North West Leicestershire District Council (202337606)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337606

North West Leicestershire District Council

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of an issue with a drain in the resident’s back garden.
2. repairs to the resident’s front door.
3. reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord (a local authority). The tenancy began on 15 March 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident is registered blind (and gets help from his assistance dogs) and he has mental health difficulties.
The resident first reported a leak coming through his front door on 6 April 2022. The landlord installed a new front door on 31 August 2022. On 14 December 2022, the resident reported another leak coming through his front door. The landlord attended the property on 1 February 2023 to apply a new seal to the front door. The landlord attended the property a further 4 times between June and December 2023 to install a second new door and complete subsequent repairs.
On 7 January 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which he said:
1. he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of issues with his front door. The resident said he felt the landlord was accusing him of causing issues with the door.
2. he was unhappy with the landlord’s staff and their conduct.
On 11 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident and said:
1. it had logged the resident’s email as a stage 1 complaint.
2. it would install monitoring equipment, which it hoped would provide answers as to what was causing water to appear around the front door.
3. it had put the resident’s complaint on hold until it had installed the monitoring equipment.
The landlord said it attended the property again on 5 February 2024 to inspect the front door. During the inspection, the landlord said it used a hosepipe to “drench” the door with water. The landlord found no evidence of water coming through the seal or the threshold of the door.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on the same date and advised it that there was damp and mould in a downstairs cupboard. The resident said he had to keep throwing personal belongings away because of the mould.
On 22 February 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said:
1. it had inspected the resident’s front door and found no signs of water ingress. The landlord said it had resealed underneath the door with sand and cement as a precautionary measure to prevent future water absorption internally.
2. it had installed humidity monitoring equipment and had also agreed to install an ACO drain outside the front door. The landlord explained that this would give an opportunity to assess any waterlogged ground that may be causing water to be absorbed by the internal porous concrete of the entrance hall floor.
3. it had previously treated the mould in the resident’s cupboard however, due to it being a single skin external wall, the mould had continued to reoccur.
4. it attended the property on 15 February 2024 and agreed to carry out works to the property to resolve the issue with damp and mould. The landlord said it had actioned its contractor to attend the property to quote for the wall to be bricked up, insulated and a cavity to be installed. The cupboard would then become a useable storage outbuilding with access from the garden, in accordance with its original design.
On 4 March 2024, the resident raised a further complaint and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and its repairs service.
On 28 March 2024, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 19 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. it attended the property on 17 April 2024 and raised a repair order for some minor repair works which included:
  1. supplying and fitting a non-slip vinyl flooring in the kitchen and hallway.
  2. the installation of a thermal backed insulation board in the external store to prevent cold bridging.
2. it would attend the property on 24 April 2024 to complete the above repairs.
3. it had reviewed the monitoring footage from the humidity monitoring devices. The landlord said the humidity levels were within a healthy minimum and maximum range, apart from occasions where external conditions were elevated, or the heating was not in use. The landlord said once it had laid the new flooring, this may help maintain a healthy humidity range.
4. it had completed repair works to a good standard. The landlord acknowledged that some repairs required multiple attendances to find the root cause. However, it said the property was generally in a good state of repair.
5. the resident’s complaint about staff conduct appeared to be about the repairs service generally, rather than a specific officer.
6. it would not offer compensation to the resident. The landlord said while it acknowledged the resident’s frustrations, repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard. The landlord also offered additional support for the resident’s wellbeing.
7. the resident’s feedback had highlighted the necessity for enhanced maintenance procedures and proactive measures to resolve property concerns swiftly.
On the same date, the resident escalated his complaint. In his escalation request he said:
1. he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
2. the monitoring equipment was not working correctly to monitor the humidity levels.
3. there was still a leak coming through the front door.
4. he felt the landlord had not addressed where the damp and mould was coming from.
5. he felt that recent inspections had not been carried out by an independent inspector.
On 25 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. recent repair works had not lapsed outside of its agreed service standards.
2. it had tried to support the resident with external referrals to support agencies.
3. the humidity monitoring devices struggled to transmit data initially due to poor reception. However, the landlord said it had fixed the devices and it had shared the data with the resident.
4. there were no new grounds to offer compensation to the resident.
In referring his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. there is still an issue with his front door. In particular, the resident said there is water ingressing through a hole underneath the door.
2. he is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of issues with the front door and damp and mould in the property. The resident said he wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. he is unhappy with the landlord’s communication with him.
4. he is concerned that the landlord did not treat the damp and mould in the property. The resident said he feels that the landlord has covered the issue with plasterboard, rather than inspecting the root cause. The resident said he is concerned that the damp and mould will return.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
In correspondence with this service, the resident said there is an issue with a drain in his back garden. While the resident believes this issue is connected to other problems in the property, he did not raise this issue in his complaint on 7 January or 4 March 2024. That means the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the issues regarding the drain in the resident’s back garden because this is a separate issue to the complaint which was made to the Ombudsman.
The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised previous complaints about other disrepair issues in 2019, 2021 and 2022. The resident brought these complaints to the Ombudsman for investigation. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states:“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (l) seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.”
Accordingly, the resident’s previous complaints followed a separate complaint procedure. While the Ombudsman has referred to previous disrepair issues and subsequent damp and mould to provide context to the resident’s complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from January 2023 onwards, which was 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint in January 2024.
The resident said the issues in his property impacted his physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
The resident has raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and its contractors. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door

The landlord’s repairs policy states it:
1. will start scheduled works within 20 working days from receipt of the repair request.
2. will complete works no more than 60 working days from receiving the repair request.
3. may check the quality of the work by completing an inspection after it has completed the works (referred to as a post inspection).
The resident first reported a leak coming through his front door on 6 April 2022. The landlord’s repair records show that it resealed the door on the same day. The landlord attended the property again on 31 May 2022, following reports of a further leak. The landlord installed a new front door on 31 August 2022. On 14 December 2022, the resident reported a further leak coming through the front door. The landlord attended on 1 February 2023 to apply a new seal.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord instructed its contractors to carry out a drainage survey to identify the cause of the water ingress. The landlord attended the property a further 4 times between June and December 2023 to install a new door and complete subsequent repairs. However, the resident said there were still issues with the door and water was coming into the hallway.
The landlord said it attended the property again on 5 February 2024 to inspect the front door. During the inspection, the landlord said it used a hosepipe to “drench” the door with water. The landlord found no evidence of water coming through the seal or the threshold of the door. On 15 February 2024, the landlord fitted an ACO channel drain outside the resident’s front door to try and address the issue.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that overall, the landlord attended the property within its repair timescales. The landlord took steps to try and resolve the issue, for example it replaced the front door and requested a survey of the drainage system. However, the landlord has not provided full details of each attendance at the property, including what issues it identified, the possible cause of the water ingress, what works it carried out, or copies of any relevant inspection reports. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to determine whether the landlord took reasonable steps in investigating the root cause of the water ingress in the property. Further, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord completed a full and thorough inspection of the front door, prior to its inspection on 5 February 2024, which was 21 months after the resident first reported issues with his front door. This was evidence of poor record keeping.
There is no evidence that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident to monitor the effectiveness of the repairs. Given the number of reports the resident made about the front door, this was not appropriate.
The landlord should ensure it records details of any attendances at the property such as an attendance note detailing any issues discussed or resolved with the resident. The landlord should ensure it appropriately records any agreed actions or concerns so that these can be actioned promptly.
The resident said he was concerned that an independent or suitably qualified surveyor did not inspect the front door. Given the resident was reporting a repair, it was reasonable for him to expect that a suitably qualified person would inspect the front door.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has made several attempts to remedy the issue with the front door. However, there is no evidence the landlord conducted a post-completion survey of the repairs it carried out. On this basis, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that its repairs have remedied the issue, or that the works were completed to a good standard.
The resident has informed this service that there are still issues with his front door. In particular, the resident said there is a hole underneath the front door which is allowing water into the property/hallway. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident has recently raised this issue with the landlord, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and arrange an inspection to assess and resolve any outstanding works or leaks affecting the front door and/or property. The landlord should also confirm that it has completed all of the works as agreed in its stage 1 response.
Overall, while the landlord has attempted to remedy the issue with the front door, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration because:
1. the landlord failed to demonstrate it had completed a thorough inspection of the front door within a reasonable time, given it was aware of multiple reports of leaks affecting the door between 2022 and 2024.
2. the landlord failed to demonstrate it had applied a lasting and effective repair to the front door.
3. the landlord failed to monitor the effectiveness of the repairs.
4. the landlord failed to complete a post-completion survey of the repairs it had carried out, including the effectiveness of the ACO channel drain.
5. the resident reports that the issues with the front door have not been resolved.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2024 and advised it that there was damp and mould in a downstairs cupboard. The resident said he had to keep throwing personal belongings away because of the mould.
The landlord said it attended the property on 15 February 2024 and agreed to carry out works to the cupboard wall, which it said would resolve the damp and mould issue. It also agreed to install humidity monitoring devices to assess the humidity levels in the property.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had reviewed the monitoring devices. The landlord explained that the humidity levels were within a healthy minimum and maximum range, apart from occasions where external conditions were elevated, or the heating was not in use. The landlord agreed to lay new flooring in the resident’s hallway. It said once it had laid the flooring, this may help maintain a healthy range.
In his escalation request, the resident said the humidity sensors were not working correctly and he had concerns that the data was not accurate. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the property is located in a poor reception area which meant the devices struggled to transmit data initially. The landlord said it fixed the devices and the data was shared with the resident.
The Ombudsman is unable to determine if the humidity sensors were working correctly or not, based on the documentary evidence available. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedure and good practice. In this case, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the humidity sensors. It responded to the resident and explained that it had fixed the devices. It explained why it felt the humidity levels were not an issue in the property and it shared the device data with the resident.
The landlord completed works to the resident’s cupboard on 1 May 2024. The landlord said it has not received any further reports of damp and mould in the property. However, the resident said he is concerned that the damp and mould will return, and he is unhappy with the quality of the works undertaken.
The landlord has not provided any inspection reports to confirm the cause of the damp and mould and whether the repairs to the cupboard area were the most appropriate action to take. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a post-completion survey of the repairs it had carried out and whether this resolved the issue. On this basis, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that its repairs have remedied the issue, or that the works were completed to a good standard.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
There are no records of any mould washes taking place at the property in 2024. The landlord failed to assess whether a mould wash was required in the property, following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 8 February 2024. The Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a mould wash as soon as it was on notice of mould in the property.
The resident has informed this service that there was damage to multiple personal items because of mould in the property. The landlord said it was only aware of damage to a chair in the resident’s property and the resident withdrew his claim for damage of this item. However, the landlord did not fully address this in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman has therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss the extent of the damage to his belongings. The landlord should provide the resident with a clear response in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
The landlord acknowledged that it had previously treated the cupboard for damp and mould, but the mould reoccurred. While the landlord has completed works to the property in an attempt to resolve the issues of damp and mould, it does not appear to have completed a post-works inspection to confirm that the repairs have fully resolved the issue. This left the resident feeling concerned that the damp and mould would reoccur. The landlord also did not fully consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) states landlords must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint and at stage 2 within 20 working days of a request for escalation. The landlord’s complaint procedure aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 7 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 11 January 2024. However, it said it had put his complaint on hold until it had installed humidity monitoring equipment in the property.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to notify the resident of any delays in responding to his complaint, the landlord did not give a timescale for when it would install the monitoring equipment. This was not appropriate as the resident’s complaint response was dependent on the installation of the monitoring equipment. As the landlord did not give a date when it would install the equipment, it left the resident’s complaint open and unresolved.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 8 February 2024 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was not appropriate because the Ombudsman expects landlords to communicate with residents without the intervention of this service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 February 2024. However, the landlord did not indicate that this was a formal complaint response, and it did not title it as such. The response was not compliant with the Code. For example, it did not provide details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident was not satisfied with the response.
On 28 March 2024, the landlord said it had re-opened the resident’s complaint from January 2024. It is unclear why the landlord closed the complaint, as it had not provided a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint procedure. Further, the resident did not indicate that he wished for his complaint to be closed. This was not appropriate.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 April 2024. This was 73 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s response was 63 working days outside the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 19 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 25 April 2024. The landlord’s response was within the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also prevented him from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not fully address the delays in its complaint responses. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s responses did not reflect the failings identified. The landlord failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s handling of reports of an issue with a drain in the resident’s back garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £775, broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property.
  3. £225 for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident.

arrange an inspection of the resident’s front door and a post works inspection of the resident’s cupboard area. Once the inspection is completed, the surveyor must produce a written report within 10 working days of the inspection, which must:
1. comment on any water ingress from the front door area and the cause.
2. comment on whether there is any damp and mould present in the cupboard area or if the repairs have resolved the issue.
3. set out any outstanding repairs.
4. include photographs of the areas specified.
5. set out a schedule of works, together with indicative timescales to complete the repairs.

The surveyor’s report must be provided to the Ombudsman and the landlord within 10 working days of the inspection.
The landlord must then use its best endeavours to ensure the works are completed within 28 days of the date of the inspection report, or such other later time specific in the report. This includes any works as agreed in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord must retain records of its actions to confirm it has employed its best endeavours.

Recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, having regard to the Code.
2. contact the resident to discuss his report of damage to his personal belongings and provide him with a response in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.