Watford Community Housing Trust (202307350)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307350

Watford Community Housing Trust

23 October 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Communal drainage issues
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property is a ground floor flat which he shares with his partner and young daughter.
  2. On 10 January 2023, the landlord received reports of flooding at the block. It instructed a drainage contractor to inspect and assess the issue. On 13 January 2023, the contractor provided images and recommended the installation of a drain and perforated pipe. On 23 January 2023, the landlord asked the developer to investigate, as it was a potential latent defect. On 26 January 2023, the developer assessed the issue and advised the landlord that it was consulting with its structural engineers. On 31 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update.
  3. On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint. He said that he had been complaining for 3 years and there was no action from the landlord. He was unhappy with the landlord’s communication because he was promised a call back. He said that the flooding was due to the poor drainage and was causing mould in the property which could cause health issues for his 1-year-old child.
  4. On 7 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that the developer was considering the issue as a potential latent defect, and it would keep him updated. On 2 March 2023, the developer advised the landlord that it proposed to install a filter drain and had passed this to its groundworker to programme works in. On the same day, as part of its complaint investigation, the landlord arranged to meet the resident to discuss his concerns. It attended on 8 March and inspected the property.
  5. On 10 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it had surveyed the property and agreed that a drainage solution would be required. It said that it did not have a firm date to start but would keep the resident updated. It also noted that a downpipe and hopper on the building near his property would be cleared as it was overflowing. It noted that mould needed to be washed off the walls and moisture around the windowsills. It advised the resident on managing moisture levels in the property and said that it would revisit the issue if there was no improvement. It apologised for its communication, and it would address the external works in a timely fashion.
  6. On 23 March 2023, the resident chased an update on repairs and timescales. The landlord replied that the developer was obtaining quotes, and it would have a clearer time for the drainage works the following week. On 3 April 2023, the drainage works started and on 5 April 2023 the work was complete. The landlord said that it would seed the area when the ground settled. On 12 April 2023, the resident asked when the seed would be laid and reported that water was still gathering in the area. The landlord replied on 14 April 2023 and said that the issue was from the downpipe which it would repair. On the same day, the resident provided evidence he had reported the same issue in 2021.
  7. On 20 April 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy that the downpipe repair had not been addressed. On 21 April 2023, it cleaned out the downpipe and acknowledged the complaint. It defined the complaint as the delay in responding to the issue since 2021, the time taken to address the drainage issue, its communication, the grounds being not suitable for use, and internal damp and mould.
  8. On 23 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised that it had failed to respond to the report of drainage issues in 2021. It accepted that there was a delay in completing the drainage repairs after the report in January 2023. It explained that the developer was responsible for the repair and that it had been in regular contact with the developer for updates until the repair was complete in early April 2023.
  9. It apologised that its communication about the repair was reactive in this timeframe. It accepted that the communal grounds were still ponding and that it would investigate further with drainage consultants. It would not reseed the area until further inspection as further works may be required. It said that it had not found any evidence that there were structural issues that would cause damp and mould in the resident’s property, but it would carry out a more detailed inspection. The landlord offered £500 for the inconvenience caused by the repair delay and its poor communications.
  10. On 30 May 2023, the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and as a resolution he wanted it to carry out an extensive inspection of the issues to carry out a repair.

Events after the internal complaints process 

  1. On 28 June 2023, the landlord surveyed the building. It carried out thermal testing and did not identify issues with the brickwork. It noted there was evidence of damp which was potentially from a downpipe and hopper which required further investigation. It noted that this could have caused mould growth around the lounge window, damaged mastic seals, and skirting boards.
  2. On 11 July 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that it had raised repairs to provide a soakaway around the block and reseeding of the lawn adjacent to the block. It raised a repair for the damaged skirting boards and mastic seals to the window reveals and it offered to decorate the affected area or pay the resident £500 to offset the costs of decoration. On 20 July 2023, the developer carried out the recommended works and the resident accepted the offer for decoration.
  3. On 6 September 2023, the developer arranged a pre-start meeting with its landscaper to carry out re-seeding of the area and planting trees. On 18 September 2023, the developer completed the recommended repairs to the downpipe and hopper.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s complaint, he was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to a repair request of 29 January 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from 10 January 2023 onwards, when the resident reported flooding in the communal area.
  2. The Ombudsman has increased the scope of the investigation until 11 July 2023. On this date the landlord provided further correspondence to the resident following actions it completed as a resolution to the complaint. The Ombudsman has considered this correspondence in the assessment. This is because it is reasonable to consider the actions the landlord took after its complaint procedure to resolve the complaint for the resident.
  3. After the stage 2 complaint response, it is evident that the resident remained unhappy with the progress of grounds works. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these additional concerns and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of communal drainage issues

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days of the initial report. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. It is sometimes the case that a landlord is not able to keep to defined timeframes, as the circumstances surrounding each repair can differ, and further works may be identified after initial investigation. In such cases, basic good practice is for a landlord to liaise regularly with the resident to explain the reason for any delays and take meaningful steps to resolve any outstanding repairs as quickly as possible.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord delayed in the repair and its communication with the resident was poor. In its stage 2 complaint response it accepted these failings. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. After the resident reported the issue on 10 January 2023, the developer completed the repair 74 working days later on 25 April 2023. It is recognised that the developer was responsible for the latent defect which meant that the landlord had limited control over the repair. The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive in communicating with the developer to progress the repair, but it could have provided the resident with a better understanding of the issues and timeframes.
  4. The landlord apologised and offered £500 in recognition of the delay and the poor communication throughout the repair period. After its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord followed up with the developer and completed further works to address the communal drainage issues. These were all reasonable steps to take to put things right for the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of communal drainage issues. This is because it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. In accordance with the lease the landlord is responsible for repair, redecoration, and renewal of the structure of the building. As a shared owner leaseholder, the resident was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of the property.
  2. After the landlord received reports of damp and mould it was reasonable and appropriate for it to survey the property to investigate if it was responsible for the damp and mould. The landlord raised a work order to repair an external overflowing downpipe and provided advice to the resident on controlling condensation within the property. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if there was no improvement and it could carry out more intrusive inspections. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take in the circumstances.
  3. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that the damp and mould was because of the external communal drainage issues. The landlord appropriately surveyed the property and when it found that damp around the window was possibly from the roof, it raised work orders to investigate the issue, made remedial repairs to the window and offered compensation to the resident for redecoration. These were all reasonable measures to put things right for the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because it inspected the property to assess its obligations and provided appropriate advice to the resident. When it identified an issue for which it was potentially responsible, it carried out remedial repairs and provided the resident with compensation for redecoration. It then carried out the identified repair.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in its response to the resident’s reports of communal drainage issues, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £500 that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the inconvenience caused. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.