Newham Council (202120548)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120548

Newham Council

21 December 2022


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.
    2. Handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background

  1. The complainant is the daughter of the secured tenants of the property, acting as their representative. For clarity, she and her parents will be referred to throughout this report as ‘the resident’. The landlord is the resident’s local authority.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould at her property in February 2020. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property in March 2020 to carry out an inspection and to identify the repairs needed. Following the inspection, works were raised for the kitchen and bathroom, with evidence of damp and mould at the property. Due to government guidelines during the Covid-19 pandemic, the landlord stopped all non-emergency repairs until May 2021. Following an official complaint from the resident in December 2021, the works were completed in February 2022.
  3. The landlord acknowledged an official stage one complaint in December 2021, after the resident complained to this Service about their recurring problem with damp and mould. In her complaint, the resident reported having attempted to treat the mould for years with no success, spending a considerable amount of money. The resident also said she had brought the issue to the landlord’s attention in various occasions with no response. The resident escalated her complaint in February 2022 as she was not satisfied with the level of compensation awarded by the landlord in its stage one response.
  4. In response to the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of damp and mould in February 2020, its subsequent inspection, and the cancellation of the planned works due to Covid-19. It apologised for the resident’s need to raise a complaint and presented the outcome of the inspection carried out in December 2021. It explained that works were raised following the inspection, acknowledged the resident’s waiting time, apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £650 compensation. Following the escalation of the complaint, the landlord carried out a formal investigation, apologised for the time taken to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint, and offered an extra £50 compensation as a result (£700 total).
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and brought her complaint to this Service. She explained that she did not believe the amount offered reflected the landlord’s failings throughout its complaint handling procedure and its delay in providing a solution to the damp and mould at her property – as well as the impact of this delay on the family.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider issues that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In her complaints the resident has stated that she has experienced damp and mould at her property for seven years. There is no evidence of a formal complaint to the landlord until December 2021, when the resident approached this Service for assistance. Because of that, in line with paragraph 42(c) this investigation centres on events in the months leading up to and after December 2021. References to earlier periods is primarily to explain the background to the issue.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure, outside and shared areas of the home, including drains, gutters and outside pipes. If the cause of any damp and mould is found to be the lack of damp proofing or other building defects the landlord should be responsible for rectifying it. The tenancy agreement however states the resident should take out their own contents insurance.
  2. A building surveyor attended the property for an inspection for damp and mould on 20 March 2020. Upon inspection, it was found that, amongst other things, there were no vents, sealant was required in the kitchen and bathroom, and damp and mould existed in the property.
  3. Due to lockdown and Covid-19 government guidelines, the landlord postponed or cancelled all non-emergency works from March 2020 until May 2021, and so the work identified in March was not done. However, the resident received no notice, which would normally constitute a failure by the landlord to manage her expectations. It is nevertheless reasonable to consider the unprecedented circumstances posed by the pandemic and to understand the difficulties faced by many landlords at the time.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord in March 2021 about the ongoing mould problems, and the landlord responded, saying it had passed her correspondence to its technical team. There is no evidence of any further contact by either the landlord or the resident, and so it is not possible to see what action, if any, was taken at that time. Nonetheless, the landlord later explained that it did not restart non-emergency repairs until May 2021. Although it was understandable for the landlord to delay non-emergency repairs following the government guidelines during the coronavirus pandemic, at the very least the landlord should have explained that to the resident when she made contact in March. There is no evidence that it did so, which was a failing. Good practice would have been to advise the resident at the time of temporary measures that could potentially help to the problems at the property until the necessary repairs could be completed, but there is no evidence this was offered.
  5. In December 2021, following the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord was informed of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould by this Service. It acknowledged a stage one complaint on 9 December 2021. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the repairs outstanding from the surveyor’s inspection, and apologised for the resident’s need to raise a complaint. The landlord conducted a new inspection on 17 December 2021. It found the bedroom to be in good condition and tested negative for damp. There was evidence of mould in the bathroom wall, ceiling junctions and tiles above the bathtub.
  6. In May 2021, once lockdown was lifted and the landlord restarted non-emergency works, ideally, the resident would have appeared within its records of outstanding repairs. There is no evidence that this happened, or evidence of contact by either the landlord or the resident until the resident contacted this Service in December 2021.
  7. Once the outstanding repairs had been brought to the landlord’s attention in December 2021 matters appear to have proceeded relatively speedily, with the work completed in February 2022.
  8.  In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the resident needing to complain in order to progress the repairs, and for the significant delay. It agreed that once it restarted repairs in May 2021 it should have rearranged the resident’s outstanding work. It offered compensation totalling £650, for the time and trouble (£150), and delay and distress (£500).
  9. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out guidelines for different levels of compensation. These range up to £150 for time and trouble, and up to £500 for delay and distress. The amounts offered to the resident by the landlord were at the top end of those guidelines. They were also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints involving significant delay but no apparent permanent impact. Accordingly, the compensation offered was reasonable.
  10. In her complaint escalation the resident asked the landlord to take into consideration the costs of cleaning and treating the mould, and damage caused to personal belongings. She also explained that, because of the family’s efforts to treat and clean the mould over the months, its severity and extent would not have been as obvious to the landlord’s operatives as it would have been otherwise. The landlord explained that its inspections did not corroborate the resident’s contention that damage had been caused. The resident’s explanation is wholly understandable and relevant. However, in the absence of clear evidence presented to it linking the landlord’s delays (in the period after May 2021) to damage caused to belongings in the resident’s home, or other expenses above and beyond the usual, the landlord’s decision not to offer further compensation was not unreasonable.  

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that there is a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide a response within twenty working days. Following investigation, the complainant’s case can be upheld, not upheld or partially upheld. Where things have gone wrong, the landlord should explain what will be done to put them right and what lessons will be learned. If the complainant does not agree with the outcome of the investigation, a stage two review may be requested. A response at this stage should be provided within fifteen working days.
  2. A stage one complaint was raised by the landlord on 9 December 2021 following the resident’s contact with this Service regarding the outstanding repairs at the property and the landlord’s lack of response. It was reasonable by the landlord to raise an official complaint within its internal complaints procedure given the circumstances.
  3. Although it took twenty-three days for the landlord to provide the resident with a response, three days longer than what its policy lays out, it did advise the resident of this delay in advance of the target day – managing the resident’s expectations and keeping her informed of the state of her complaint.
  4. In its response, the landlord appropriately summarised the complaint and explained the investigation carried out. It addressed the points raised by the resident and apologised for her need to raise a new complaint. The landlord also informed the resident of the outcome of the inspection, and the repairs planned. It acknowledged the complaint delays, and provided an apology for the inconvenience caused, offering compensation for its service failure and its impact.
  5. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord appropriately provided reasonable redress to the resident by apologising, recognising its errors and offering compensation.

 Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to:
    1. Its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. Its complaint handling.
  2. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these actions resolve the complaints satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. Reference is made above to the resident’s request to the landlord to consider additional expenses the family incurred addressing and managing the mould and damp problems they were experiencing. The landlord’s response to the request was reasonable in the circumstances, because no apparent evidence had been provided to it in support. However, the landlord is recommended to be open to the possibility of the resident providing it with meaningful information and/or evidence relating to the specific period of the delay. If such details are provided, it should consider re-examining its decision not to provide further compensation in this particular regard.