Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202218216)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218216

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

24 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of an ongoing leak.
2. The resident’s complaint.
The investigation also considers the landlord’s:
1. Communication with the resident.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has resided in her property, a 3-bedroom end of terrace house with a garden since 1999.
The resident notified the landlord of damp affecting her property in June 2021.
The landlord contracted an independent damp specialist who visited the property on 15 February 2022. The report is summarised as follows:
1. There is decking at the rear of the property. Evidence of decay was visible under a section of decking lifted during the inspection.
2. An isolated area of brickwork (beside decking) at the rear of the property is also visibly very damp.
3. There are visible damp stains on the rear wall of the living room adjacent to very damp external brickwork. Confirmed through higher than normal moisture readings on the protimeter.
The report concluded: The general pattern indicates a possible water escape from an unknown source. The client is advised to check all water supplies, fixtures, fittings, drains and appliances for defects or faults, before considering remedial works.
The resident submitted an online complaint to the landlord on 9 May 2022. In the complaint she raised the following:
1. In June 2021 she reported damp and green mould growing up an external wall.
2. The resident had to chase the landlord to arrange the inspection of a damp specialist.
3. The landlord is failing to return the resident’s calls.
4. The decking is now rotten. She cannot remove the decking without the landlord’s recommendation, in order to facilitate a claim on her house insurance.
5. The landlord has significantly exceeded its 60 day repair timescale for major works.
The landlord’s repairs contractor called the resident on 19 May 2022 to provide an update on the complaint. The resident told the contractor the landlord had not acknowledged the complaint.
The resident lodged another online complaint on 10 June 2022. The complaint points were as follows:
1. The resident wanted to know why a contractor was calling to discuss her complaint that was with the landlord.
2. The landlord had not written to her about the repairs.
3. She referred to her original complaint of 9 May 2022 and the response date of 25 May 22, which had now passed with no complaint response. And wanted to know:
  1. Why has it taken a year and why is the landlord further delaying.
  2. When is someone going to call me and answer my complaint.
  3. When is the work going to be carried out.
The resident wrote a complaint letter to the landlord on 5 July 2022. The letter summarised the complaint made on 9 May 2022 and the second complaint made on 10 June 2022. The letter highlighted the fact she had yet to receive any response to her complaints from the landlord. She then raised the following:
1. Communication, I want to know what the delay is. What is going to happen and when is it going to happen?
2. I would like to request a copy of the independent damp report under the Freedom of Information Act. Please advise me on how I can do this.
3. I would like you to email me a copy of your complaint’s procedure, as I do not feel my complaints have been dealt with adequately.
4. I am not unreasonable, I know the council has red tape and budgets, but communication is key really, don’t you think? Whereas I’m just being ignored.
On 26 July 2022, the resident contacted her local councillor. The councillor emailed the resident telling her a manager would be taking on her complaint and that hopefully answers and actions will be forthcoming. A visit to the property took place on 29 July 2022.
The resident received a text message on 27 July 2022. It required the resident to click on a link to confirm an appointment scheduled for 1 August 2022 between 12-5pm. When she clicked on the link, she received a screen that displayed the following: “we were unable to complete the work.” On 28 July she called the landlord to query the text messages and inspection but was unable to speak to anyone. The landlord then turned up for the appointment on 1 August 2022 at 08:45. The resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 1 August 2022 to highlight conflicting text messages and that someone had attended without notice and outside the timeframes in the cancelled appointment.
On 12 August 2022 there are several internal emails regarding the resident’s complaint and clarification on the situation at the property. In summary: The resident has asked for appointments after 2pm as that is when access is available. An order was arranged for a CCTV survey but resident confirms no one turned up. The landlord then attended to conduct a CCTV survey, however, due to the amount of water flowing in the drain it was not possible. The landlord confirmed it should conduct drain surveys at its neighbouring properties to find the source of the leak. There is then a direct request to raise a work order for a CCTV survey of the drains.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 15 August 2022. The letter can be summarised as follows:
1. It said it was writing because the complaint made on 9 May 2022 in relation to damp issues is still registered as an open complaint.
2. It confirmed that repairs were carried out to check all water supplies, fixtures fittings, drains and appliances for defects or faults and find source of water escape on 11 August 2022.
3. The landlord apologised that the resident had to make a complaint and they had failed to meet her expectations but hoped that the actions described had resolved the issue. It then confirmed it had closed the case.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the procedure on 24 August 2022 via the landlord’s webform. The resident said that:
1. The complaint had not been dealt with in the timescale reported. The resident felt like the complaint had not been dealt with at all. She had sent further complaints and complained to her housing officer but no one responded. The landlord only took action when she contacted her local councillor.
2. The complaint closure letter is wrong, the work is not complete it has not yet started. The CCTV survey could not happen because there was so much water in the pipes.
3. The landlord’s team have not taken any actions, other than one phone call there has been no communication. It has not resolved the issue.
On 23 September 2023, the landlord visited the property. After the visit there was an internal email asking if the requested CCTV survey had been carried out and if not, could a different contractor be used.
The resident wrote another letter of complaint on 3 October 2022, also notifying the councillor. In the letter she raised the following points:
1. The leak in the street has not been located. The repeat inspection to survey the pipes has not taken place.
2. The decking is saturated and there is mould growing in the living room, which she is having to clean off regularly. Previously repaired cracks are appearing inside the property.
3. The landlord shut her complaint without resolution. The landlord has not acknowledged the escalation of her complaint to stage 2.
4. The resident felt that nobody was listening to her.
The councillor copied the resident into an email that alleged she had been responsible for missed appointments. On 4 October 2022 she replied to the landlord disputing she was at fault for any missed appointments. She acknowledged 2 people had turned up at the property but neither had made an appointment. She had made clear to the landlord she would require a phone call to arrange visits or appointments after 2pm.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2022. It stated:
1. It understood the resident was unhappy with the length of time it had taken to resolve the initial complaint and lack of communication.
2. The landlord apologised for how long it had taken to respond to the complaint and the how the complaint had been dealt with.
3. A work order was raised on 3 October for the landlord to attend and repair the leak.
4. The landlord apologised that the resident had cause to complain about the service she had received.
5. It hoped the information provided in the complaint response brought the matter to a close and confirmed it had closed the complaint.
The resident brought her complaint to this service on 15 November 2022.
1. She reported the abnormal moisture in the garden, damp external walls as well as damp and mould on the inside of the property.
2. Previous issues with subsidence appeared to be returning with evidence of cracking in plaster in several areas of the property.
3. The landlord had not conducted any work and was failing to communicate with her. It had failed to find the leak.
4. The landlord had accused her of missing appointments, which she told it was incorrect but did not receive any apology.

Events since the complaint was brought to this Service

The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2022 stating that the contractor had told her it only dealt with stage 1 complaints and that the landlord is responsible for stage 2 responses, the landlord confirmed this was correct. The landlord also asked the resident to notify it once she had arranged an inspection with the water company so it could have its own surveyor present at the inspection.
The landlord and water company were in contact on 17 November 2022, 18 November, 9 December 2022 and 12 January 2022. The water company confirmed there was an ongoing leak at 2 of the landlord’s properties and a number of private properties. The water company also advised that all pipework up to the boundary stop tap is private pipework and not part of their network. This means that the responsibility for these pipes belong to the property owner/s. In the case of a shared supply, all properties who draw their water from the shared supply, are responsible for the maintenance and repair. The landlord would need to discuss the repairs with the private owners.
The resident sent an email to the landlord and councillor on 28 December 2022 and called the landlord on 4 January 2023 to report the worsening situation with damp and mould and to make another request for the inspection report from 21 November 2022.
On 4 January 2023, the resident complained to her MP about the landlord’s handling of the case.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of the leak

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
There is an electronic record for the 9 June 2021 showing the landlord was aware of a leak in the property. It told the resident during the inspection that a damp specialist would be required. The resident chased the landlord several times after the inspection to find out when the specialist would be attending. The landlord failed to carry out a damp survey until 11 February 2022, approximately 8 months later.
The landlord was unable to do a CCTV survey of the drains on the resident’s property because of excess water in the drains. It recognised it would be necessary to conduct a CCTV survey of the drains in its neighbouring properties to help it trace the source of the leak. Despite its own staff chasing the CCTV survey, the landlord failed to conduct this work. It recognised these failings itself, in an email on 26 July 2022 it said, “the problem here is that no one has actioned the recommendations from the damp report”.
The water company told the landlord that several neighbouring properties, both private and under its own ownership had leaks on their mains pipes, which would be on shared supplies with a joint responsibility for repairs. On three occasions the water company told the landlord it would have to communicate with the private owners of these properties to discuss repairs. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it followed the advice of the water company. Even though it knew the leak was not on the resident’s property it continued to raise work orders to have the resident’s property checked for leaks.
It is accepted that with different property owners and the water company involved, tracing and fixing the leak was not straightforward. However, the landlord unreasonably relied on the resident and water company to provide it with information. The failure to take timely actions led to damp and mould spreading to many rooms in the property, where there was previously no evidence of the problem. It would have been appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to inspect its own properties implicated in the leak and write to the owners of the private properties. It should have taken responsibility for arranging joint inspections with the water company instead of expecting the resident to be responsible for this.
The landlord’s own policy states that major works such as large drain replacement should be completed within 60 working days. In an internal email on 23 September 2023, 15 months after its first visit the following comment was noted: “this is a councillor enquiry and it is very hard to justify the delays”.
The landlord’s delays, lack of action, poor communication and the worsening situation within the resident’s property were repeatedly raised by the resident, which understandably left her feeling frustrated and ignored. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord proactively investigated the source of the leak or instigated communication with owners of the different properties involved.
The landlord has failed in its obligation to keep in good repair the structure of the premises. The leak and damage reported by the resident remained unresolved in January 2023, when she reported further evidence of damp and mould appearing in her kitchen. The landlord’s handling of the leak has led to the resident and her family suffering significant stress. This is unreasonable and amounts to severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints will be recorded and acknowledged within 3 working days. At stage 1, the landlord aims to respond within 10 working days of the complaint being allocated to the investigating officer. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 10 working days of the complaint being allocated to the reviewing officer. Where the landlord is unable to respond within its published timescales, it should write to the resident to provide an update.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage one complaint made on 9 May 2022 and failed to respond within the required timeframe. Having not had a response the resident submitted further complaints to the landlord on 10 June 2022 and 5 July 2022. Again, receiving no response, she contacted her local councillor who emailed her on 26 July to tell her a manager would be taking on her complaint. A resident should not have to contact a councillor to have their complaint heard. The stage 1 response was issued by the landlord on 15 August 2022, 69 working days after the complaint was raised.
In the stage 1 response the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for the significant delay to respond. It incorrectly asserted that it had resolved the complaint and informed the resident it had closed the case.
The landlord did not acknowledge the two additional complaints or contact the resident to discuss them. Instead, it decided they were duplicates and deleted them.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 August 2024, the complaint was not acknowledged. On 3 October 2022, the resident emailed the councillor as she had not received a response. The landlord then issued its response on 20 October 2022, 47 working days after it was escalated. It apologised for the delay in responding and the way in which it had dealt with the complaint. It advised it had raised a work order to fix the leak and would be closing the case.
The stage 1 and stage 2 responses left many of the points raised by the resident unanswered leaving her feeling unheard. It did not respond to the resident’s complaints about poor communication or why it was taking so long for the repairs to take place. It did not address her question on why a contractor was responding to her complaint. When dealing with complaints landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord failed to follow its own complaints process or adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in handling the resident’s complaint. It also failed to provide redress for the impact the failures had on the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Communication

This Service expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are responded to as required. This helps deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which is essential to an effective repairs and complaints handling process.
There is evidence throughout the case of emails and letters not being responded to and phone calls going unanswered or not returned. The resident called the landlord on 19 May 2022. During the call she was told it would write to her to inform her what was going to happen in the case. On the 26 July 2022 she had yet to receive a letter. On 4 January 2023, the resident called the landlord to speak to someone involved in the complaint. The person taking the call forwarded her message requesting a call back. However, nobody returned the call. The resident called again on the 13 January 2023 and spoke to the same person, who sent another email asking for someone to call the resident back. The resident reported the communication failures on several occasions however there was no improvement. The councillor sent an internal email highlighting her own frustrations and the unacceptability of the resident having to continually chase the landlord. In an email after her third complaint the resident stated: “I am not unreasonable, I know the council has red tape and budgets, but communication is key really, don’t you think? Whereas I’m just being ignored.”
In explaining some of the delays in the case to the councillor, the landlord told her that the resident had missed appointments. However, the resident disputed she had missed appointment saying that it was the contractors who had attended without appointments. She was able to show that this was the case and provided the landlord with a letter of evidence for one such allegation. The landlord did not respond to her letter, which left the resident feeling she was being blamed for the landlord’s failings causing her to feel “very angry.”
The resident has been proactive and consistent in communicating with her landlord. She has invested considerable time and trouble to keep the landlord informed of the damage being caused to her property. Exceeding her obligations under her tenancy agreement. The landlord’s regular failure to communicate and respond to the resident amounts to maladministration.

Record Keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs and complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
The resident asked the landlord to provide a copy of the report after the inspection for potential subsidence on 21 November 2022. The landlord did not provide a copy of the report. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management expects landlords to share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. This approach lacked transparency and was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord’s inspection and repairs records provided to this investigation do not provide sufficient information. It is not clear from its records when the resident first reported the issue. There are no notes or dates available for the inspections in August 2022 or October 2022. Notes are also missing from the inspections on 9 June 2021 and 12 September 2022. Notes on other inspections are inadequate. For example, an inspection on 29 July 2022 states “Visited property. Tenant not happy that problem hasn’t been resolved sooner, they said that a CCTV survey was recommended 2 years ago but no jobs or works completed. Job on system to check leaks.” The record does not provide any information on what parts of the property the person inspected, what the findings of the inspection were or what works may be necessary. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and are essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping failures amount to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Communication with the resident.
3. Record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the Chief Executive for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £4,425. This amount is comprised of:
  1. £3,625 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the delays in its handling of the leak.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaints handling.
  3. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its communication failings.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by its failures in record keeping.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Arrange an inspection of the property with the resident (considering her instructions on availability and method of contact) to ascertain the current repairs that are outstanding.
2. If the leak is continuing within 10 weeks to carry out investigations to ascertain the source of the leak.
3. Prepare a schedule of works to fix the outstanding repairs to the resident’s property within a reasonable period of time and in any event no later than 12 weeks from the date of the inspection. This schedule of works should include any repairs to fixtures and fittings installed by the landlord or the resident and any decorative repairs that are due as a result of the landlord’s failures in its repairing obligation.
4. Prepare a schedule of works to fix the leak within 12 weeks of the date of the inspection of the leak.
5. Provide the resident with the outcome of all inspections and schedule of works, as a result of these orders, within 2 weeks of them becoming available.
6. Provide the resident with the information she requires to facilitate any insurance claims she may need to make within 2 weeks of her request or the information becoming available.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must complete a self-assessment against the recommendations set out within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits set out.