London Borough of Hackney (202119231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119231

Hackney Council

28 February 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs to the front door and extractor fan.
   2. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
   3. Decision not to allow the resident to move into her parent’s three-bedroom property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a second-floor maisonette with 2 bedrooms. The tenancy commenced on 7 February 2000. The household consist of six adults and a child.
3. The resident has had an ongoing issue concerning damp and mould within the property for a number of years.
4. During May 2021 the resident requested a transfer due to mould and damp in the property. This request was denied and she was informed of her housing options. She later raised concerns of damp and mould within the property and on 1 October 2021, a surveyor attended the property. This found mould to be present and recommended a mould wash and redecorating. A follow up appointment was made for 19 November 2021 for works to be undertaken. The operative suspected there was an indication of water getting into the property and recommended for it to be further inspected.
5. On 15 November 2021, a surveyor attended the resident’s property to inspect the damp and mould, and found the cause of mould to the stairwell walls, bedroom and bathroom ceilings to be condensation.
6. On 19 November 2021 it was not possible to undertake the mould treatment and decoration work. This was because the hallway and bathroom ceiling was wet, and wall paper was falling off the wall. It was noted a treatment had previously been carried out, however the problems were ongoing. The contractors noted that the property was a top floor flat and indicated water was getting into the property and asked for the property to be reinspected.
7. On 28 November 2021, the landlord arranged for a damp specialist to attend the property.
8. During November, the resident raised a complaint about the damp and mould within the property and a complaint regarding rehousing. Subsequently the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 7 December 2021. It understood the complaint to be about damp and mould issues within the property and that the resident was seeking for this to be rectified. The landlord stated maintaining a correct balance of heating and ventilation was a key factor to managing condensation. It further stated that if extractor fans were not being correctly used and the property was inadequately heated, this would contribute to the problem. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for a damp specialist to attend the property and once inspected it would decide what works were required.
9. The resident wrote to the landlord explaining that, following the specialist inspection, the inspector confirmed there was a serious problem within the home. She expressed upset over the length of time she had to live with this problem. The resident explained there was not enough ventilation in the home and she had previously asked for this to be addressed. She also asked what she should do with her mouldy furniture and clothes. She was also unhappy that the landlord would not allow her to move into her mother’s property.
10. The damp specialist attended the property either in late December 2021 or early January 2022, and the final report was sent to the landlord on 22 January 2022. The surveyor found the property was suffering from mould growth and the main contributing factor was the property being over-populated and a lack of ventilation. It recommended the landlord upgrade the existing fans in the bathroom and kitchen and install a positive input ventilation system in the landing.
11. As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, the complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 9 February 2022.
12. The landlord attended the property on 22 February 2022 and found the walls had since dried out. It then arranged for an operative to attend on 21 March 2022 to complete the mould treatment and decoration works.
13. On 3 March 2022, the resident explained she was unable to clean mould that would reappear as she had slipped and hurt herself which resulted in loss of the use of her shoulder. The resident explained the front door was still not closing properly which was causing a draft within the home.
14. The work order from the previous report dated 22 January 2022 was sent to the landlord for approval on 8 March 2022. The report had not been actioned until this day, which caused the delay. The landlord found this delay to be unacceptable and apologised to the resident. It offered compensation of £100 in recognition of its failures between 31 January 2022 to 6 March 2022. The landlord also requested for the roof of the property to be inspected to ensure it was watertight.
15. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 9 March 2022.
    1. It apologised for the errors identified with outstanding repairs and the level of service the resident received. In recognition of this failure, it offered the resident a total of £295 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused. This included the £100 it had previously offered. The landlord stated that it would continue to monitor the case and ensure all outstanding works were completed in a timely manner. With regards to the resident’s request to move to her mothers’ home, it explained the resident had been made aware of the consequences of this action and that she would need to be a resident at the property for 12 months in order to succeed to the tenancy. The landlord explained the resident had been correctly advised with regards to this.
    2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that should her mother pass away within 12 months she would not be able to succeed the property. However, it explained under the current letting policy there are avenues for discretionary and exceptional offers of new tenancy agreements. It explained this could not be guaranteed until an application was made.
    3. With regards to the front door sticking in the frame and the resident’s difficulties with opening and closing the door, the landlord stated that following the resident’s report on 16 December 2020 about the issues concerning the front door, it was unable to locate the report of the inspection. On 7 February 2022 it raised a repair with immediate priority, however the operative was unable to attend. This led to a further appointment being raised on 11 February 2022 and the operative attending that same day, it was recommended a replacement door was needed. The resident proceeded to chase for an update however there was a delay, and a further appointment was raised for 25 March 2022. In the landlord’s stage two response it stated that it was unable to replace the existing door with a metal door and this would be replaced with a wooden door. In recognition of service failures, the landlord offered the resident £25 for the missed appointment and £50 for delays and inconvenience caused.
    4. The landlord acknowledged that during its visit on 22 February 2022, the resident notified it she had previously raised a repair to the bathroom fan during December 2021. She stated an operative had attended on 17 December 2021 and it was advised this would need to be replaced, however no one had been in contact. It checked its repair history and found this was raised on 13 December 2021 and the operative attended on 17 December 2021, however could not find information regarding the outcome of this visit. It apologised that the repair was not raised and explained this had now been actioned for 22 March 2022. In recognition of this service failure, it offered the resident £120 compensation.
    5. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged the resident was seeking to claim for damages to belongings from damp and mould. It explained this would be addressed as a liability claim and would need to be referred to its insurance department for consideration.
    6. With regards to the resident’s request to move to her mother’s home, the landlord reiterated its position as stated in its stage one response and explained the succession procedures. The landlord also detailed the resident’s other rehousing options, such as mutual exchange.
16. The resident was unhappy with the stage two response and stated the landlord was in breach of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. She felt no consideration have been given to the ‘hazards’ she was subjected to. The vent also had still not been repaired. The resident said that going through insurance to claim for damages would be an exhausting process and asked for the landlord to enhance its offer of compensation. The resident explained the impact this had on her over the past 16 months, this included having to go back and forth to the hospital and doctors, washing clothes elsewhere, leaving her heating on, and being unable to take her children out for birthdays due to the issues concerning the door.
17. Repairs to the property were completed during March 2022. However, the resident later informed the landlord that issues concerning damp and mould reoccurred. Subsequently on 16 August 2022, a further damp specialist report was completed, which strongly recommended that a positive installation ventilation unit be installed as previously suggested. It was noted that the resident had concerns about this being installed, however it was believed this would help resolve the condensation caused in the property from overcrowding.

Assessment and findings

18. We understand the resident has expressed distress over the damp and mould, stating it has affected her family’s health and wellbeing. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports

Front door

19. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the exterior of the home and ensuring it is secure. This includes doors. Therefore, when the resident informed the landlord of the issues concerning the door it was obliged to assess and to make repair if necessary.
20. The resident expressed upset over the length of time it had taken for the landlord to attend to the front door. The formal complaint response suggests the resident initially contacted the landlord for repairs on 16 December 2020 and stated her front door was sticking in the frame and had become hard to open and close. However, the landlord was unable to locate a report of the outcome of this visit. This service has reviewed the records and also has been unable to confirm what actions took place during this visit.
21. The landlord’s lack of record keeping is of concern and has meant that it has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to address the resident’s requests for repairs that were required to her home. It also meant that the landlord was not able to fully review the history of the case when investigating the resident’s complaint under its own complaints procedure.  The Ombudsman has therefore taken the landlord’s record keeping failures into account in our overall findings on this case and has also made a recommendation to the landlord about reviewing its approach to record keeping, using the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published May 2023).
22. The evidence suggests the resident further contacted the landlord on 7 February 2022 stating that the door was unable to lock due to the door expanding and locks misaligning. A job order was raised with an immediate priority for the contractors to attend within 2 hours. However, the operative later advised he would not be able to attend, and the appointment was rebooked. The landlord further chased work repairs on 11 February 2022 and the operative attended that day to look at the door. The contractors had been asked to look at the front door and replace it, however due to lack of capacity they were unable to do the work. The landlord apologised for the delay in attending to the front door replacement and explained an appointment had been booked for 25 March 2022.
23. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise these repairs as a priority considering the length of time which had passed and the fact the door was not fully operational. However, it is clear the repair was outside of the landlord’s expected timeframes, which states the repair timeframe to be 21 working days. Whilst we have not seen evidence to suggest the delay would cause further detriment, there was a safety element which the landlord should have attended to as a priority.
24. The evidence shows the landlord apologised for the delays. It offered £25 for the missed appointment on 7 February 2022 and £50 for unreasonable delays.
25. Section 9.4.13 of the landlord’s compensation policy states that where the landlord identifies an appointment was missed by it or its contractors a set sum of £25 compensation will be payable. We consider the amount offered for the missed appointment to be reasonable, as it was in line with the landlord’s own policy. The landlord appropriately apologised, considered its compensation policy and ensured a follow up appointment was made to attend to the door.
26. The compensation policy does not state specific amounts offered in events of delays. This service has considered the delays and record keeping and finds that the amount offered in regard to this is not sufficient. The evidence suggests the resident was inconvenienced by this, which resulted in her having to chase further. The length of time was clearly outside of the landlord’s expected timeframes and therefore we are ordering an increase from £50 to £150 to fully recognise the service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Extractor fan

27. With regards to the extractor fan, the resident informed the landlord during December 2021 that the fan would need to be replaced. However, the resident expressed upset over the length of time it took to resolve and the fact that no one was in contact to arrange an appointment to provide an update.
28. This service has not been provided with the repairs history, however the landlord states the job was raised on 13 December 2021 with normal priority. This meant the landlord was required to attend to the matter within 21 working days of it being reported. The landlord had confirmed this was attended to on 17 December 2021, however there were no documents held on its system to explain the outcome and steps taken from this visit.
29. In the Ombudsman’s view, as stated previously, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not have an accurate detailed record of the visits concerning repairs. We understand that, during this investigation, the landlord contacted its operatives to get an understanding of what happened, however the operative was unable to recall the outcome of the visit. Whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts to obtain the information, it is unreasonable that these actions were needed.
30. The landlord stated that the follow-on job for the replacement of fans was not raised on 17 December 2021 and it arranged an appointment for 22 March 2022.
31. It is clear there was a significant delay from when the resident first reported the matter to the landlord. We can see the landlord has acknowledged its service failure, apologised to the resident and offered £120 compensation for the unreasonable delays.
32. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation offered was reasonable. It took into account the delays and the landlord’s apology was also sufficient. However, the resident has highlighted that, if the new front door is locked from the outside, it cannot be opened on the inside. This is concerning from a safety perspective. It is therefore recommended that the landlord arranges an urgent appointment for the front door to be assessed by a locksmith and ensure the locks are working and meet the BS-3621 British Standard (or BS-8621 if the property only has one exit).

Damp and mould in the property

33. The resident has complained about damp and mould in the property over several years. We have not seen a full repairs history of these reports, however note a survey was completed on 18 January 2021, which found the issues concerning damp to be due to overcrowding within the property and lack of ventilation. The surveyor recommended the landlord install new ventilation and to redecorate the property.
34. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 implies the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling and building containing the dwelling. Therefore, when the landlord was notified of the damp and mould issues to the resident’s property it was required to carry out an inspection and necessary repairs within a reasonable period.
35. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, its response times for repairs is 21 days, for repairs that are not considered emergency or urgent. The repairs guide notes how residents should deal with condensation, however does not state the landlord’s responsibilities when dealing with reports of damp and mould. We have not seen evidence to suggest, at the time of the reports, the landlord had a procedure in place for dealing with damp and mould. Nonetheless, when such issues are reported to the landlord, it is responsible for inspecting the issue ensuring it determines the cause and takes any necessary steps to prevent the ongoing issues. It is important that landlords clearly set out responsibilities when addressing reports concerning damp and mould, this ensures that residents understand the proper procedures for dealing with damp and mould issues. This service has seen the landlord has since introduced its procedure for damp, mould and condensation which was updated on 3 February 2023.
36. When the resident reported issues concerning damp and mould to the landlord, it correctly arranged for an inspection to take place on 1 October 2021. This determined that a follow up appointment was required to carry out mould treatment and decoration on 19 November 2021, however the operative was unable to do the required works due to the wall being wet and needing to dry out. The length of time between the two appointments exceeds 21 days, which is the expected timeframe to attend to a report. We have not seen any reasons as to why it took 49 working days for an operative to attend to the matter, but understand that during this time many services were being affected by the covid-19 pandemic. This had an impact on services being delivered within expected timeframes, causing delays.
37. In regard to the operative not being able to carry out the work order when they attended, it was reasonable for the landlord and its contractor to make a decision to wait for the walls to dry out before conducting further works.
38. The evidence shows that on 15 November 2021 a survey was carried out at the property and the surveyor requested a further damp specialist to attend. The landlord has stated a damp specialist attended late December 2021/ early January 2022 to conduct a report, however we have not seen evidence of this report. The evidence confirms the report was concluded by surveyors on 22 January 2022 and was sent to the landlord. We can see there was a delay in having the required works approved, as this request was only sent to be approved on 8 March 2022, despite the report being available since 22 January 2022. It was then arranged for operatives to attend on 21 March 2022 to carry out the works.
39. Once the report had been sent over for approval, the landlord was swift in having contractors attend the property within a reasonable timeframe. The delay in having the recommended works sent for approval was however unreasonable and further impacted the resident. We have not seen any evidence to explain why these delays occurred. However we note the landlord acknowledged the delays were unreasonable, it apologised and offered compensation of £100 to cover the period from January to March 2022.
40. In was appropriate for the landlord to consider its compensation policy, however the amount did not fully recognise the extent of the issues and impact on the resident. It is clear the issues concerning damp and mould had been ongoing for some time, and the resident expressed how this was impacting her household. The landlord’s delay in sending the report recommendations to be approved within a timely manner, resulted in the resident having to live with no resolution to the damp and mould within her property for an extended period. Therefore, we have ordered further compensation.
41. This service has seen evidence that a further survey was completed on 16 August 2022 for the damp and mould. This acknowledged a mould treatment, decoration and the installation of extractor fans in the home, however stated the positive input ventilation specified in the recent report had not been installed. This report strongly recommended a PIV be installed due to the overcrowding in the property. It recognised the resident was resistant to have this installed as it circulated cold air which would affect her husband who has nerve issues.
42. It is not clear if the PIV has been installed, however we understand the resident’s concern regarding her husband’s health. The landlord should explore further options with the resident and its contractor to see if there are any other options it could consider to help reduce the levels of condensation within the property. It appears that the overcrowding in the property is contributing to this issue. The landlord has already informed the resident of her options in relation to moving to an alternative property. As such, the landlord is not required to take any further action in relation to rehousing.
43. The resident remains concerned by the heat loss in the property. The landlord has not shown that it has assessed the insultation or heating in the property. Landlords must make sure rental properties meet minimum energy efficiency standards. This means by law the property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of “E” or above. The government website for EPCs shows that an EPC is not currently listed for the property. It is recommended that the landlord arranges a property assessment to obtain an EPC.
44. The Decent Homes Standard sets a minimum standard for the condition of social homes. Criterion D of this standard requires the home to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. This means the property must have both effective insulation and efficient heating. It is recommended that the landlord completes an assessment to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.

The landlord’s decision not to allow the resident to move into her parent’s three-bedroom property

45. The resident has explained that she is not able to move into her mother’s home and become her carer due to the uncertainty of her being able to succeed to her mother’s tenancy agreement should she pass away, and she was seeking assurances from the landlord about this. The landlord advised her she would need to provide vacant possession of her current property. It informed her about the succession procedure, explaining that she would have to live with her mother for 12 months prior to her death in order to succeed the tenancy. In the event this does not happen, housing would seek possession of the property.
46. This is in accordance with section 1.1c of the landlord’s succession procedure states, “For introductory tenancies there is no distinction between tenancies that began before and after 1st April 2012. Introductory tenants can assign their tenancy to a spouse, civil partner, providing the property is their only or main home and a family member who has been living with the tenant for a minimum of 12 months”.
47. Whilst we understand that the uncertainty of not being guaranteed to succeed her mother’s property should she pass away before 12 months is a worry to the resident, there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of this matter – the information provided was accurate and in line with its guidelines.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door and extractor fan.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to allow the resident to move into her parent’s three-bedroom property.

Reasons

51. Whilst we acknowledge the landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and offered compensation, the level of compensation offered does not fully reflect the service failure in the landlord’s delays in having the front door and extractor fans attended to, including its handling of the resident’s reports and its overall record keeping.
52. The delay in having the survey report dated 22 January 2021 sent over to the designated team to approve the works on 8 March 2021, was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s expected timeframes.
53. The landlord’s advice given to the resident concerning the succession of her mothers property was accurate and in line with its policies and procedures.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

54. The landlord to pay compensation of £150 for the delays to the front door, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This should be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter.
55. The landlord to pay compensation of £300 for the delays in addressing the damp and mould and resulting distress and inconvenience caused. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. This should be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

56. The landlord should review its approach to record keeping, using the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (published May 2023).
57. The landlord should liaise with the resident and its contractor to see if there are any other options it could explore to help reduce the levels of condensation within the property.
58. Arrange a property assessment to obtain an EPC.
59. Complete an assessment to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.
60. Arrange an urgent appointment for the front door to be assessed by a locksmith and ensure the locks are working and meet the BS-3621 British Standard (or BS-8621 if the property only has one exit).