Stevenage Borough Council (202308817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308817

Stevenage Borough Council

30 April 2025

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 handling of the leaseholder’s reports of:
   1. Condensation in the loft.
   2. Damp and mould.
   3. The standard of works to the communal areas.
2. We have also considered the handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a local authority. The lease commenced on 28 February 2007. The property is a two bedroom flat.
4. Major works refurbishments on the block were carried out between 6 December 2021 to 5 December 2022.
5. During November and December 2022 the leaseholder raised concerns to the landlord about the standard of works carried out. He raised further concerns on 1 January 2023.
6. On 2 February 2023, the leaseholder reported condensation issues in the roof which he believed to be caused by ventilation issues. The leaseholder further wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2023 to report issues again. On 30 March 2023 the leaseholder again contacted the landlord about his concerns.
7. On 13 April 2023 the leaseholder arranged for an independent survey of the property. This concluded there were many outstanding issues that needed a resolution. The leaseholder forwarded this to the landlord on 25 April 2023. A summarised list of the issues was:
   1. Condensation inside the leaseholder’s flat.
   2. The standard of works within the communal area.
   3. The position of the intercom system.
   4. Cracked paving slab.
   5. Shed roof, fascia boards, downpipe and door frame.
   6. Repositioning of new lights had created a dark area by the sheds.
   7. Guttering and poorly fitted downpipes.
   8. Wet patch appearing on adjacent wall to flat wall after heavy rain.
   9. French drain covered in dirt.
   10. Waste pipe on maisonette blocked.
   11. Poor job on drain – a hole in the ground surrounded by mud.
8. The leaseholder stated he was seeking for:
   1. All works to be done to a satisfactory level and compensation.
   2. Or for the landlord to fix the ventilation issues and not fix any other issues. If it did this, he would not have to contribute to the major works.
9. On 27 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder. It acknowledged the recent survey but explained this report had not taken into consideration:
   1. Its 30 year business plan and 5 year asset management plan.
   2. Its legal obligations in regards to the lease.
   3. The improvement clause in the lease agreement.
   4. The procurement process.
   5. The schedule of rates.
   6. Its guidance notes.
   7. Economies of scale.
10. The landlord explained the proposed scope of works was an estimate and once the works were completed it would look at all the works and decide what was justified as rechargeable before issuing the invoice. It then explained the leaseholder’s right to bring the case to the First Tier Tribunal if he remained unhappy with the charges once they had been issued.
11. The landlord confirmed the project manager had visited the leaseholder on 3 occasions and was happy to arrange a further visit to discuss any issues. It also explained that should any remedial works to the leaseholder’s flat be required as a result of the works it would assist him in raising an insurance claim.
12. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 18 May 2023 to assess the leaseholder’s concerns. This was followed up in an email the following day confirming that it would provide an update within the next 2 weeks. It further explained that it would not recharge for works which had not been instructed.
13. The leaseholder wrote to the landlord on 13 June 2023 stating that he wanted the following issues to be addressed and remedied:
    1. Condensation issues in loft resolved. Mould was visible on his ceiling which damaged the décor.
    2. The original plans stated that all walls would be painted in the communal areas.
    3. White paint on new flooring remedied.
    4. Preparation of ceiling in communal area prior to painting was not carried out.
    5. Metalwork on stairs was not painted correctly.
    6. Communal area under maisonette walls and ceiling not painted.
    7. Flat roof on shed not draining. Downpipe not fitted properly and facia board cracked.
    8. Location of lights outside stay on all the time instead of motion sensor.
    9. Guttering and downpipes poorly fitted all over the block.
    10. The bin and washing line position and unnecessary partition of yard with fence and railings which limited drying space.
    11. Position of intercom system was different from other flats causing delivery issues and unattended parcels in the rear garden.
    12. Damage to French drain caused by scaffolders.
    13. Bricks not matching at the rear of flat.
14. The landlord issued a stage one response on 16 June 2023. It stated:
    1. The roof had been checked since completion and no issues had been found. It was noted the loft was humid with little to no ventilation. It advised measures should be taken to provide more ventilation internally.
    2. There was no visible mould, just historic staining.
    3. It did not have any other complaints of this nature.
    4. It would not carry out further investigation as there were no visible signs of mould within the property. It also stated leaseholders are advised to arrange an independent inspection. Should mould be found, the landlord would reimburse the cost and remedy the issue.
    5. On further inspection it was determined the communal wall did not need repainting. Therefore it would not be doing this or charging for this. Its contractors had agreed to remove any paint splashes from previous work.
    6. It was satisfied with the paint on the metalwork and said no further action would be taken.
    7. External redecoration was not in the scope of works.
    8. It instructed contractors to repair a crack in the frame but would not be replacing fascias.
    9. It was unable to move the location of outside lights as this conformed with the specification.
    10. It had instructed its contractor to ballot residents about installing rotary airers.
    11. It may be possible to fit a digi-lock but this would prevent access to delivery drivers and visitors.
    12. There was no damage to the French drain, just debris.
    13. It was not possible to get an exact match of bricks to the original bricks as they were over 60 years old.
15. The leaseholder raised a stage two complaint on 18 August 2023. The landlord’s stage two response was issued on 21 September 2023. It stated:
    1. It had inspected the leaseholder’s property on 18 May 2023 and found no damage. As the leaseholder had been unable to provide photos to substantiate his claim, it would not compensate for damage to the leaseholder’s home.
    2. It would not reimburse the leaseholder £180 he incurred to instruct surveyors to inspect. It stated this was the leaseholder’s choice.
    3. It had always responded to the leaseholder within 10 working days. However it acknowledged there was stress and inconvenience caused, so it offered the leaseholder £100 for time, effort, stress and inconvenience.
    4. Repair issues raised by the leaseholder would be investigated by 12 October 2023 and any necessary action would be taken. This was for the following
       1. Part of gutter not clipped to wall.
       2. Cracked paving slab.
       3. Poorly fitted washing line poles.
       4. Poorly fitted facia board.
    5. All other issues raised had been addressed.
16. The leaseholder told us on 3 April 2025 that when it rains heavily, water comes into the hallway and floods. He also raised additional issues concerning the door being damaged by grass cutters and vandalism by the neighbour.

Assessment and findings

17. We understand there is an ongoing dispute about the charges for the works carried out. However this investigation will not consider the charge as this is better suited for the First Tier Property Tribunal. This is because the First Tier Property Tribunal is able to decide the reasonableness of a charge. The leaseholder was made aware of this fact by the landlord. This investigation has however looked at how the landlord handled the leaseholder’s reports concerning major works.
18. The leaseholder also raised additional concerns about vandalism and damage caused to the door. These issues were after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and therefore we have not considered them within the scope of this investigation.

The leaseholder’s reports of condensation in the loft.

19. The landlord is obliged to maintain the block ensuring it is in a good state of repair. This includes the roof of the property. We understand that after the roof was replaced, the leaseholder said this resulted in condensation issues in the loft. He further stated in the 22 years he had lived there and prior to the work they did not have an issue. We have reviewed the evidence and not seen a history of this issue being reported in the past. The repair records date back to 1999.
20. There is nothing in the lease to say the loft forms part of the leaseholder’s flat and therefore it is the landlord’s responsibility. The leaseholder has also stated the landlord is responsible. The landlord has confirmed in its correspondence to the leaseholder that the loft space is strictly prohibited. The leaseholder or third parties were not allowed access to the loft.
21. The evidence shows that the leaseholder brought the issues of condensation to the landlord’s attention on 2 February 2023 and 5 March 2023. He did not get a reply so further chased the landlord for a response on 30 March 2023. The landlord did not respond to these messages until a later date which was after the leaseholder arranged for an independent survey.
22. In such circumstances we would expect the landlord to address its leaseholder’s concerns in a timely manner, as delays can lead to stress and inconvenience. In this instance the leaseholder expressed upset over the lack of communication.
23. We have reviewed the independent survey which the leaseholder had completed on 25 April 2023. It concluded there was a serious condensation issue in the loft as a result of lack of ventilation. It further recommended the moisture inside the loft space would need to be resolved as it was causing mould to develop.
24. The evidence shows the landlord instructed its surveyor to inspect the roof. The landlord concluded no issues were found with the roof. They confirmed it was humid with little to no ventilation. As a result of the increased insulation and energy efficiency, it advised that measures were taken to provide more ventilation internally.
25. The loft is the landlord’s responsibility and in this case the leaseholder reported it was impacting his home. We find it would therefore have been appropriate for it to further explain ways in which the leaseholder could better ventilate his home internally.
26. The leaseholder had raised concerns that maybe the roof had not been installed correctly which was causing the ventilation issue. We have reviewed the evidence and there is nothing to suggest this is the case.
27. Overall we consider the landlord was reasonable in its decision to replace the roof. This was a necessary improvement to maintain the building’s condition. Whilst we understand that the increased insulation resulted in reduced natural airflow and condensation, there is no obligation for the landlord to manage the internal ventilation, which falls under the leaseholder’s responsibility. We do however find the landlord could have better supported the leaseholder, explaining how he could improve ventilation and any other steps he could take to manage the moisture levels within his home We also recognise there was poor communication initially which resulted in the leaseholder having to chase for a response.

The leaseholder’s reports of damp and mould.

28. The leaseholder has said the landlord failed to take his reports seriously and to respond in a reasonable time frame regarding the water leaks. Whilst he stated this had happened for many years whilst he has lived in the property, We have considered how the landlord handled the most recent reports in connection with the major works and his complaint. Therefore we have considered this issue from 2021 onwards.
29. The leaseholder’s main concern was that when major works took place, a drain was removed which left water to stay trapped on the roof for months. This resulted in water ingress over several months, causing damage to his property.
30. The evidence shows that on 11 November 2021 the leaseholder had emailed the landlord about a water leak. He had stated this had been ongoing for a number of years due to contractors not fixing the problem. He believed it had to do with the drains being blocked and explained that after many weeks of waiting, water ingress was occurring to the brickwork.
31. In its formal response the landlord confirmed that when its surveyors attended on 18 May 2023, no mould was visible, however there was minor historic staining. It further stated that no images were provided to substantiate the claims. We have reviewed the evidence and also have not seen images of mould.
32. The landlord further said thatleaseholders are advised to arrange a surveyor’s report independently when damp and mouldoccurs. Should this be found to be the landlord’s responsibility, it would reimburse the cost and rectify where necessary.
33. The survey which the leaseholder had completed on 13 April 2023 stated that the outer edges of some of the rooms were developing mould and condensation. However it concluded this was due to a lack of ventilation, not a result of water ingress. Ventilation issues are the responsibility of the leaseholder.
34. We understand the leaseholder expressed upset over his internal decoration being damaged. The survey report concluded that the ventilation issues had impacted the leaseholder’s internal decorations. Whilst we understand how frustrating this would have been, the landlord was not responsible for internal ventilation.

The leaseholder’s reports about the standard of work to the communal areas.

35. We understand the leaseholder was unhappy with the order in which the contractors conducted the improvement works. However it is for a landlord to decide the scope, extent and sequencing of major works following any consultation. What we have considered is its actions when the leaseholder reported issues concerning the works.
36. The leaseholder had reported a large number of issues concerning the works which were carried out by the landlord’s contractors. In such circumstances we would expect the landlord to respond to its leaseholder to ensure matters are being addressed in a reasonable period of time. In this case the leaseholder had to chase the landlord on a few occasions for an initial response.

Leak in communal area.

37. In the stage two response dated 21 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged the leaseholder had previously raised concerns about a leak above the communal door and guttering issues and stated that works had been completed.
38. We have reviewed the repair records and see reports of a leak were made on:
    1. 7 July 2021 with a target date of 14 July 2021. The leaseholder had reported water leaking through the flat roof above the main entrance door on the top floor inside building.
    2. 11 November 2021 with a target date of 7 December 2021. The leaseholder had reported the flat roof near the communal front entrance had a down pipe that is blocked, water not running through guttering, causing roof to flood and water ingress.
39. The evidence shows that both reports had been raised as a routine repair and were attended to within the expected timeframe.
40. The leaseholder has explained the issue remains and when it rains water still enters into the communal area. We have seen an image which shows a puddle on the floor by the entrance and a leak on the ceiling. He also expressed concern with the guttering, stating that water was bypassing this and making the exterior wall wet. We have seen images to support these claims.
41. We cannot determine if this is caused by the same issue as before, however we recommend that the landlord should arrange an inspection and make any necessary repairs.

Paint in communal areas.

42. The leaseholder has stated the landlord failed to carry out original plans to paint all the interior walls in the communal area. In response the landlord has stated that it had proposed a scope of works only which was not definitive. On further inspection it was decided the walls did not need repainting and it would not recharge for this.
43. It is within the discretion of the landlord to make changes to the scope of work, based on an assessment of the current condition of the property.
44. We understand that, as a result of completing the flooring before painting the ceiling, paint got onto the new flooring. We have seen images to support this and agree it was appropriate for the landlord to address this.
45. The evidence shows that in the stage 1 response the landlord agreed to have the floor cleaned. We have not seen records to confirm when this was completed, however in its stage 2 response dated 21 September 2023, it confirmed this had been done. As we have not seen evidence to suggest otherwise, we are satisfied it appropriately attended to the matter.
46. The leaseholder was unhappy with the metalwork on the stairs and stated it had not been painted properly. He had expected it to be stripped back and prepared before painting. However the landlord explained this would have not been cost effective.
47. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the metalwork and inform the leaseholder of its position that it looked “clean and freshened up”. The landlord has a duty to manage resources responsibly, this includes budgeting effectively and making cost-efficient decisions. In this case choosing to repaint rather than fully strip the metal stairs was practical and proportionate for the landlord.

Light position.

48. The leaseholder explained he expected any changes made to be like for like, in this instance the position of the outside lights. In response the landlord had stated the location of the light conformed with the specification of the building and therefore it would not change this.
49. The leaseholder was concerned that due to the light position being changed, this resulted in complete darkness by the shed, which he felt posed a safety concern.
50. We understand the landlord investigated this and explained its position to the leaseholder. We can also understand why the resident is concerned as the photos show no lighting within that area.
51. We would expect the landlord to be responsible for maintaining safe and adequately lit communal areas. Therefore we will be making a recommendation for the landlord to conduct an inspection of the area and consider if further lighting is needed.
52. Another issue raised was the light constantly being on. When the leaseholder informed the landlord of this, it agreed to instruct its contractors to check the sensors of the lights. We have not seen any records to show what the outcome of this check was. However there are no further reports concerning issues with the sensors. We are therefore satisfied that this issue had been attended to.

Bin and washing line position.

53. The leaseholder expressed concern over the new positioning of the bin and washing line. We have reviewed the image and have seen evidence of the issue. It is for the landlord to decide the layout of the communal facilities. We do however understand the leaseholder’s frustration in having the bins in close proximity to freshly washed clothes.
54. In June 2023 the landlord states it instructed its contractors to ballot residents with a view of installing rotary airers. The evidence shows that the landlord later instructed its contractors to supply and fit rotary posts.
55. We find this response to be appropriate because it ensures transparency and gave residents on the block information to understand the scope of works, provide feedback and be involved in the process.

Intercom.

56. We understand the leaseholder was unhappy about the positioning of the intercom system. He said this had been put on the front of the building, despite the other blocks on the street having it on the back of the building. He said this resulted in delivery issues, and parcels being left unattended in the rear garden. The landlord’s position was that it placed the intercom on the front door as this is where the postal service needed access. We see that it provided the resident with a reasonable explanation.
57. It is for the landlord to determine where it should place the intercom system. However we would expect that it considers methods to assist in resolving this issue. In this instance we see it considered installing a digi-lock to all rear access garden gates to prevent unwanted access as this had been an issue in the past. However it explained this would prevent access to delivery drivers and visitors.
58. Overall we find the landlord’s actions were appropriate. However it could consider other options such as putting a sign at the rear to advise where parcels should be delivered.

Damage to French drains.

59. The leaseholder advised damage had been caused to the French drains as a result of scaffolding being erected. The evidence show when this report was made the landlord inspected and found there was no damage caused to the drains.
60. We have seen no evidence to substantiate the claims of damage and find the landlord’s actions to be proportionate. It appropriately assessed the issue and informed the leaseholder of its position.

Bricks not matching.

61. We understand the leaseholder was unhappy that the bricks did not match at the rear of the block of flat. In response the landlord stated that, due to the age of surrounding bricks, it was unable to get an exact match.
62. Whilst it would have been ideal for the bricks to match, we understand the landlord’s position that it was not possible to get an exact match. We find the landlord appropriately explained its position to the leaseholder regarding this.

All other issues and overall view on the standards of works.

63. It is unfortunate the leaseholder had to raise multiple issues concerning the standard of works. We recognise that the landlord was actively communicating with the leaseholder and agreed to have some of the works remedied. It is clear however over the course of the year there were delays which resulted in the leaseholder having to chase the landlord.
64. It is also clear that at the time of the stage 2 response, issues remained outstanding. Whilst we understand the landlord stated it would be investigating the reported issues and would take action if required, these were issues which were raised in the leaseholder’s report in April 2023. It is unreasonable that the landlord’s position on the issues remained outstanding months later.
65. We understand the landlord recognised this and offered the leaseholder £100 compensation in recognition of his time, effort, stress and inconvenience. Whilst this went some way to offer redress for the failings identified it was not sufficient to fully recognise the missed opportunities to resolve matters and the resulting impact on the resident. Therefore we will be ordering the landlord to increase this to a total offer of £200.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

66. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and aims to provide a full response within 10 working days. If still dissatisfied the leaseholder can request a review of the complaint. It will then aim to provide a response with a decision within 20 working days.
67. In the landlord’s submission it stated the leaseholder’s complaint was received on 13 June 2023 and it issued its stage one response on 16 June 2023. However the evidence shows that he had raised an official complaint on 25 April 2023.
68. The landlord also stated the stage two complaint was received on 18 August 2023. However we have reviewed an email the leaseholder sent on 13 June 2023 where he stated he was unhappy with the outcome and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord then issued its stage two response on 21 September 2023.
69. The evidence therefore shows the landlord did not respond to the leaseholder within the expected timeframe. This resulted in him contacting our service and us contacting the landlord in August 2023 to provide the leaseholder with a stage two response.
70. Whilst we recognise the landlord apologised to the leaseholder, this did not fully redress the inconvenience, stress and impact caused to the leaseholder by having to chase responses and a resolution to multiple concerns.
71. We have considered the circumstances of the case and found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Thereforewe are ordering the landlord to compensate the leaseholder £100 to recognise the delays in complaint responses and the resulting inconvenience caused to him.

Determination

72. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of condensation in the loft.
73. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s reports of damp and mould.
74. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s concerns about the standard of works to the communal areas.
75. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order.

76. The landlord to compensate the leaseholder £300. This is broken down as:
    1. An additional £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures in relation to the works in the communal areas.
    2. The £100 compensation offered in its stage two reply.
    3. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling delay.

Recommendation.

77. The landlord to arrange an inspection of the reported leak in the communal area.
78. The landlord to inspect the area of darkness by the shed as this may pose safety concerns and consider any options to improve the area.