Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202229685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229685

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

28 March 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. A leak.
2. Window replacement work including major work involving the bay windows.
3. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident lives in a three-bedroom house. His landlord is a council. The landlord does not have a copy of the resident’s tenancy. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to establish his tenancy status. The resident has osteoarthritis, hypertension, COPD, angina, chronic kidney disease and asthma.
On 2 March 2021 the resident reported that his windows were not shutting properly because of the ‘rubbers’. He also reported an unspecified problem with his back door on that date.
On 11 March 2022 the resident reported damp in his property. On 21 March 2022, the landlord decided to inspect the resident’s windows. It inspected the resident’s kitchen and bedroom windows on 19 April 2022. It concluded they were working fine but it is unclear if it told the resident.
The resident raised the following with his landlord on 6 June 2022:
1. issues with internal beading around his front door
2. leaking guttering at the rear of the property
3. a kitchen extractor hood unconnected to an external duct
4. ventilation system noise.
The landlord completed the following roof work at some point before 13 April 2023, but it is unclear when. It:
1. realigned the eaves gutter
2. replaced the rainwater shoe/swan neck/ offset bend
3. isolated the crack on the flat roof
4. stripped and plastered around the front door.
On 20 September 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s property to examine the window. It erected scaffolding by 21 November 2022 to investigate possible movement around the windows.
At some point the landlord stopped work on the resident’s roof and instructed a structural engineer. This was after its contractor raised concerns over the structure of the resident’s building. However, it is unclear exactly when work stopped, and the structural engineer was instructed.
On 6 December 2022 the resident complained to a local councillor that he had not seen any operatives on the scaffold in three weeks. He also complained that no one had returned to repair the lock to his front door.
The landlord erected additional scaffolding on 16 January 2023.
On 27 February 2023 the resident told this service that he had a leak that his landlord had not investigated.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint after contact from the Ombudsman on that day. The complaint was about the window replacement work, major works and damp and mould. The major works related to the insertion of steel beams to reinforce the resident’s building and bay windows.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 21 March 2023. It said:
1. it could not find any recent complaints about the windows, damp, and mould or major works
2. the resident reported the issue with their windows on 2 March 2021
3. a UPVC operative attended on 3 March 2021 and carried out repairs to seven downstairs windows
4. the operative recommended repairs to nine upstairs windows but this would require scaffolding or a cherry picker
5. the landlord asked an external contractor to deal with this at the start of 2023, but no progress was made
6. the landlord apologised for the delay and impact on the resident
7. in March 2022 the resident reported an issue with his front door and the rubber seals of his windows
8. an operative reported that his kitchen and bedroom windows were working fine
9. it completed a mould wash on 20 March 2023, and it would inspect his home on 2 May 2023
10. it would complete any necessary repairs after this
11. it attempted to contact the resident regarding the major works which it assumed were related to the roof and guttering
12. the major works were also linked to the windows
13. it would update the resident in 10 working days and upheld his complaint.
On 3 April 2023 the landlord told the resident it was still waiting for information from its teams so it could not offer him an update.
On 7 April 2023 the landlord’s structural engineer issued a report. It recommended the landlord insert “steel frames from top to bottom on both bays, both bays to come down and test holes to determine if the footings need underpinning.” This amounted to major works.
The landlord updated the resident on 13 April 2023. It told him:
1. the contractor had raised concerns about the structure of the building
2. a structural engineer had recommended works
3. it was discussing the scope of the works with its contractor
4. there was no imminent health and safety risk to the resident
5. the initial work to overhaul the roof was completed, apart from some ongoing pointing works
6. it would update him in 10 working days.
On 10 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He told his landlord that the contractor had not been on site since 15 February 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 7 June 2023. It said:
1. it apologised for the delay in responding and not updating the resident within 10 working days of 13 April 2022
2. it had planned a meeting for 13 June 2023 with its contractor and a steel fabrication company
3. there were delays as it had difficulty finding a ‘helifix’ approved contractor
4. it had now found one and expected a quote within a week of the meeting
5. it acknowledged its failure to keep the resident updated on the work and upheld his complaint
6. it would provide a comprehensive update following the visit.
On 30 August 2023 the resident’s legal representative sent a letter to the landlord telling it of intended legal action. However, this service has received confirmation that no legal or court proceedings have started to date.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord received a quote for the works recommended by the structural engineer.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to do the major work. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of mould and damp. The resident informed this service that his front door was repaired and that his complaint about this was resolved.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord told this service that it intended to remove and rebuild the front external wall of the resident’s property. It intended to reinforce the bay windows of the resident’s property using steel frames. These are the major works referred to in this report.
The resident told us on 13 and 26 March 2024 that the major works remained outstanding. He also mentioned that:
1. his landlord boarded up his bedroom window in February 2023
2. wood pigeons and squirrels had entered gaps in the roof as his loft is exposed
3. he experienced cold indoor temperatures
4. his cellar was damp and the landlord’s mould washes were ineffective
5. he had concerns about living in a structurally unsound building.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

The Scheme that the Ombudsman operates under defines what complaints we can and cannot look at. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made before the resident has exhausted its landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
Having reviewed the file there is no evidence that the resident pursued a complaint with the landlord about a leak. This complaint is therefore out of the scope of this investigation under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
The resident has disclosed to this service that his health has been impacted by the damp, mould, and delays in the major works. The Ombudsman can consider the impact of housing conditions on a resident’s health where there is evidence. However, we are unable to assess liability for any alleged personal injury. This function would be better suited to the courts.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the delays in the major works. These are connected to the roof repair works the landlord raised on 6 June 2022. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to consider how the landlord handled the roof works as a whole.

Windows

On 2 March 2021 the resident reported his windows were not shutting because of the ‘rubbers’. The landlord attended the next day and adjusted seven downstairs windows to prevent draughts. This was reasonable as the landlord responded in one working day and in line with its repair policy. There is no evidence of any ongoing issue with these windows.
The landlord raised a job for repairs to nine upstairs windows on 3 March 2021. These repairs remain outstanding. The landlord told this service on 20 October 2023 that it would replace these as part of the major works. Under the landlord’s repair handbook, it was entitled to treat this window replacement as planned work.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord considered if it could do patch repairs either. This amounts to a service failure as the landlord should have explained this to the resident or considered if a temporary repair was possible.

Major works

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the delays to the major works. The landlord identified the need for these works after doing some initial roof repair work. This was in response to the resident’s report of a leaking guttering, this was first referenced by the landlord on 12 April 2022. The landlord’s repair records from 6 June 2022 show that it realigned the eves gutter, replaced a shoe/swan neck, and repaired a cracked flat roof.
It is unclear when the landlord completed these roof works. This was a failure to create and maintain adequate records. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s repair policy required non-urgent work to be completed within 20 working days. The evidence is that the landlord did not complete these works within 20 working days of being aware of the leaking guttering. This was a service failure.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it erected scaffolding by 21 November 2022 to explore the stability around the resident’s windows. The landlord’s contractor raised concerns about the structural stability of the resident’s building.
The resident complained that the landlord stopped work on 15 February 2023. This service has seen no evidence that contradicts this. The landlord told the resident it had to stop work and had to wait for a structural surveyor to inspect and report. The structural surveyor did not report until 7 April 2023.
The Ombudsman cannot find fault in the landlord stopping the work and obtaining specialist structural advice. However, the service has not seen evidence to explain why this took so long (15 February 2023 to 7 April 2023) or what attempts the landlord made to chase the surveyor.
There was also a delay between the structural surveyor’s report (7 April 2023) and the landlord obtaining a quote for the recommended work (1 September 2023). The landlord’s account is that it took its contractor nearly five months to provide a quote. This is because the contractor was not familiar with ‘helibars’. These are steel reinforcement bars used in construction. The landlord ought to have sought quotes elsewhere in that instance.
There were also delays because the landlord needed to obtain calculations from a steel fabrication company. Understandably, complex major structural works will take time to organise. Major works will be subject to factors outside a landlord’s control. The Ombudsman understands the work remains outstanding.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have obtained more than one quote after the structural surveyor reported. This is because it would need more than one quote to progress the work. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay in obtaining further quotes earlier caused foreseeable delays.
While the landlord could not have provided the resident with a completion date because of the complexity of the work it should have done more. Where landlords need to do major work, and the landlord is unable to determine a completion date this service would expect landlords to:
1. inform residents what work is outstanding and the reasons for any delays
2. provide residents with regular updates
3. mitigate against the impact of any delays on residents, including considering moving them where this is appropriate.
There is no evidence that the landlord did these things. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 April 2023 with an update. It told the resident it would update him within 10 working days, but it failed to do so.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence either that the landlord took any steps to check on the resident or mitigate against the factors the resident is concerned about. These are listed in paragraph 23 of this report (draughts, damp and mould and pests). The Ombudsman notes that the resident has multiple serious health conditions. The landlord was aware of the resident’s COPD and asthma.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide us with a copy of its policy on vulnerable residents. Unfortunately, it has not done so. The Ombudsman is therefore unaware of the landlord’s approach to dealing with disrepair where the residents are vulnerable. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to require the landlord to review this.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, Respect, and Rights: Relationship of Equals defines vulnerability as a “… combination of a resident’s circumstances, characteristics and their housing complaint.”
The spotlight report makes clear that vulnerability may be exacerbated if a social landlord does not act with “appropriate levels of care.” The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what steps the landlord took to investigate the resident’s property for hazards caused by any cold, the lack of natural light caused by a boarded-up window, wood pigeons or squirrels.
Nor have we seen any risk assessments or risk mitigation the landlord put in place to address any hazards. Without this evidence, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied the landlord acted fairly. The landlord’s lack of demonstrable care or engagement with the resident has caused him significant distress. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to address this.

Damp and mould

On 11 March 2022 the landlord logged a report of damp at the resident’s property. The landlord told this service that it visited the resident’s property in June 2022. It said that the report following this visit did not mention damp and mould.
The repair log from this date does not say that there was no damp or mould or refer to a damp inspection. This service cannot therefore be satisfied that the landlord inspected the property for damp and mould in June 2022.
The landlord requested another damp inspection on 31 January 2023. It did a mould wash on 20 March 2023. The landlord visited the resident again on 2 May 2023. The landlord noted in its repair records that there was no damp and mould in the kitchen cupboard or visible elsewhere.
A closer look at the report from 2 May 2023 indicates there was some uncertainty on this. The note refers to a previous inspection that revealed some mould. Given the lack of clarity, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord booked another mould wash for 3 October 2023, the repair records state the resident refused access, so the landlord did not complete this. The Ombudsman notes the landlord does not have a damp and mould policy. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to:
1. respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely way to reflect the urgency of the issue
2. ensure that it regularly and clearly communicates with residents regarding what it is doing to resolve reports of damp or mould
3. clearly explain to residents why no further work is needed if this is decided
4. provide residents with a timeline of the work it proposes and updates at set intervals.
These actions are consistent with recommendations 13, 17 and 20 of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. However, there is no evidence the landlord did these. On the available evidence, it took the landlord a year to do a mould wash (20 March 2023) from the request for a mould inspection (11 March 2022).
The landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated clearly with the resident to explain what it would do and by when to deal with the mould. The landlord was aware of the resident’s health conditions and should have acted with greater urgency.
The Ombudsman cannot conclude, on the available evidence, that the landlord acted effectively to deal with the reports of damp and mould.
The resident has told this service that his health has been impacted by the damp and mould and by his general living conditions. While the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the resident’s account, we have not seen evidence that links any worsening in the resident’s health with his housing. We are therefore unable to make a finding on this issue. However, the resident has been frustrated and experienced distress by the landlord’s response to his reports. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint policy. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. Its policy aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within five working days.
The resident complained to his landlord on 6 December 2022. It took the landlord 62 working days to acknowledge the complaint (7 March 2023) against a target of five working days. The evidence suggests the landlord only acknowledged the resident’s complaint after this service contacted it. This was a service failure. This is because this was not in line with clause 4.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022).
It told the resident on 3 April 2023 that it was unable to offer an update but aimed to do so in five working days. This would have been by 10 April 2023. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with an update until 13 April 2023. The overall delays were unreasonable.
The landlord responded at stage 2 within 19 working days of the resident’s escalation which again was in line with its complaint policy. It promised to provide the resident with a comprehensive update the following week. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this which was a service failure.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stages 1 and 2 but offered no redress. The Ombudsman expects landlords to put things right where it identifies failures. The landlord’s failure to offer any redress was a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a leak is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window replacement work, including the major works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident with a plan to repair his nine upstairs windows. The plan should explain whether a temporary repair of these can be done while the major works are outstanding
2. write to the resident with an update on the major works, and give an outline of the work, the reason for any delays and what it is doing to progress the work and when the work is likely to be completed
3. inspect the resident’s property for hazards, specifically from cold, damp, mould, lack of natural light, wood pigeons or squirrels
4. arrange for an independent structural and damp survey of the resident’s property at the earliest opportunity. The landlord should provide the resident with a summary of the findings and recommendations within a week of the inspection
5. pay the resident directly the sum of £950 in compensation made up of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the nine upstairs windows
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the major works
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the damp and mould, including the communication
  4. £150 for the failures in complaint handling.
The landlord must provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.
The Ombudsman orders that within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord reviews whether its existing policies or procedures are appropriate that cover:
1. reports of damp and mould
2. responding to vulnerable residents.
If it does not have policies, it should consider whether it should introduce them. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the review and any proposals within 56 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends:
1. the landlord offers the resident a decant if any survey reveals any hazards that cannot be mitigated against
2. the landlord reviews its policies on planned works to ensure it considers the impact of any delay of repairs on residents with vulnerabilities and how this can be mitigated
3. the landlord considers implementing a policy to address damp and mould, to include diagnosis and interventions.