Tower Hamlets Homes (202225389)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225389

Tower Hamlets Homes

12 September 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s medical application.
  2. Reports of a leak and subsequent mould.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3.             The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out the complaints we can and cannot consider. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.

4.             One aspect of the resident’s complaint was about the time it took for the landlord to assess her medical application. The assessment of the resident’s medical application is a service provided by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority and falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). For that reason, we have not investigated this aspect of the complaint.

5.             The resident has been advised that if she wishes to pursue this complaint to contact the LGSCO and contact details have been provided.

 

 

Background

6.             The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her husband and 6 children, one of which has acute asthma.

7.             On 25 January 2023 the resident reported a leak from the flat above damaging the living room ceiling. The landlord raised a job to trace and remedy the leak. A mould treatment was completed on 1 February 2023.

8.             On 24 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. Her daughter was diagnosed with acute asthma which was made worse by the mould in the property. She asked to be rehoused.

9.             The resident emailed the landlord on 5 June and 4 September 2023. She said she was deeply concerned that her living conditions had deteriorated.

10.        On 19 December 2023 the resident reported that the mould in the property was very bad with mushrooms growing on her ceiling. She said it was caused by the leak from the flat above.

11.        The landlord requested a full plumbing check on 21 December 2023. Following a further report of mould on 10 January 2024, the landlord raised a job to investigate the mould on the living room ceiling. The job was re-raised on 16 January 2024.

12.        In an email on 20 December 2023 the landlord requested that the resident provide her reasons for why she wanted to escalate her dispute.

13.        The landlord raised a 3-stage mould treatment in both bedrooms on 20 March 2024, which was completed on 24 April 2024.

14.        In April 2024 the resident informed our Service that she had not received a response to her escalation requests. We notified the landlord and requested that the landlord provide the resident with a formal response.

15.        Subsequently on 17 April 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. The response outlined the completed works and scheduled a mould treatment.

16.        The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint to our Service. She disagreed with the repairs the landlord said it had completed and said that the landlord’s response only caused more stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

17.        The landlord’s complaint process investigated and dealt with several issues. The resident has told us that they consider only the complaint defined above to be outstanding. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the issues that remain outstanding.

18.        The resident has raised concerns regarding the impact of the damp and mould on the family’s mental and physical health. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this would have caused. However, this matter would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered the way in which the landlord responded to her health concerns.

Leak and mould

Responsive repairs policy

19.        The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that where a leak is causing damage and access cannot be gained, the emergency access procedure is employed. This means that the landlord will gain access, make safe or isolate the cause and secure the property. This applies to residents as well as leaseholders. The policy goes on to say that it will take action under the enforcement procedure when there have been water leaks to ensure effective action is taken in a timely manner. It confirms that the affected resident will be updated every 3 working days (or as frequently as agreed until access is gained).

Assessment

20.        The resident reported a leak in January 2023, which resulted in damage to her living room ceiling. The repair records indicate that the landlord initiated a job to locate and fix the leak, but it was later marked as cancelled. It is unclear what action or repairs the landlord took at this time. However, based on the lack of further leak reports for 11 months, it can be assumed that the leak was resolved at that time.

21.        The resident reported on 19 December 2023, that there was significant mould and mushrooms growing on her living room ceiling due to a continuous leak from the flat above. Despite a note on 21 December 2023, about the “ongoing leak from flat above – please investigate,” the landlord arranged a full plumbing check at the resident’s property. The resident confirmed that the leak was not from her flat and the notes support this. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the report and failed to manage the resident’s expectations around steps being taken to resolve the leak.

22.        Consequently, the resident reported the matter again on 10 January 2024. The repair records show that the landlord re-raised a job to investigate the leak the same day. Again, owing to a lack of records it is unclear how the landlord progressed the investigation. Subsequently, the landlord re-raised the job on 16 January 2024. It is unclear why, however, and this added to the delays experienced by the resident.

23.        The resident has disputed the landlord’s assertion that repairs were completed on the balcony to the flat above, arguing that it was the responsibility of the leaseholder. The evidence presented by the landlord indicates that it encountered difficulties in reaching the leaseholder since October 2023. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support the claim that the landlord completed repairs to the leaseholder’s flat, as the records suggest that it was still trying to arrange access in July 2024, 7 months later.

24.        We understand that access issues would have impacted the landlord’s ability to investigate and resolve the leak, however, the evidence does not show that it took proactive steps to gain access to the property in a timely manner. The evidence also shows that the landlord was not transparent with the resident in how it was managing the situation, or how it could support the resident while the repair was outstanding. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it provided the resident with regular updates which was not in line with its repairs policy. The landlord did not do enough to purse the leaseholder to remedy the leak which impacted adversely on the resident, including uncertainty, distress, and inconvenience over a prolonged period.

25.        The evidence shows the resident raising concerns throughout the course of the complaint in relation to the mould in the property and the impact on the health of the family. In particular, her daughter who suffered with acute asthma and experienced breathing difficulties reportedly because of the mould in the property.

26.        The first record we have seen of a mould treatment was raised on 20 March 2024 as a 7-day priority. It was complete on 24 April 2024, 24 working days after it was raised, and 87 days after the resident’s initial report of mould on 19 December 2023. It is unclear why there was a 4-month delay. In the absence of any explanation, the delay was unreasonable. In addition, it does not show that the landlord acted proactively, especially given the vulnerabilities and health concerns raised by the resident.

27.        The landlord did not show that it appropriately assessed the impact of the leak on the condition of the property or the impact on the family. The landlord also did not take a robust approach to ensure that the leaseholder completed the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. Furthermore, the landlord seemed to mishandle the repair, requiring the resident to provide access for inspections despite evidence that the leak did not originate from her flat. These inspections failed to lead to a satisfactory resolution and added to the delays the resident experienced.

28.        It was inappropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the matter. We have not seen evidence to show sufficient investigations were completed or that the landlord took action, in line with its repairs policy to ensure that the leak was resolved. It did not show any empathy to the resident’s situation and failed to offer support. The landlord has been unable to put things right for the resident who has said the leak and mould are still on-going. The landlord has not evidenced any learning from this case. Taken altogether, this constitutes maladministration and compensation of £400 has been awarded for these failings which had adversely affected the resident for a prolonged period.

Complaint handling

29.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to complaints from residents at stage one of its complaints procedure within 10 working days. It states that it will “generally” respond to complaints that are escalated to stage two of its complaint’s procedure within 20 working days. The policy also allows for extensions of up to a further 10 working days at each stage where cases are more complex to investigate and satisfactorily respond to.

30.        The resident complained on 24 April 2023. The landlord has not provided a stage 1 response which it should have done, in line with its complaints policy. A response was sent on 23 May 2023, 19 working days later.

31.        While there is evidence that a response was sent on 23 May 2023, it was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states that a response should include:

  1. The complaint stage.
  1. The complaint definition.
  2. The reasons for any decisions made.
  3. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
  4. Details of how to escalate the matter.

32.        Due to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the resident was unsure how to escalate her complaint. This led to her spending an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord in September and December 2023, and January 2024 to escalate the matter. The landlord’s delayed responses significantly prolonged the resident’s complaints process, likely causing distress and inconvenience.

33.        The resident should not have had to request assistance from our Service for the landlord to provide a formal response to her complaint. When the formal response did come, a year after the resident raised the initial complaint, it was insufficient and did not take any responsibility for the issues experienced by the resident.

34.        The response lacked empathy for the situation, did not appropriately address the distress expressed by the resident over an extended period, and failed to acknowledge the health concerns she raised. Regardless of the findings, responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to show that it has heard and understood the concerns, and a chance to move forward and repair the landlord-resident relationship.

35.        Effective complaint resolution requires a thorough investigation before a response is sent. There is no evidence that the responding officer discussed the complaint with the resident, or fully grasped the complaint to provide a meaningful response. This was a missed opportunity.

36.        The resident’s increasing frustration and exasperation was apparent throughout her communication. She asserted that the landlord’s response had been a disturbing read, and referred to repairs that she said had not been completed. The response created more stress and anxiety for her.

37.        The response did not address the crux of the resident’s complaint or acknowledge the distress this would have caused to a family who were anxious to resolve their housing situation. The complaints process did not effectively resolve the resident’s concerns, but instead made the situation worse.

38.        Overall, the landlord’s handling of the complaint in this case has been poor. The resident consistently followed up with the landlord for updates over a prolonged period and detailed the adverse effects on her health. The cumulative failings caused distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident, and constitute maladministration.

39.        The Ombudsman has ordered £300 in compensation to reflect the failings that caused an adverse effect to the resident. This amount is comprised of £150 for the time and effort the resident spent over 12 months trying to receive a response to her complaint. An additional £150 for the failings identified in the complaint handling process and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

40.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to:

  1. The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and subsequent mould.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

41.        In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s medical application has been ruled outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders

42.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
  2. Pay the resident £700 compensation, comprising:
    1. £400 for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
    2. £300 for the time and delay, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. Contact the resident and provide her with an update on the leak including a plan of action to ensure that the leak is resolved either by the leaseholder or itself within 4 weeks.
  4. If it has not done so already, arrange to inspect the property and schedule, if necessary, any follow on works to treat the mould in the property. 

43.        Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

  1. Consider the failings set out in this report which relate to the management of repairs relating to leaseholder properties and review how it can reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again. The landlord should consider whether additional staff training is required on its process relating to leaseholder repairs.
  2. Review its complaints handling procedures and provide training to its staff to ensure that complaint responses comply with the requirements of the Code. The review should consider how complaints should be addressed at the earliest opportunity, in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  3. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with an outcome of the review within 8 weeks.