London Borough of Redbridge (202408596)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408596

London Borough of Redbridge

10 January 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Bathroom repairs.
2. Window repairs.
3. Mould in the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. Her tenancy at the property began on 20 July 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a large residential block. The resident lives there with her dependent child.
At some point in late 2023, the resident raised a complaint about repair issues in the property. These included the bathroom wash hand basin being blocked, gaps in the windows and mould in the living room. On 29 November 2023, the landlord raised an order for a specialist contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey. On 30 November 2023 it raised an order for its repairs contractor to “overhaul” the windows to address any gaps.
The landlord inspected of the property on 11 December 2023. It said that the bathroom wash hand basin needed to be removed and the pipework behind cleaned out to remove any blockages. On 9 February 2024, the landlord raised an order to its repairs contractor to carry this out. It also asked it to renew the wash hand basin and bath.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 March 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was refurbishing her bathroom but not retiling the walls. She accused it of doing a “slap dash half hearted job”.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 April 2024. It said that:
1. Following her previous complaint, it had not been recommended that the property required a new bathroom, only replacement of the bath and wash hand basin.
2. It had attempted to arrange the recommended bathroom works, but this had been delayed as the resident had wanted the toilet and the bathroom flooring renewed also. It claimed the resident had refused to give access for the works unless these were added.
3. It had now agreed to carry out the additional works as a goodwill gesture but would need to obtain new quotes for these.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 11 April 2024. She said that the landlord had not addressed her request for it to retile the bathroom.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 7 May 2024. It said that:
1. The tiles in the bathroom were “not defective” and so it would not agree to replace them.
2. It was prepared to carry out the agreed works once the resident arranged to grant access to the property.
3. Its contractor had carried out a damp and mould survey on 10 January 2024. It had identified that the property was “suffering from condensation”.
4. It had carried out a mould wash on 23 February 2024 to address this.
5. Its contractor had attempted to contact the resident by phone call and letter to arrange to overhaul the windows. It had been unable to do so and so had cancelled the works order.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 June 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord would not carry out a “full bathroom renovation” and that it had not addressed the gaps in the windows. She said that the mould in the living room had also returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Both the resident’s original complaint and her escalation request concerned only the bathroom works. However, in both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord included details of all repair issues raised in her previous 2023 complaint. When bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident expressed continued dissatisfaction with the windows and mould in the property, as well as the bathroom repairs. This investigation will therefore focus on these 3 issues and will not include any of the other repair matters, which no longer appear to be in dispute.

Bathroom repairs

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it inspected the property on 11 December 2023. This service has not been provided with a copy of the inspection report or any associated notes. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said that it found the bathroom wash hand basin needed to be removed and the pipework behind it cleared to address blockages.
The stage 1 response explained that following this, it recommended to also renew the wash hand basin and bath. The landlord raised a works order for this on 9 February 2024. The landlord has not provided any explanation for the unreasonable near 2 month delay between it inspecting the property and raising this works order.
The landlord said that it had attempted to arrange the works, but the resident had informed it she would not be granting access until it agreed to also renew the toilet and the bathroom flooring. Whilst the landlord has not provided any records to support this, the resident did not dispute it in either her escalation request or contact with this service.
Although the toilet and bathroom flooring were not part of the recommended works, and this service has seen no evidence that they were in disrepair, the landlord reasonably agreed to renew them “as a goodwill gesture”. It appropriately advised the resident that this would lead to delays as it would need to obtain new quotes for the expanded works.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address the resident’s request that it retile the bathroom. This led to her escalating her complaint on that basis.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response rectified this oversight. It explained that the bathroom tiles were “not defective” and so it would not agree to replace them. This was a reasonable position considering the landlord had inspected the property and not identified any issues with the tiling. The landlord said it remained ready to carry out all the agreed works and urged the resident to arrange access with it.
In summary, the landlord unreasonably delayed in raising a works order for the bathroom repairs. However, the detriment caused by this was limited as it was unable to arrange access to the property due to the resident disagreeing with the scope of works. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to carry out some additional works as a goodwill gesture. There is no evidence to show its position that the tiles were fit for purpose and did not require renewing was unreasonable. There is therefore no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Window repairs

The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a works order to its repairs contractor on 30 November 2023 to overhaul all the resident’s windows to prevent drafts. It asked it to also assess whether the windows needed replacing.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it had reviewed the contractor’s records for the works order. It said these showed that the contractor had attempted to call the resident on 1 December 2023 to schedule an appointment. It was unable to reach her and so left a voicemail. The contractor’s records showed that it then wrote to the resident on 7 December 2023, asking her to contact it and arrange an appointment.
The landlord’s repair logs show that the contractor cancelled the works order on 20 December 2023, as the resident had not made contact to arrange the appointment. This was reasonable as the contractor had attempted to contact the resident by 2 separate methods to make an appointment, with no response. This service has seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord or its contractor following closure of the order to chase up the window repairs.
Having identified that the works order had been cancelled during its complaint investigation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to attempt to reraise the order and schedule an appointment with the resident as part of its stage 2 response. There is no indication that the resident was declining to grant access for works other than those to the bathroom.
This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to proactively resolve this issue, which was still outstanding when the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and formed part of her basis for doing so. This represents service failure by the landlord. As of 22 October 2024 – when the landlord provided repair logs to support this investigation, there was no evidence that it had raised a further works order.

Mould

Following the resident’s complaint in 2023, the landlord raised a works order on 29 November 2023 for a specialist contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey. The contractor attended the property on 10 January 2024 and issued a report of its findings 2 days later.
It is unclear why it took 6 weeks for the contractor to carry out the survey – although there is some mitigation in that this included the Christmas period. The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight Report’ on damp and mould recommends that landlords “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. This was not apparent in this case, despite the presence of a child in the property.
The contractor diagnosed that the property was “suffering from condensation”. Whilst the landlord quoted this in its stage 2 complaint response, it has not provided any evidence that it informed the resident of this at the time of receiving the contractor’s report. Nor has it shown that it provided the resident with appropriate advice on how to reduce condensation and manage the appearance of mould in the property. The landlord’s website has a page dedicated to such guidance, which it could easily have signposted her to.
Within its report, the contractor recommended that the landlord install thermal boarding to the living room walls to increase their temperature and reduce the formation of condensation. It provided a quote for it to undertake these works. The landlord has not provided any evidence or explanation of its decision not to pursue this recommendation, or that it discussed this with the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord does not have a stand alone damp and mould policy. Our ‘Spotlight Report’ also included a recommendation that landlord’s “consider whether they require an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould … This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication and aftercare”. The existence of such a policy may have better guided the landlord’s actions after receiving its contractor’s report.
The landlord did raise a works order for a mould wash of the property on 24 January 2024. It has not explained why it took almost 2 weeks from the date of the contractor’s report to do so. The landlord’s repair logs show that the mould wash was completed on 23 February 2024. This was slightly outside of the 28 calendar days which its repairs handbook says it will complete routine repairs in.
In solely carrying out a mould wash, the landlord failed to address the root cause of the mould, as identified by its contractor. It would have been appropriate for it to attempt to reduce the condensation levels, either by providing the resident with relevant advice or by carrying out the recommended works. It is apparent from this service’s communication with the resident that, following the mould wash, mould has reappeared in the property and the issue remains ongoing.
Due to this, and unreasonable delay in its contractor carrying out the damp and mould survey of the property, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of bathroom repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of mould in the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 composed of:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of window repairs.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of mould in the property.
2. Raise a new works order for its contractor to:
  1. Inspect, and overhaul as necessary, all windows in the property to prevent drafts.
  2. Assess whether the windows in the property require renewing.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a further damp and mould survey of the property by a suitably qualified individual. The landlord should provide the resident with:
1. A copy of the survey report.
2. Appropriate advice on ways to reduce condensation levels within the property.
3. Its position on undertaking any works recommended within the survey report.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers implementing a damp and mould policy to formalise its approach, including timescales, to the diagnosis and management of damp and mould in its properties.