Milton Keynes City Council (202108160)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108160

Milton Keynes City Council

6 November 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of decorative works following damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
After considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the following complaint is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing application.
This complaint falls under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 part 6. This includes applications for re- housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association), and covers:
1. Assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference. This includes:
  1. where an applicant needs to move on medical, welfare grounds or due to a disability or needs to move to a particular area to avoid hardship.
  2. Applicant is occupying unsanitary/overcrowded housing, or living in unsatisfactory housing conditions.
Consequently, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application and request for priority banding on medical grounds is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The resident has the option of submitting his complaint to the LGSCO for its consideration.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The tenancy started on 12 August 2019. The property is a two-bed two storey house. The resident said it had no recorded vulnerabilities at the property but the resident has explained within correspondence that her daughter has medical vulnerabilities that require consideration.
The landlord first identified water ingress at the property on 8 September 2020 with works carried out in January 2021 to the external walls to stop it. Further issues with damp and mould were identified in April 2021, which was found to be caused by a leak in the bathroom. The landlord took the decision to replace the bathroom in July 2021.
Following the bathroom replacement, further works to address water ingress around doors and windows in the property were completed in November 2021. Decorative works to treat the damage caused by damp and mould were scheduled following these works.
The resident’s complaint was directed to the landlord by this Service on 31 May 2022, as the formal internal complaint process had not been exhausted. The resident’s complaint was around repairs to the ceilings and other corrective works following the damp and mould issues were outstanding. The landlord’s complaint process was then followed but the resident remained unhappy with the outcome.
This report has therefore focussed on the events that occurred from six months prior to 31 May 2022 until the end of the internal complaint process on 22 September 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process which comprises of:
1. Stage one – The landlord should acknowledge these within 5 working days and provide a full response within 20 working days.
2. Stage two – The landlord says its response time to a stage two complaint is 20 days. This timeframe was not detailed on its website but was included within its self-assessment against this Service’s Complaint Handling Code operated in 2021-2022.

Summary of events

A works order to carry out a mould clean and apply stain block was raised by the landlord on 6 December 2021. It arranged this following works to seal around the doors and windows at the property on 19 November 2021. The landlord noted the works order as “no access” on 13 December 2021.
A further works order was raised on 20 December 2021 for the mould clean and stain block. The landlord attended on 19 January 2022 and noted that it completed the requested works but the “lounge carpet and underlay have mould”. The works order was noted to say that the contractor would discuss the carpet issue with the landlord and it would also book a plasterer to repair cracks along the lounge wall.
The works order to repair the living room wall was raised by the landlord on 21 January 2022 with the works being completed on 17 February 2022.
The landlord then attended the property on 24 February 2022 to review the hallway for potential decoration. It agreed to repaint the walls and ceiling in the hallway and a bedroom. The works order was raised on 4 March 2022 and the work was completed on 10 March 2022.
Following the decorative work on 10 March 2022, the landlord raised a new works order to “scrape and encapsulate ceilings” in the living room and one of the bedrooms. The landlord attended on 17 March 2022 and identified that the ceiling may contain asbestos, so the works did not go ahead.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 March 2022 for an update on the outstanding works at the property. They said that the operatives that turned up on 17 March 2022 had said they were there to “fill a hole in the ceiling”. She asked if the skirting boards that had been removed as part of the wall repairs would be replaced and asked whether “anything can be done regarding our flooring”.
The resident’s contact at the landlord replied on 29 March 2022 and said they were just returning to work as they “been unwell the past few weeks”. The response said “I will follow up on your case and update you as soon as I can”.
The resident did not receive a response from the landlord, so she requested an update again on 6 April 2022.
A works order was raised on 8 April 2022 for an inspection to assess the ceilings in “the lounge and small bedroom” as cracks were appearing. The inspection was booked for 21 April 2022.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s email and said that skirting board works had been arranged for 13 April 2022. The resident was told “the asbestos is no risk to you and the family as the works are to scrape and encapsulate the ceilings”. The landlord advised that it would not replace the flooring but it directed the resident to make an insurance claim through its website.
The resident responded the same day to confirm that works for the skirting boards and the ceilings had been booked for 13 April 2022 and 21 April 2022 respectively. The resident said that stain block had not been applied to her living room. She also raised a concern that she had filled in an insurance claim form but not heard back from them. The landlord replied on 12 April 2022 and said that the living room did not require a stain block treatment but did not acknowledge the issue around the insurance claim.
The landlord attended on 21 April 2022 to complete the ceiling works. The works order was noted to say that it would be passed to somebody else to “either remove all artex to small bedroom ceiling or take ceiling down”. The repair log provided by the landlord shows no evidence of a follow up works order.
On 31 May 2022, this Service directed a complaint from the resident to the landlord and asked that it be addressed in line with its complaint process.
The landlord provided a response on 17 June 2022. Within its response it said the following:
1. It acknowledged delays from 2021 saying that it required a number of investigations to identify the source of the damp, which led to it replacing the bathroom.
2. It said the only remaining works at the property were to “scrape and encapsulate the ceilings in your home, as the plaster was broken”.
3. It confirmed the cracks were “not the asbestos and therefore no risk to your family”.
4. The resident had agreed the week before that there was no further damp and mould in the property.
5. It apologised for previous delays in having works completed at the property.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 12 July 2022. Within her response to the stage one complaint, the resident said the following:
1. There had been severe delays in getting repairs arranged.
2. The flooring in the hallway and living room were badly affected by the damp and mould as there was mould on the bottom of them.
3. There was a smell of mould in the children’s bedroom and the ceiling showed signs of cracking.
4. The resident requested a copy of the most recent asbestos report, as she had been given inconsistent information around the potential presence of it in the property.
5. The resident also raised additional concerns that are not relevant to the issues considered in this report.
A building surveyor emailed the resident on 21 July 2022, it said this was “regarding an ongoing complaint and outstanding works at your property”. They proposed that they meet the resident at the property on 27 July 2022. The resident responded to say they would not be available that date but an appointment was agreed for 2 August 2022.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 20 September 2022 in which it said the following:
1. A building surveyor had met with the resident on 2 August 2022 and identified that at that time, “all repair works had been completed apart from the ceilings which contain artex coating asbestos”.
2. A small amount of damp was identified in the bedroom, which it would continue to monitor.
3. The landlord apologised for the previous delays in the works to the ceiling but confirmed it had been completed on 2 September 2022.
4. It directed the resident to make an insurance claim for any damage caused by leaks, damp or mould. It said this could be done through the resident’s own insurance, or the landlords and it provided a link for this kind of claim.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of decorative repairs following damp and mould.

It is evident that the landlord has undertaken several repairs and decorative works at the property within the review period for this investigation. Although some were completed in a reasonable and timely manner, there were delays with follow on works.
This is evident in the works to repair cracks in two of the ceilings. The works order was raised on 10 March 2022 to “undertake a scrape and encapsulation to ceilings in the lounge and bedroom 2”. The operatives did not complete this work on 17 March 2022, due to concerns around the potential presence of asbestos. The resident noted that they were under the impression they were there to complete a different job. However, following this visit, no further works orders were raised until 7 April 2022. This is after the resident chased the landlord for an update in her emails dated 25 March 2022 and 6 April 2022. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it delayed the completion of the work and due to the time and trouble the resident experienced in chasing responses and updates from it.
After the landlord assessed the ceilings on 21 April 2022, the works order was noted to say that the work would be passed to somebody else to arrange removal of the artex, or the ceilings. However, this work was not completed until 2 September 2022. The work was carried out during its stage two complaint investigation, despite the landlord having acknowledged the outstanding work in its stage one response in June 2022. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it did not demonstrate adequate management of these works by continuously failing to follow up on them causing a prolonged delay of six months. The landlord set the resident’s expectations incorrectly throughout this period and caused her to have to invest unnecessary time and trouble into chasing these works on each occasion.
The works order from January 2022 was noted to say that following the works it would “discuss the carpet issue with the landlord”. The resident had to chase a response to this request in her email dated 25 March 2022. The resident was then directed to make a claim through its insurer, which she said she had already done, but without any response. The landlord did not acknowledge this and no further action was taken. This is another failing on the part of the landlord, as even if it would not replace the floor coverings, it could have taken further action to address the lack of response. When the resident said she had not heard back from the claim, it could have identified and provided a likely timeframe for such a claim, or it could have offered to chase up a response to her claim. Instead, the resident has been left feeling that the landlord had ignored her, on more than one occasion, over a matter which she considered important.
During the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, she showed a concern around the potential presence of asbestos in the ceiling that had cracks emerging in it. Although the landlord assured her that it was the plaster that was cracking rather than the artex, it failed to provide a copy of any asbestos report, as per her request. Given the known health and safety issues stemming from asbestos, it is understandable that the resident would have these concerns. The landlord should have provided more information, such as an asbestos report, to reduce the distress caused to the resident during this period.
Overall, throughout the period under review, the landlord has shown a lack of oversight of its repairs process. Decorative works were completed but when there were requirements to follow up on these repairs, it failed to do so. In both the ceiling works and the resident’s questions around replacing the floor coverings, the landlord failed to show any urgency to help or address those issues. There was a prolonged delay in the completion of the ceiling works with the resident left chasing appointments and responses to both issues, as they were not forthcoming from the landlord. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord addressed the stage one complaint based on the request from, and detail provided by this Service. The landlord should have contacted the resident at this stage and ensured it fully understood the reason for the complaint and what resolution she wanted from it. In addressing the complaint it received around the decorative repairs, it said the only outstanding works were the ceiling repairs. Despite acknowledging that they were outstanding, the landlord makes no further comment and did not propose any actions to address those outstanding works. This is a failing by the landlord as it has not looked to address the complaint in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord should have sought to “Put things right” and ensure that the outstanding works were either completed or at least scheduled for completion. The lack of action by the landlord left the resident in a position in which she would have felt she had to escalate the complaint in order to have the work completed.
Within the resident’s escalation to stage two, she reiterated her complaint that the floor coverings had been damaged by the damp and mould. The landlord failed to investigate the history of this matter, as they directed the resident to their website to make an insurance claim. Had the landlord investigated this element of the complaint thoroughly, it would have found that the resident had already said she raised a claim and had not received a response to it. Given the time that had passed since the resident first said this, the landlord could have investigated this further and provided its findings. This is a failing by the landlord, as it’s response does not demonstrate an understanding or investigation of the history of this element of the complaint. As a result, the resident was in the same position as prior to the complaint. Its response would have been frustrating, given the time and trouble the resident had spent chasing this matter over the previous eight months.
The stage two response from the landlord was not provided in line with its timeframe of 20 working days, taking 50 working days to provide it. During this time, the landlord did take positive steps by carrying out an inspection of any required works and arranging the outstanding ceiling works. However, the time taken to do so was, in the view of this Service, excessive. The ceiling works were completed on 2 September 2022 but the response was not issued until 12 working days later. Given that the ceiling works always required completion and those works would not have affected the outcome of the complaint investigation, the landlord would have been able to provide a response to the complaint sooner than it did. Its decision not to do so could only have added to the resident’s overall frustration. This late response from the landlord also delayed the resident’s access to review from this Service.
Overall, the landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint effectively, or thoroughly. Within its initial response, it acknowledged outstanding works but failed to acknowledge its failings in not carrying out the work and offered no resolution to it. The stage two response did look to address the outstanding repairs but its response was provided significantly later than it should have been. The landlord directed the resident to make an insurance claim, ignoring the history of the issue which would have shown that she had already tried raising a claim. At neither stage did the landlord indicate whether the complaint was upheld or not and despite acknowledging failings in the service it provided, it made no offer of redress. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of decorative repairs following damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of decorative repairs following damp and mould.

The landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of follow on works from the decorative repairs carried out at the property. It failed to investigate and feedback to the resident around claims for damaged floor coverings, caused by previous damp and mould issues. Following this, it failed to schedule follow on works for the ceiling repairs on two occasions with action only having been taken when the resident chased it for updates on the work. The resident experienced a prolonged delay in awaiting completion of the ceiling works, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident, who had already experienced previous delays, as acknowledged by the landlord, with damp and mould works prior to these repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s complaint thoroughly at stage one and failed to take action to address one of the key reasons for the complaint. At stage two, it failed to provide a response in line with the timeframes set out in its policy and failed to investigate the resident’s concerns around the insurance claim adequately. The landlord acknowledged failings at both stages but offered no form of adequate redress at either stage.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £400 to the resident towards the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the decorative repairs following damp and mould. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £200 to the resident towards the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord should carry out a vulnerability review for the household and update its records accordingly within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensuring it has adequate oversight measures in place for follow on works recommended after initial works are undertaken.
2. Ensure that thorough complaint investigations are undertaken and responses are only issued once it is entirely satisfied with the completeness of its responses, utilising resident agreed time extensions where required and justified.