Tower Hamlets Homes (202209869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209869

Tower Hamlets Homes

27 March 2023

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 repairs to the building following the resident’s reports of blocked guttering and water leaking into his property.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground-floor flat. The landlord is a local authority and is the freeholder of the block.
The resident had made the landlord aware that his household contained a baby and another young child with asthma and stated to both the landlord and this Service that their asthma has been affected by damp and mould within the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 July 2021 to report that his guttering was blocked. He stated this had resulted in water cascading down the rear brickwork of the building and caused water to leak into his property. He also reported cracked interior walls, damp and mould being present within his property and damage to the external brickwork of the building. As there was a delay with the landlord erecting scaffolding, the resident’s neighbour cleared the blockage from the guttering on 27 September 2021. However, the works listed above remained outstanding.
The resident reported that his guttering was blocked again on 13 October 2021, causing a further leak and the reappearance of damp and mould. On 14 October 2021 the resident reported that his ceiling had collapsed. On the same date, he made a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s progress with repairs. He advised the landlord that his insurer had told him it would not carry out any interior repairs until the external leak had been identified and stopped.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 28 October 2021. It explained the delays regarding the erection of scaffolding were due to a backlog of scaffolding requests following the Covid-19 pandemic. It assured the resident that the outstanding works would be monitored until completion and that a request for scaffolding had been issued to its contractor.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day, as he remained dissatisfied with the progress of repairs to his property. He advised he wanted an apology and a timeline for when it would complete the repairs to the exterior of the building, noting they remained outstanding nearly four months after his initial report. He further requested a copy of both the landlord’s planned major works and cyclical maintenance schedules, as he felt these aspects of his home had become neglected.
In its stage two complaint response, issued on 26 November 2021, the landlord apologised for the further delays that had occurred regarding the erection of a scaffold, which had meant to take place on 15 November 2021. It advised the resident this would now be erected on 29 November 2021, and it would continue to monitor the repairs until completion. It provided the resident with a copy of the stock condition inspection survey to the building, last completed 5 November 2020, and explained that as part of the rolling housing stock maintenance programme it planned to carry out a survey once every five years.
The resident chased the landlord on multiple occasions for updates on the progress of repairs through December 2021, noting on 12 December 2021 that the scaffold had been up for a month but no work had taken place. Records show the landlord unblocked the guttering by the resident’s property on 24 December 2021, when it also replaced some broken roof tiles. Its repair records show the landlord also later attended on 28 June 2022, when it traced the source of the leak to defective roof vents. These were repaired the following day.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service in August 2022, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He also stated that repairs to the external brickwork, blocked guttering and roof remained outstanding and, in further correspondence with the landlord in September 2022, raised further concerns about additional repair issues he stated were outstanding. He highlighted his frustration at the works remaining incomplete and noted that the delayed repairs to the brickwork had allowed damp and mould to enter his property. The resident also stated that he considered the landlord’s inaction in relation to the repairs, which he said he had been assured would be rectified, had added to the “terminal decline” of the building.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In correspondence with this Service, the resident evidenced his reports of damp and mould within the property following drainpipe repairs on 2 October 2019, as well as following repairs to the external guttering on his property on 2 June 2020. Although this provides historical context to the issues experienced in this case, the landlord’s response to these reports will not be considered within this report. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within six months of the matters arising. However, records show the resident did not raise a complaint until October 2021.
It is also noted that there appears to be a lack of evidence that any issues were reported to the landlord between June 2020 and July 2021. For this reason, while the longer history of the issues is noted for context, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 7 July 2021 onwards.
It is noted that the resident had attributed the development of his daughter’s asthma to the landlord’s failing to repair the external condition of the property, resulting in damp and mould. The Ombudsman acknowledges and understands the resident’s concerns about the possible impact on his family’s health and the stress this may have caused him. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether there is any direct causation between the landlord’s actions, or lack thereof, and any effect on his family’s wellbeing or reported health conditions. The resident may wish to seek further independent advice regarding a personal injury claim if he wishes to pursue the matter further. Nevertheless, this investigation will consider how the landlord responded to the issues raised by the resident and the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
As noted above, in later correspondence with the landlord, the resident advised that other repairs had not been completed, including to a broken rear fence and issue with his front door and the canopy above it. However, these issues were not raised during the original complaint. As a result, this Service cannot investigate matters which have not yet exhausted a member landlord’s internal complaints procedure, as the landlord needs to be given a chance to formally respond and remedy the issue, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, this Service has recommended that the landlord contacts the resident regarding these issues and, if appropriate, raises a separate complaint to investigate any concerns he has over its handling of these repair issues.

Policies and procedures

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for maintaining the structure, common parts, and supply services, including the external guttering, roof and drainage systems to the building. The resident is responsible for all repairs to the internal property and its components. It aims to complete all non-urgent repairs within 20 working days, but states that where scaffolding is required to be erected there may be some delays. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, with a two-hour response to make safe and prevent danger if this is required. It is noted that the landlord had not provided a copy of the resident’s lease agreement and therefore, its repairs policy has been used to assess its obligations to the resident.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy states that it will offer residents a £10 voucher for each appointment missed by its contractors.
In accordance with its redress and compensation policy, when service failures are identified, the landlord is obligated to make an offer of suitable redress that is proportionate to the failing/failings identified. It aims to consider any additional distress, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble that the resident has spent pursuing the issue in respect of any redress offered.

The landlord’s handling of remedial repairs to the building following the resident’s reports of blocked guttering and water leaking into his property

It is not disputed by either party that there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s repair reports. As per its repairs policy, the landlord did not respond in accordance with its obligations following the resident’s reports of blocked guttering and water leaking into the property on 7 July 2021. It was required, in accordance with its repairs policy, to attend and complete any identified repairs within 20 working days. However, repair records show there were lengthy delays in investigating and progressing the repairs, despite the resident reporting that water was leaking into his home. Following the resident’s initial report, the landlord ultimately did not complete the works itself and the order was subsequently cancelled, some 53 working days later, as the resident’s neighbour had used a ladder to reach the guttering and carry out the job.
While the landlord did, in its complaint responses and in correspondence with this Service, advise that there were problems with arranging scaffolding due to backlogs caused by the coronavirus pandemic, this does not fully account for the overall delay and the subsequent delays experienced by the resident following the re-raising of the works order when he reported the guttering had become blocked again, and the leak recurred, in October 2021. At this time, the resident also reported that the leak had caused a ceiling to collapse and the presence of damp and mould in his property was now impacting his daughter’s asthma. This Service would therefore have expected the landlord to have attempted to attend and inspect as a priority. However, this did not happen and there is no evidence the landlord considered escalating the issue.
The landlord’s repair records show it delayed in erecting the scaffolding until 24 December 2021, some three months after the resident reported the blocked guttering and further water leak. While records show the landlord chased its contractors for progress on the scaffolding on four occasions in November 2021, there is no evidence it communicated this to the resident or provided him with any other updates. Furthermore, it is of concern that, once the scaffold was erected in November 2021, the resident reported that, almost a month later, no works had yet taken place. This was evidence of a further avoidable delay for which the landlord does not appear to have provided an explanation. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord appropriately booked the remedial repairs that were identified as being necessary following its attendance on 24 December 2021, despite the advice of its contractor who believed that external pointing was defective and likely to be the source of the leak.
While it was understandable that scaffolding was required in order for the landlord to complete the repairs, given the problems it had with sourcing scaffolding from its contractor, there is no evidence that the landlord looked at alternative suppliers or remedies. There is also no evidence that it considered re-prioritising the repairs, despite the concerns raised by the resident regarding his family’s health and the condition of the building. Where delays are unavoidable due to the availability of certain parts or resources, such as scaffolding in this instance, this Service would expect member landlords to exhaust all alternative options, and communicate this to residents, as the onus remains on the landlord to evidence how it had taken appropriate actions to resolve the issues and minimise any delays. However, there is no evidence the landlord did so. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord cannot be said to have handled the repair reasonably.
Records show the landlord then removed the scaffolding on 14 January 2022. In internal correspondence seen by this Service, it advised that it had done so as there would be a three month wait before further repairs could be carried out. While it is recognised that contractors continued to experience backlogs related to the coronavirus pandemic around this time, this was not a reasonable position for the landlord to take and this investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord considered alternative solutions to prevent such a delay. This would also have avoided the inconvenience of removing the scaffolding before repairs were complete and necessitating the erection of a further scaffold at a later date, in this case at the end of May 2022, over four months later.
Furthermore, there is again no evidence that the resident was kept updated on the progress of the repairs and it is noted he was caused further time and trouble when chasing the landlord for updates on four occasions between the 20 April and 3 May 2022. As well as being an unreasonable delay, the lack of communication would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
After the re-erection of the scaffold, it is of some concern that no works took place between 25 May to 27 June 2022, causing a further month’s delay. The landlord offered no explanation for this, and this highlights further communication issues between the landlord and its contractors, along with poor record keeping. This caused the resident unnecessary distress, frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that, on 28 June 2022, it traced the source of water ingress to defective roof vents. While these were repaired promptly the following day, it was nonetheless almost nine months since the resident had re-raised concerns about the external condition of the property in October 2021. This amounts to a significant, and unreasonable, delay.
Aside from the overall delay,evidence available indicates the landlord failed to meet several booked appointments throughout the course of the ongoing repairs. After the resident first reported blocked guttering and a leak on 7 July 2021, the landlord informed him that it would attend on 10 August 2021, but it is unclear from its records whether it did attend. Further appointments were missed on 4 October 2021 and 15 and 29 November 2021. That the landlord repeatedly missed appointments and has not provided a clear reason for this raises concerns over its management of the repair process.
It is noted that within its complaint responses the landlord does not appear to have acknowledged the missed appointments and the impact this would have had on the resident, nor did it offer an apology for any of the delays that had been experienced to date. It did not offer the resident compensation for the missed appointments in line with its missed appointments policy, and in addition, it did not appear to consider offering the resident any further form of redress to “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
Following its stage two response in November 2021, as noted above, there was a further delay in completing the repairs to the exterior of the resident’s property. Despite the resident advising the landlord that its failure to promptly rectify the problem and stop the leak was preventing his insurer from arranging internal repairs, it does not appear to have acknowledged the additional inconvenience this would have caused him. This did not treat the resident fairly.
Therefore, in light of the above failings this Service has found maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked guttering and associated follow-on works following a leak into his property. Throughout the repairs process, there is evidence of significant and avoidable delay which the problems with sourcing scaffolding do not wholly account for. There were also failings regarding missed appointments, issues with arranging follow-on works and a lack of effective communication between the landlord and both the resident and its contractors. As well as the stress and inconvenience the delays would have caused the resident, he was also caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates. This was not appropriate and this Service would also have expected the landlord to have considered what it could have done to “put things right” for the resident, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. That it did not consider whether a remedy such as compensation would have been appropriate, either during the original complaint procedure or when it became apparent there had been further delays completing the repairs, was unreasonable and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly.
Therefore, in light of the above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700 compensation, consisting of £500 regarding the delays themselves and a further £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience this caused, as well as the resident’s time and trouble when chasing the landlord for updates.
Furthermore, in the Ombudsman’s view, when landlords are presented with reports of damp and mould, landlords should treat this as a matter of urgency in order to identify, resolve, and prevent it from entering residents’ properties. It is highlighted in this Service’s damp and mould spotlight report (“It’s Not Lifestyle”, published October 2021 and available on this Service’s website) that landlords must take a proactive and urgent approach to reports of this issue.
While it is noted that the resident, as a leaseholder, was responsible for internal repairs, the landlord retained responsibility for investigating and rectifying external repairs which were identified as being the cause of water ingress in his property. Considering the length of time the resident has reported that damp and mould has been present in his property and his reported concerns regarding his daughter’s health, the landlord should have treated the issue urgently. This Service notes the landlord’s failings to address this in a timely manner.
The landlord is therefore further ordered to pay the resident a further £150 for failing to prioritise the repairs following his reports of damp and mould in the property. It is also ordered to carry out an assessment which reviews its service against the set of recommendations contained within the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and report to this Service on its findings. This is to ensure that all reports of damp and mould are addressed in a timely and proactive manner moving forward.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident’s reports of blocked guttering and water leaking into the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident a total of £850 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for failings and delays identified with its handling of the repairs to the property.
  2. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as his time and trouble contacting the landlord.
  3. £150 for its failure to appropriately consider the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property and to prioritise its response accordingly.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for its failure to appropriately progress the repairs and for the impact this had on the resident. The apology should be sent by a senior member of staff.
The landlord is also ordered to, within eight weeks of the date of this report, carry out a self-assessment of its service against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and provide this Service with a report of its findings and identified actions and any learning from this complaint. The spotlight report can be found at https://housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Review its staff and contractors training needs in relation to its repair policy and communications, ensuring that all appointments, cancellations and delays are appropriately signposted to residents in a timely manner.
2. Review its staff training needs in relation to its missed appointments and compensation policy, in order to ensure that all missed appointments are appropriately compensated per its contractual obligations.
3. Arrange further training for staff specifically regarding the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in its damp and mould spotlight report to ensure that all reports of damp and mould are responded to promptly and appropriately in future.