairs to the front door

31. On 19 August 2021 the resident informed the landlord the front door did not lock, and she could not leave the property. The landlord attended as an emergency to make the door safe. This was appropriate and in line with its policy, however, on 23 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord for an update as she was still waiting for the operative to return.
32. On 27 October 2021 it attended and confirmed a new multi lock and handles were needed. The landlord ensured the door was secure, but the resident was still chasing a follow up appointment on 8 March 2022.
33. The resident referred to the outstanding repairs to the front door in her complaint in March 2022. The resident did not receive any communication regarding the front door. Further, the landlord’s records indicate the repairs were not completed until January 2023. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. This was unreasonable, particularly when the resident had made it clear she felt unsafe. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
34. The resident raised the matter again in her complaint escalation on 27 October 2023, suggesting the matter was not resolved. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge this and stated the repairs were completed in January 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not recognise the resident’s continuing concern about the door and confirm its intentions to rectify the problem.
35. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door. This is because:
    1. the time taken to complete the repairs were not consistent with the policy
    2. the landlord failed to recognise the problem was ongoing
    3. the resident is still experiencing problems with a faulty front door which she has said is making her fear for her safety

Complaint handling

36. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days. Any extensions will be communicated to the resident.
37. The resident submitted a complaint on 28 March 2022, but the landlord closed it in error. The landlord failed to log or investigate the repairs raised, nor did it provide a response to the resident. It failed to offer any redress for the error or the impact on the resident, and did not identify any learning to prevent recurrence. Furthermore, the landlord’s service failure delayed the resident’s ability to access this Service. This was unreasonable and was a significant failure by the landlord.
38. The resident submitted her complaint again on 25 September 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence to confirm it acknowledged receipt. This was unreasonable as it does not reflect the policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
39. The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 October 2023, 16 working days after it was received. It is acknowledged that this was just outside the policy timescale, however this is unlikely to have caused any detriment to the resident or have any impact on the response or action taken.
40. The landlord’s response did not address all the issues raised by the resident. For example, the balcony door, the leak in the bathroom, the lack of progress since 2022 and the lack of communication to the resident. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord and is likely to have contributed to the escalation of the complaint and the resident’s frustration.
41. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 October 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence to confirm it acknowledged receipt. This was not consistent with the policy and was a failure by the landlord.
42. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 28 November 2023, 32 days after receipt. The time taken to respond, and the lack of communication regarding the delay was not appropriate and was not consistent with the policy.
43. Considering the circumstances above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because:
    1. it closed the initial complaint in error
    2. it failed to communicate the delays to the resident
    3. it failed to address all the concerns raised by the resident at both stages
    4. it failed to respond within timescale at both stages of the process
    5. it did not recognise the failures highlighted in this report or identify any learning to prevent recurrence
    6. it did not offer any redress for the failures identified in this report

Determination

44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould
45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the repositioning of the wash hand basin.
46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the balcony door.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the report, the landlord must:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident
    2. pay the resident £1,000 compensation. This is made up the following:
       1. £300 for the impact and distress on the resident caused by the lack of communication and the delay in completing the damp and mould repairs
       2. £200 for the impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the delay in repositioning the WHB
       3. £100 for the failure to resolve the repairs to the balcony door
       4. £200 for the distress on the resident due to the lack of consideration regarding her safety concerns for the front door
       5. £200 for the impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the complaint handling failures
       6. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
       7. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payments
    3. arrange an inspection of the roof to establish if there are any leaks affecting the bathroom. It should communicate its findings to the resident and us and agree an action plan to complete any repairs, including mould treatment
    4. contact the resident and agree a date to reposition the WHB
    5. arrange an inspection of the front door and balcony door. It should communicate its findings to the resident and us and agree an action plan to complete any repairs necessary
    6. agree a period of monitoring to ensure the repairs have been successful
50. The landlord should provide us with confirmation on what improvements it will make to prevent the failings identified in this report in other cases.