Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202015815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015815

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

12 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2016. The property is a two-bedroom property in a low–rise block of flats. The landlord noted that the resident has a history of mental health issues. The landlord is an arms‑length management organisation of the local authority.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible, among other things, for the structure of the property. It also says that residents must allow landlord staff, contractors or anyone else working on its behalf, access to the property to carry out necessary inspections or maintenance or repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards say repairs should be reported to their repairs service telephone line or by email; it also provides an out of hours service. These repair standards say that emergency repairs are those that need doing because there is an immediate risk of serious injury or death if they are not carried out. It says the landlord offers a 24/7 emergency service and it will always try to get to an emergency repair callout straight away (within four hours) depending on the urgency of the situation and in any case no longer than 24 hours. It included examples of what it would include as an emergency and this included, among other things, unsafe electrics; leak from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern; unsafe floorboards.
In relation to damp, mould and condensation, the repair standards say that if it believes the property might be suffering with damp, mould or condensation the landlord will send someone out to have a look at it within four weeks of the resident contacting it. If it approves any remedial works these will be carried out within three months of the resident reporting the issue to it.
At the time of the complaint, there was a one-stage complaint procedure; from April 2021 the landlord introduced a two-stage complaints procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The evidence suggests that while the two-stage procedure was formally introduced from April 2021, the landlord used this procedure for earlier complaints.
The complaint procedure also says that where the circumstances of a complaint could give rise to a claim for damages for personal injury, claims under £150 will be assessed and managed by its customer relations team; claims above £150 are managed on behalf of the landlord by the local authority’s Insurance and Risk Management Team.
The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy says that it expects customers to take out home contents insurance to insure their belongings against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021.

Summary of events

In an internal email dated 4 June 2020, a team leader within the landlord’s repairs team noted a call the previous day at about 12:35 pm from the resident who at the time was a temporary employee of the landlord. They noted that the resident had said he had returned to the property to find approximately 2 inches of standing water and he had informally asked a couple of plumbers working for the landlord to go with him to find the source of the leak. The team leader noted that they would speak to the resident about the importance of using the correct procedure to report repairs. They noted that there was no apparent leak in the property so they knocked on the neighbour’s door and found there was a leak from the washing machine connection.
The team leader noted that they would take the following action: raise an emergency order for both the resident’s and the neighbouring property to check the electrics, plumbing and floorboards. They noted that they would also ask a surveyor to inspect the property for damp, mould and/or condensation.
On the same day the repair log evidences that several work orders were raised – the leak was resolved on 4 June 2020 and that the operative arrived on site at 15:44 pm. The repair log notes that the property had been flooded from the neighbouring flat, which had also flooded; the water had been turned off but there was “standing water everywhere”. The log noted that the floorboards should be checked as water had been leaking “for 2 years” and the wood was “spongy”.
An inspection of the floorboards and the electrical check were carried out on 5 June 2020.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord noted a formal complaint from the resident as he had been left for two weeks in the property following a leak from the flat above which had contained human waste. He said that he could only use the living room because the other rooms were covered in water; he said his clothes had been damaged also. The resident said he had notified the landlord two weeks ago but nothing had been done.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the complaint.
On 11 June 2020 the landlord’s repairs manager confirmed that the electrical issues had been completed at the property the previous week.
On 3 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. It had attended the resident’s report of the leak from the neighbour’s flat on 4 June 2020. It had repaired the leak that was coming from a washing machine connection.
2. A joiner attended the property on 5 June 2020 to assess the floorboards and they took photos and passed to the repairs team who referred the findings to the major works team to complete any necessary repairs. The evidence is not clear on whether any repairs to the floorboards was necessary.
3. An electrician also attended on 5 June 2020 and completed an electrical check. As a precaution, a request was sent to its electrical contractor to complete a periodic check on the electrics. It noted they were instructed to contact the resident to arrange the appointment. It asked the resident to contact it if that check had not yet taken place. The evidence is not clear on whether such a check was completed.
4. The operatives had seen no evidence of human waste in the property as a result of the leak.
5. It had seen no reason to decant the resident from the property as a result of the leak.
6. It asked if there were outstanding reports to the property to let it know via the customer service centre. It noted it would not accept repairs reported internally.
7. It had asked for a claim form to be sent to him regarding the damage in the property. It said its insurance team would contact him with a response to his claim once it had been made.
It explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
The repair log evidences that on 6 August 2020 a job was raised to stain block and paint the kitchen ceiling and apply mould paint above the bathroom window. The repair log noted that an appointment was made for 9 October 2020 but then amended to 7 January 2021 when the resident refused the work. There is a note of call from the landlord to the resident who said this work would just “hide the problem”.
On 15 December 2020 a principle claims specialist from the local authority wrote to the resident refusing his insurance claim against the landlord. They explained that, in order for his claim to be successful, there must be evidence that the landlord was on notice of a leak into the property and that it failed to take action within a reasonable time. They said that there were no reports of any leaks into the property until June 2020; at which time the source of the leak was identified and remedial action was taken.
On 16 February 2021 a surveyor carried out a damp survey. They noted that the resident had stated that the loft insulation had been surveyed less than a week before and found to be inadequate and added they trusted that this issue would be actioned by the landlord. The surveyor noted no remedial work was required to the kitchen, living room or second bedroom. They recommended the following action to be taken:

Bedroom 1: fungal scrub and apply mould paint all walls and ceiling.

Bathroom: fungal scrub and apply mould paint between the handbasin and toilet.

The repair log evidences that a job was raised on 1 March 2021 to carry out work to the bathroom and bedroom as recommended by the surveyor following the damp survey. The repairs log also evidences that on 2 and 18 March 2021 the resident refused this work.
On 8 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage two of the formal complaints procedure. The evidence is not clear when the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The main points were:
1. There was a clear audit trail that indicated it had responded to the resident’s reports quickly.
1. The resident had failed to provide access to appointments for repairs and a number of instances where he had refused to allow works to be completed.
2. The survey of 17 February 2021 (this should read 16 February 2021) highlighted issues caused by condensation; it did not support the resident’s view of the condition of the property.
3. The leak to the property could not have been foreseen.
4. It was unclear if, following the leak, aided drying of the property was required and the survey of 17 February 2021 had suggested this was not necessary.
5. It did not uphold the resident’s request for compensation.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 21 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that mould paint would not resolve the issues with damp in the property. He said this had resulted in mould throughout including in the fridge and on carpets.
On 9 August 2021 an operative attended the property to do a fungal scrub and apply anti-mould paint. Some work was carried out; however, they noted that the work specification was out of date and more work was required.
In an internal email dated 16 September 2021 the landlord noted that the resident was refusing it to carry out any work until his claim for compensation was sorted out.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he said he believed there had been water damage to the property for years before he moved in but this had been exacerbated by the washing machine leak. He said there were also roof repairs which had contributed to the damp and mould. The resident said he had been living in one room all this time while paying the bedroom tax because he had two bedrooms. He said he wanted compensation for his belongings that were damaged adding that this matter had “mentally cost him”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould in the property

While the repairs log evidences two historical leaks into the property in 2005 as well as various overflow leaks out of the property, there is no evidence in that log of other reported leaks coming into the property from 2005 until June 2020.
The evidence suggests that the resident reported the leak of 3 June 2020 internally to a colleagues rather than to the repairs telephone line in line with landlord’s repair standards (paragraph 4). It also suggests that the matter was resolved that afternoon when plumbers went to the property with the resident, identified the source of the leak and resolved it. The actions taken by the landlord were appropriate and meant that its repair standards were met. It was also reasonable that it raised follow-up repairs the following day. This Service has not seen evidence that any follow-up works were completed, namely the electrical survey and any appropriate floorboard repairs, and a recommendation has been made, below.
The landlord noted on 3 June 2020 that it would instigate a survey of the property for damp, mould and condensation. This took place on 16 February 2021, some eight months later and outside the timescales set out in the repairs standards (paragraph 5). It is reasonable to presume that the time this took was affected by the restrictions imposed on the landlord as a result of the pandemic and was therefore not as a result of any service failure. While this Service acknowledges the resident’s view that the work recommended by the surveyor in February 2021 will not be successful in resolving the mould, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on this expert opinion and undertake this work to try to resolve the issue.
The landlord acted appropriately by instigating this work promptly following the surveyor’s report. The evidence is unclear on whether this work has now been carried out. Despite the resident’s concerns, there is an obligation on him to allow access for the landlord to carry out the recommended work (paragraph 3). Should this action not be successful, the resident should report this to the landlord so that it can investigate further.
The landlord also acted appropriately by referring the resident’s claim to the local authority to decide on in line with its procedures (paragraph 7). The decision of the local authority not to progress the claim is not a matter this Service can determine. Any dissatisfaction about this decision should be raised with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in the first instance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately to ensure that the leak was resolved within its emergency repair timescales and that follow-up work was initiated. Further action by the landlord to try to resolve the mould – by following the recommendations of the surveyor – was also appropriate.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action (if this has not been carried out already):
1. To renew the loft insulation which the surveyor considered to be a contributory factor in the levels of condensation in the property.
1. Ensure that the follow-on electrical survey of the property has been completed.
2. Ensure that any appropriate repairs have been carried out on the floorboards.