London Borough of Harrow (202430466)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property which is a 2-bedroom house. She lives with her son.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roofing works.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the roofing works.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of roofing works

4. Although the initial delay to the roofing works was reasonable, the landlord has not shown that it acted to prevent any further avoidable delays to the work. It also did not provide the resident with updates about the delays or when the work was likely to be completed.

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to action repairs raised relating to damp and mould in line with the timeframes set out in its repairs charter. It also failed to act at the earliest opportunity when the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould in her property.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not respond to all of the issues that the resident raised in her complaint. It also failed to correctly identify correspondence from the resident as a complaint and deal with the issues raised appropriately.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident received a letter from the landlord’s contractor in January 2023. It explained that roofing works were due to begin within the next 3-6 weeks and the work would take approximately 4 weeks to complete.
8. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2023 as she had been told the roofing work may not occur due to concerns about endangered birds nesting. She said work had been carried out at neighbouring properties and surveyor visits to her property had not identified any birds nesting at her property. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident at this time which was not appropriate.
9. The resident sent a further email on 5 October 2023. She said she had not received any response to her email of 14 June 2023. She outlined the issues and stated her concerns, saying she wanted the matter addressed as soon as possible. The landlord responded to this email on 12 October 2023. It explained that delays had been on the advice of the biodiversity officer due to the migratory season of nesting birds. It said it would keep the resident updated about when works were ready to commence.
10. There is no evidence of the landlord providing any further update to the resident until the resident emailed on 7 March 2024. She expressed frustration with the prolonged delays and outlined the issues of condensation and mould she was experiencing. The landlord provided a brief update providing a timeline for the tender process and said it hoped the works would commence in mid-July 2024.
11. The roofing work continued to be delayed and the resident raised a complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained about the delays due to nesting birds. It also discussed other factors, including procurement delays, staff restructuring, and funding and procedural issues. In its later stage 2 response in August 2024, the landlord explained it was legally obligated to halt work when it coincides with the nesting period of a protected species.
12. We acknowledge that there are occasions where there will be circumstances beyond the landlord’s control. While frustrating for the resident, it is reasonable that the landlord had to initially delay the roofing works in order to comply with its legal obligations relating to a protected species.
13. The landlord also referred to other procedural factors for the delay. While we acknowledge that other factors impacted the timeframes for completion of the roofing work, the nesting season of migratory birds was cited by the landlord as a primary reason. This is a recurring event. Although the complaint responses explain the reasons for delays, there is no evidence to show that the landlord planned the works to take this into account.
14. The landlord also demonstrated poor communication during this period and repeatedly failed to provide the resident with any update about the status of the roofing works. This caused the resident distress and frustration and the landlord did not appropriately manage her expectations about when the roofing works were likely to be completed.
15. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised its communication failures and told the resident the project manager had been instructed to ensure they communicated with residents more effectively. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised for the inconvenience. It made a commitment to improve its communication but it did not offer the resident any compensation for the delays or its communication failures.
16. Overall, we consider that the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the delays to the roofing works. This led to the resident expending time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates. While the landlord acknowledged its failures and provided the reasons for the delays, it did not offer compensation in recognition of its failings. As such we have found service failure. In recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble this caused the resident, the landlord must pay compensation of £200. We are also aware that the roofing work remains outstanding. The landlord must provide the resident with a clear plan and timeframe for the completion of these works.

17. The landlord’s repair charter states that urgent repairs are classified as Priority 2 and should be carried out within 5 working days. Non-urgent repairs are classified as Priority 3 and should be carried out within 20 working days.
18. The resident raised issues of damp and mould in her emails about the roof works of 5 October 2023 and 7 March 2024. She also emailed the landlord’s repairs team on 7 March 2024 raising concerns about mould growth in her bedroom and bathroom which had caused damage to her belongings. She attached photos of this. The resident said she was disappointed with the lack of communication and action taken in response to her previous emails.
19. The landlord raised several repairs to address the damp and improve ventilation. A repair was raised on 15 March 2024 identifying that there was damp and mould present in bedroom and bathroom. This was categorised as a Priority 3 and had a target completion date of 16 April 2024. The landlord’s repair logs show that this had an actual completion date of 23 June 2024. This is 68 working days after the repair was raised which was not appropriate or in line with its policy. The landlord’s records do not outline what work was carried out at this time.
20. A repair was raised on 19 March 2024 to check the roof for leaks and clean the guttering. This was an appropriate action to take given the resident’s concerns that the roof was contributing to the damp and mould. However, This was categorised as a Priority 3 and had a target completion date of 18 April 2024. The landlord’s repair logs record an actual completion date of 13 June 2024. This was 59 working days after it was raised. Two additional repairs were raised on 23 May 2024 for extractor fan repairs in the property. These were prioritised as a Priority 3 and had a target completion date of 21 June 2024. One of these repairs was completed on 3 July 2024, 28 working days after it was raised, and the other was completed 3 August 2024, 51 working days after it was raised.
21. We consider that, during the period of this investigation, the landlord failed to appropriately deal with the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although it raised repairs to try and resolve the issues, there repairs were not carried out in line with the timeframes in the landlord’s own policy. Furthermore, the landlord failed to act at the earliest available opportunity to address this issue. The resident raised the issue of damp and mould in her email of 5 October 2023, however, the landlord did not take any action until March 2024. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal belongings caused by damp and mould. These failures caused the resident distress and frustration.
22. The resident has since raised further complaints in relation to damp and mould and the landlord has taken action in response to these.This occurred after the timeframe considered in this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to her later complaint, she has the option to bring them to us as a new complaint.
23. Furthermore, the landlord has recently provided us with a self-assessment against the recommendations of our Spotlight Report into damp and mould. This says that all reports of damp and mould are now prioritised as Priority 2 and therefore dealt with within 5 working days. It is positive to see the changes made by the landlord since to improve its handling of damp and mould. This is an appropriate step in ensuring that it does not repeat the same failings again.
24. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in carrying out the relevant repairs. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration. In relation to the damage caused to the resident’s belongings, this is typically a matter for an insurance claim. The landlord’s compensation policy says it should consider whether a matter should be processed via insurance when considering calculation of compensation. In its responses during the period considered in this investigation, the landlord did not acknowledge the damp and mould issue to the resident or the damage to the resident’s goods. Therefore no advice was given on making an insurance claim. The landlord must provide its insurance details to the resident should she wish to make a claim for her damaged belongings.

25. The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 10 working days. It says that stage 2 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response issued within 20 working days.
26. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’
27. In her email of 5 October 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the delays to the roofing works and the damp and mould present in her property. She also provided photographs of this. The landlord did not treat this email as a complaint despite the resident expressing dissatisfaction and no complaint response was issued responding to the issues raised. This was not in line with the Code
28. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 10 working days. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Code. It issued its stage 2 response 24 working days after the stage 2 escalation. This exceeded the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
29. The landlord correctly identified that the resident was raising a complaint about the delays to the roofing works to her property. However, the landlord failed to identify that the resident also raised the issue of damp, condensation, and mould in her complaint of 26 June 2024. The Code states that when a complaint is received at stage 1, the landlord must set out their understanding of the issue and the outcome the resident is seeking. The landlord failed to do this and did not clarify with the resident what the issues of complaint were or what outcome she was seeking. The landlord missed an opportunity to ensure it understood the resident’s complaint and to address all the issues raised.
30. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did set out its understanding of the issues of complaint, however it only referred to the delays in the roofing works and not the impact of the damp and mould which she had repeatedly referred to. As a result, neither of the landlord’s complaint responses addressed this issue. Therefore this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports as there was a complaining handling failure by the landlord as it did not address all the elements of her complaint.
31. In its stage 2 response, the landlord referred to an incorrect address when referring to the resident’s property. In her reply to the stage 2 response, the resident stated this this was concerning as it caused her uncertainty and made her question the details included within the response.
32. We consider that the landlord’s complaint handling failures to be maladministration. The landlord’s complaint handling failures likely caused the resident distress and frustration. It failed to correctly identify correspondence as a complaint and subsequently failed to address all the issues raised. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issues at the earliest opportunity. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, the landlord must pay the resident £150 in recognition of these failures and the impact they had on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord included an inaccurate address in its stage 2 response. The landlord should ensure that all records are accurate and all correspondence contains the correct details. This will reassure residents and help them to have confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Communication

34. The communication in this case was poor. Records show that the resident had to contact the landlord on several occasions to ask for updates and she was not given information about the delays to roofing works. We encourage the landlord to consider whether any changes are required to ensure it communicates effectively with residents.