Walsall Housing Group Limited (202203203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203203

Walsall Housing Group Limited

14 January 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:

Response to reports of a leak from the property above.
Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident, who is an assured tenant, contacted the landlord on 3 May 2022 to report a leak into her bathroom from the property above. The landlord raised an emergency repair and attended that day to make safe the leak. Following this, a repair was raised on 4 May 2022 to permanently address the leak from the above property, however, access could not be gained. This was not communicated to the resident and, under the impression that the repair had been completed, the landlord advised that it would raise work for a plasterer to inspect her property to carry out follow-up repairs on the damage caused by the leak.
On 5 May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that although she had been told the leak was fixed, water had started coming through her bathroom ceiling again, and that it prevented herself and her family from using the toilet. The landlord advised that this would not be deemed as an emergency and told the resident that she would need to call back the following morning. Subsequently, the resident raised a formal complaint on 6 May 2022, in which she explained that water ingress was still affecting her use of the toilet and that it was causing her stress. Additionally, during further correspondence, the resident made it clear that she wanted to be rehoused due to the smell of damp and mould.
The landlord attempted to fix the leak, but the repair was delayed due to access issues at the above property. The work was ultimately completed on 14 June 2022.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. It apologised for the upset and inconvenience caused and offered £100 to help with redecorating costs for the bathroom, £30 for damaged items, £50 for the delay in repairs and £50 for the poor experience in trying to get the issues resolved (a total of £230). The landlord also advised that it had passed the resident’s request to be rehoused to her housing officer. However, the resident refused the offer of compensation and, on 15 July 2022, requested escalation of her complaint to stage two. The resident felt that the compensation offered did not resolve the issue, and she also explained that she could not continue to live in the property due to the strong smell of mould.
On 21 July 2022, the landlord gave its final response. It refused to escalate the complaint to stage two as it felt that it had addressed all issues in its stage one response. It also maintained that the compensation offered was fair, and that the works completed on 14 June 2022 would satisfactorily resolve the issue. It also told the resident that there was no new information to be investigated, and that it did not believe rehousing her would be an appropriate solution.
The resident advised this Service that £500 would be an appropriate sum for the damages and inconvenience, and that she also wanted to be rehoused. She advised that she was concerned of the possible effects that the condition of the property had on her children’s health.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

Section 2.1 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are to be made safe “within three hours”, and that a full repair would be attempted within 24 hours.
Section 2.1 of the landlord’s repairs policy also states that where it is not possible to complete the full repair within 24 hours, it would be attended to within one of the other categories and timescales. For example, “urgent” (three working days) or “routine” (45 days).

Scope of Investigation

The resident made clear to this Service that as part of the resolution she was seeking, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her and her family. Whilst this Service understands the resident’s concerns, it must be made clear that this Service is unable to order this type of resolution.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the property above.

Following reports of a leak, it is the landlord’s obligation to respond to the reports appropriately and in line with its policies. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that the initial report of a leak was treated as an emergency due to the presence of the resident’s children. As such, the landlord’s policies state that the leak should be made safe within three hours. The landlord’s repair logs support that this was carried out, and it has not been disputed by the resident.
As the leak could not be permanently fixed on that visit, the landlord returned the following day, 4 May 2022, which was also in line with its repair policies. However, no access could be gained at the above property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to return at the next possible availability in order to ensure that the work was completed. However, there were two reasons as to why this was not the case.
Firstly, even though access was not gained, the landlord’s call logs show that on that day, 4 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that a plumber had attended and that it would arrange for a plasterer to attend as the leak had stopped. This highlights an internal communication issue with the landlord as it suggests that the landlord was under the impression that the work had been completed. It is extremely important for the landlord to maintain clear lines of communication to ensure that repairs are managed efficiently.
Secondly, on 5 May 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the leak had continued, and that it was preventing herself and her children from using the toilet. The landlord informed the resident that it would not be classed as an emergency and that she would have to call back the following morning. Given that the landlord raised the repair as an “emergency” when the leak was first reported, it is unclear why it was not treated as such two days later. The landlord should have explained to the resident why it felt this was no longer the case. The following day, 6 May 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint and reiterated that the leak had continued.
The leak should have been treated urgently, as it is wholly unfair to expect the resident and her family to use the toilet whilst water from the ceiling fell on them. In addition to inconvenience, this may have been unsafe, and potentially posed health hazards to the resident and her family. It had been made clear to the landlord that the toilet could not be used without water falling on the resident and her children, yet the landlord’s actions did not reflect the urgency of the issue. The next time that the landlord attempted to book an appointment to visit the above property was on 19 May 2022, after the resident chased the repair.
The resident should not have needed to chase the landlord to make the repair. The landlord should have taken a proactive approach in fixing the leak and maintaining the comfort and quality of life of the resident and her family. By leaving the resident in living conditions that she had voiced her concerns with, the landlord potentially conveyed to the resident a lack of care, and a lack of impetus to resolve the issue in line with its obligations.
From 19 May 2022, the landlord did demonstrate a higher sense of urgency in repairing the leak. However, it is clear that further delays were caused due to the tenant in the above property. The landlord was unable to gain access on several occasions; however, it did show persistence and an awareness of the urgency needed to make the repair. The work was completed on 14 June 2022. It would not be fair to blame the landlord for the extra delay caused by the tenant of the above property, however, the landlord did need chasing in order to properly address the leak within a reasonable time.
Whilst the leak itself was eventually fixed, the resident had also made the landlord aware that there was a severe smell of damp within the property, and that she had concerns for her children’s health due to the fact that there could have also been the presence of mould. Therefore, whilst there was no longer water ingress into the property, the extended repair was not completely resolved.
Damp and mould can pose a serious health and safety risk to the occupants of the property and as such, it should be treated very seriously and comprehensively. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out further damp and mould checks following the repair of the leak. This Service’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) says that “Landlords should be on the front foot identifying potential issues” and that “where there is a problem, effective diagnosis is critical”. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out checks to see whether there was an issue with damp and mould within the property and if so to have taken appropriate action to address it.
Additionally, it is not clear that the landlord offered any advice or suggestions on how the resident could combat the smell herself. Whilst the landlord did offer compensation for the redecoration of the bathroom, the landlord did not make clear what needed decorating and how it would fix the issue.
Additionally, as the resident felt that the compensation offer was not sufficient to cover the damage and inconvenience caused, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurers. The insurers would have been able to assess the damage done to the property and determine whether the compensation was fair or unreasonable.
Although the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s experience was “below standard”, and apologised along with offering compensation, ultimately, the resident was not restored to the position she was in prior to the leak and the complaint. She was left with a lingering smell that had an adverse effect on her quality of life, and the landlord failed to appropriately investigate and offer solutions to the said smell. Additionally, whilst it is encouraging that the landlord acknowledged the delay in repairs and offered compensation, it is the opinion of this Service that £50 for the delay was not reasonable. This is because the nature of the leak meant that it should have been treated urgently, yet it required chasing from the resident for the landlord to begin a more urgent approach to managing the repair.
Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer further compensation to reflect these service failures. This Service’s remedies guidance states that for instances in which “the offer [of compensation] was not proportionate to the failings identified by [this Service’s] investigation”, a payment of £100 would be appropriate. As such, in addition to the £50 offered for the delay in repair, the landlord should pay a further £50.
This Service’s remedies guidance also suggests that for instances in which “The landlord has made no attempt to put things right” a payment of £100 would be appropriate. Therefore, as the landlord made no attempt to remedy the smell in the property, or to identify whether there was a presence of damp and mould (and if so, the severity of it), the landlord should offer another £100. This would make a total of £380 to be paid to the resident in recognition of the landlord’s response to reports of a leak from the property above, which caused damage to the property, along with damp and mould. In addition to the offer of compensation, the landlord should also conduct a visit to the property to determine whether damp and mould is present, and to seek a proactive solution as to how the smell in the property could be reduced.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

On 15 July 2022, the resident requested escalation of her complaint, in part, due to the fact that she felt she could no longer live in the property due to the strong smell of mould following the leak. On 21 July 2022, the landlord provided its final response which denied the resident’s request for escalation. The landlord reasoned that everything in the original complaint had been addressed, and that there was no new information to investigate.
However, it is the opinion of this Service that this was incorrect as the resident had presented further information in regards to the severe smell that remained in the property. This had not been addressed in the landlord’s stage one complaint even though correspondence confirms that the landlord acknowledged the smell during a visit to the property on 1 June 2022. It was therefore clearly aware of the issue.
By refusing to escalate the complaint to the second stage of the complaint procedure, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to have her voice fully heard, and to have her concern fully investigated. It is unclear to this Service why the landlord felt that there was no need to investigate this further. Additionally, given the nature of the resident’s concerns, it was possible that damp and mould may have been present due to the leak. Damp is not always visible on the walls within a property, it can be hidden behind tiles, plaster, and wallpaper. As such further investigation would be necessary to determine whether it was present and whether it was the source of the bad smell.
Additionally, further investigation into the matter may have presented the chance for the landlord to offer advice to the resident as to how she could make efforts to reduce the smell herself. It should also be noted that failure to escalate the complaint in this matter could have potentially conveyed the sense that the resident’s concerns were not being taken seriously. This would have had a detrimental effect on the landlord/tenant relationship.
Due to the failure to escalate the complaint for what this Service believes to be a reasonable request by the resident, it is the opinion of this Service that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. This Service’s remedies guidance states that for service failure that has not had a permanent impact on the resident, a payment of £100 would be reasonable. Therefore, this should be offered to the resident in addition to the other compensation ordered in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of a leak from the property above.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £480 to the resident. This is inclusive of the £230 compensation already offered to the resident, if this has not already been paid. This can be broken down to:

£380 for its handling of the leak from the above property, and the resident’s damp and mould concerns.
£100 for the complaint handling.

The landlord is also ordered to conduct an inspection of the resident’s property to assess the presence of damp and mould, and to attempt to find a reasonable solution to the smell left in the property. The landlord should provide the resident with any findings and a schedule of works needed, together with a timeframe of when the works will be carried out.
The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with these orders within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination.