Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202214184)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214184

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

18 September 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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp, mould outstanding repairs, and request for insulation.
2. Its record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a bungalow. Although the resident’s tenancy of the property started on 9 August 2021, the resident was previously temporarily decanted to the property earlier in 2021, while the landlord was carrying out repairs to her former home, until she was permanently decanted to the property. The landlord, despite also being the local social care authority, states that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her child, who have health issues including asthma, and have been assessed by its occupational therapist (OT) as requiring disability adaptations to the property.
On 16 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with damp and mould on the property’s windows, and to request a radiator in the kitchen. On 10 May 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection of the property and informed the resident that no works were required. This was because its damp readings only found slight condensation in the kitchen, and it did not find that the replastering of the property’s walls and sealings and replacement of its windows that she requested to be necessary. The resident then again asked the landlord to address these issues on 13 May and 14 June 2021.
In June 2021, the landlord, its OT and the resident were in communication as to whether the resident would return to her former home, or whether she would permanently decant to the property. The resident said that she did not want to move back to her former home due to its size, and would stay in the property if the landlord carried out the following repairs:
1. Replaster the property throughout.
2. Replace the internal doors and external front door.
3. Replace all windows.
4. Add a radiator in the porch area.
Although the previous inspection carried out in May 2021 determined no works were required, the landlord arranged for a “preventative disrepair inspection” to be carried out on 24 June 2021. The inspection confirmed that the property did not show signs of damp internally, apart from behind the front door, and that the windows did not need to be replaced. It also noted that the kitchen had a downflow heater, but the resident advised she did not use this. The inspection did identify some remedial works, which included treating and replastering for the small section of damp by the front porch door, applying a fungicidal wash to the windows, redecorating for peeling paint in the bathroom, and repointing low level brickwork at the rear of the property.
Between August 2021 and June 2022, the resident continued to contact the landlord and OT to report issues with her windows letting in smells, mould, and a cold draught, and again requested a radiator be installed in the kitchen. This was including via her local councillor on 30 May 2022, which its double glazing contractor inspected her windows for on 31 May 2022, finding no fault with the property’s window frames that were old and she wanted replaced. The landlord recorded receiving multiple reports of these issues from the resident during this period, but its responses to her reports are unclear due to its lack of notes for these, which repeatedly showed jobs as complete with no further information for works that did not take place.
The resident also made a request from 19 August 2021 onwards for a cavity wall and loft insulation inspection because she felt that the property was very cold, particularly the walls. The landlord then re-inspected the property for damp and cold on 30 September 2021, and the plasterwork and windows on 11 May 2022, when it repeated its previous findings.
On 11 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as she was dissatisfied with the way in which her reports had been handled due to its lack of mould and window works or replastering, subsequently reporting that there was no insulation in the property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day, and said it would provide a response within 10 working days, although its final response later accepted that she had initially complained to it on 22 April 2022, when it had dealt with this informally. The resident then attempted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 with it on 1 June 2022, as she had not received a response within 10 working days, but it did not escalate this as it had not issued its stage 1 response yet.
The landlord also wrote to the resident in an undated letter to confirm its final position on the works at the property following its inspections there. The landlord confirmed the works which had been completed during the property’s void period when this was empty before she moved in, including damp proofing and plastering, and subsequently redecorating, fitting a larger radiator, pointing, and addressing the front door. It repeated that, following a number of additional inspections in the past year, apart from a small area in the porch, no other damp had been identified within the property.
On 9 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to express her dissatisfaction with the way in which her requests for her windows to be replaced had been handled. The resident said that the windows were very draughty and were letting in petrol fumes.
On 3 October 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance to progress her complaint, and we contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022 to ask it to respond to this. On 2 November 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response where it provided a detailed history of the previous inspections and repairs that had been carried out. The response concluded that the numerous inspections identified that the windows did not need to be replaced, no damp was identified within the property, and that the insulation within the property was of a satisfactory standard, although it apologised for its delayed response.
It is not clear when the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, but information provided shows that the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 6 January 2023 and provided its final response on 1 February 2023. The landlord said:
1. It acknowledged a failure to deal with the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 22 April 2022 within its published timeframe and apologised, having dealt with this informally before acknowledging it as a formal complaint on 11 May 2022.
2. Between June 2021 and October 2022, the landlord had inspected the windows on 6 separate occasions and confirmed that they did not need replacing. As part of the stage 2 escalation the resident informed the landlord that there was fungus on the windows. The landlord inspected the windows on 20 January 2023 and did not identify any fungus or further works.
3. The cavity wall insulation had been installed in November 1995, and that the loft insulation was topped up in 2003. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for the external walls to be insulated, numerous inspections had not identified any issues with the property and therefore, no further work was required.
4. The landlord had visited the property in June and October 2021, June 2022 and January 2023 and had not identified any issues with damp and mould in the resident’s child’s bedroom.
5. It acknowledged that the kitchen did not have any heating, but when a previous fan heater was removed, the resident did not want it to be replaced due to her asthma. Previous inspections had identified that a radiator could not be installed due to space limitations.
6. The resident had raised concerns relating to foul odours in the kitchen, bathroom and living room, which on inspection had not been noticed. However, it had arranged for a plumber to attend and clean the drains, which she reported had improved the odour.
7. It appreciated that the resident wished to move as a matter of urgency, however, following visits to the property, inspectors had considered that the property was of an acceptable standard, and an urgent move would not be provided by it for her under the circumstances. The landlord advised that the resident should bid for alterative properties herself, as she had not been doing so recently, or seek a mutual exchange.
On 6 February 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that she was unhappy that the kitchen had no heating, there was a toxic smell within various rooms within the property, the loft needed insulating, and the windows were mouldy. She had also paid £350 for her walls to be insulated with insulation boards herself. The resident subsequently confirmed that she wanted the property to be “gutted” by the landlord due to the cold and the need for new windows, replastering, redecorating and insulation there, and for it to move her and her child for this due to their asthma.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained that, due to the condition of the property, she wants this to be “gutted” by the landlord for it to carry out the repair, redecoration and insulation works that she has complained about, and for it to move her and her child for this due to their asthma. However, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. As we do not have the authority or expertise to require the landlord to “gut” the property or move the resident and her child, these outcomes are not considered in this investigation, which instead focuses on whether it followed the below obligations.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and.
3. learn from outcomes

Policies and procedures

The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within its rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy.
The landlord’s responsive repair service standards do not provide any response timescales, but say that a resident is responsible for appropriate and heating ventilation to reduce incidents of condensation. It also confirms that the landlord is responsible for windows, window handles, internal structure, ceilings, walls, and floors, but not internal decoration.
The landlord’s website has a dedicated page which gives residents further information regarding damp and mould, along with a direct link to report issues to it that it advises it be contacted about as soon as possible, but no details are provided as to its response timescales or the actions that it will take for this. The webpage also gives residents information about how to prevent damp and mould, which includes wiping down surfaces, such as if there is a build-up of condensation on windows and hard surfaces, wiping away the condensation will help prevent mould from forming.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for space heating.
The agreement also says that, in determining the standard of repair required, the landlord shall have regard to the age, character and prospective life of the property and locality in which it is situated.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould, outstanding repairs and request for insulation

From the information provided to the Ombudsman, the resident contacted the landlord, its OT and other departments over 18 times between April 2021 and January 2023 to report issues within her property, including damp and mould, outstanding repairs and insulation.
When the resident first reported concerns on 16 April 2021 about mould in the property, the landlord visited 15 working days later on 10 May 2021 and carried out an inspection, which was reasonable as most non-emergency repairs would be expected to be attended within 20 working days as good practice. The landlord appropriately took readings and no damp was identified, it was also confirmed that the windows would not be replaced. It is noted that the resident asked the inspector to leave as she did not agree with the findings.
Emails provided to the Ombudsman show that, in June 2021, the resident and her OT were in discussion with the landlord as to whether her previous home met her needs. The resident confirmed that she did not want to move back there and would consider permanently decanting to the property, if a number of works were carried out. The OT informed the landlord and it was decided that, as a precaution, the landlord would carry out a “preventative disrepair inspection” on 24 June 2021. As the landlord was aware of the repair issues the resident was experiencing at her previous home, it was fair and reasonable for it to take this action and show the resident that it wanted to ensure the current property met the relevant standard.
The inspection report confirmed that the property did not show any signs of damp, apart from behind the front door, and that the windows did not require replacing. Remedial works were identified, including treating and replastering the damp behind the front door, a fungicidal wash to the windows, redecorating the bathroom, and repointing brickwork at the property’s rear. The landlord’s records suggested that these works were completed, but it is unclear when due to its lack of notes for these, which also repeatedly showed jobs as complete with no further information for works that did not take place. The resident was informed of the outcome and took the decision to permanently decant to the property.
The resident continued to report to the landlord between August 2021 and June 2022 that she felt the windows needed to be replaced, that there was a bad smell, and that the property had mould. Despite these being issues which had already been investigated, the landlord visited the resident’s property to complete an inspection on at least 30 September 2021 and 11 May 2022. It also arranged for different members of staff to attend at the resident’s request. Although it is unclear from its records as to exactly when its other inspections and any works were carried out in response to her reports during this period, which is very concerning and so has been considered below as part of the investigation into its record keeping.
However, there is appropriate evidence that the landlord visited the property on the above occasions and on 20 January 2023 to carry out inspections that continued to make the same findings. While some small repairs were identified, no issues were identified with damp, apart from behind the front door, and mould on the windows that was found to require a fungicidal wash but that did not need the windows to be replaced, and this was appropriately communicated to the resident on multiple occasions.
Furthermore, following an enquiry on the resident’s behalf from a local councillor on 30 May 2022, the landlord arranged for its double glazing contractor to inspect the windows in the property on the next day. The contractor reported that, on inspection, they could not find any fault with the window frames that the resident wanted replaced, although they were old. The landlord’s decision to not replace the windows was in line with the tenancy agreement, whereby the landlord took into consideration the age of the windows which were currently in place.
In relation to the resident’s request, from 19 August 2021 onwards, for the property to be insulated, it was again appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property to determine if the work was required, as the work could have been considered a structural repair that it was responsible for under her tenancy agreement.
The information provided confirms that, following the resident’s request, the landlord acted fairly by re-inspecting the property for cold on 30 September 2021, and by making internal enquiries which confirmed that a contractor carried out the installation of cavity wall insulation at this property in November 1995. A specialist contractor also surveyed the property during works in 2003, topped up the loft insulation to 250mm, and also checked the cavity wall and confirmed no work was required.
Nevertheless, in light of the resident’s concerns, the landlord visited to carry out tests in the property for cold there, which did not identify any issues. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident reports that she paid £350 for private work to be carried out for her walls to be insulated with insulation boards, but the landlord took all reasonable steps to investigate before confirming that no further works were required for this.
In relation to the resident’s dissatisfaction that the kitchen did not have adequate heating, the landlord’s repair records show that, from 16 April 2021 onwards, the resident requested a radiator in the kitchen. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the property’s installations for space heating are in repair and proper working order, and its records showed that the kitchen was fitted with a downflow fan heater. However, the resident had not been using this due to her asthma, and did not want this replaced when the heater was removed.
In response to the resident’s request for a radiator, the landlord again took reasonable steps, arranged the above inspections including for cold there, and confirmed that it had previously visited the property to assess whether it was able to accommodate the request. The inspections determined that it was not possible due to size limitations in the kitchen, but that there were no issues with cold at the property, and the resident was informed of this, including in its final response, which was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord took appropriate steps to try and resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould, outstanding repair and insulation issues in her property. The landlord has communicated its decisions to the resident clearly, and it acted fairly and reasonably by inspecting the property on numerous occasions at different times of the year, despite previous visits not identifying any issues in the property. Although its lack of detailed records of its remedial works and many of its inspections for these issues are investigated as part of the below record keeping investigation.
The landlord has also been recommended below to contact the resident to arrange for it to carry out and keep a detailed record of a survey of all of the issues that she reports are still outstanding at her property, and of its position and any repairs or remedial works for each issue. As she additionally sought to move home again as a result of these issues, it has been further recommended below to, if she still wishes to seek alternative accommodation, continue to assist her with this process.

The landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling

As outlined above, it is very concerning that, despite also being the local social care authority, the landlord stated that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her child, who have health issues including asthma, and were assessed by its OT as requiring disability adaptations. This is additionally despite her informing it of this throughout her case, which it acknowledged in its final response that she did not want a previous fan heater replaced due to their asthma.
Moreover, the landlord said that it had completed the treatment, replastering, redecorating, fungicidal wash and repointing works recommended at the property by its “preventative disrepair inspection” of 24 June 2021, but it is unclear from its records when these occurred. Although some of its subsequent inspections provided detailed enough records to confirm that the works had then taken place. Nevertheless, the landlord also stated that it inspected the property another 8 times between October 2021 and January 2023, but its records of these and of any of its other works there during this period are unclear due to its lack of notes, which repeatedly showed jobs as complete with no further information for works that did not take place.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information… The failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. Incorrect information can also cause real detriment and contribute to an increased risk to a resident’s health and safety. Vulnerabilities may also mean that reasonable adjustments are appropriate to actively prevent harm or distress
The spotlight report therefore recommends that landlords take steps to improve their knowledge and information management, including by implementing a strategy for this, benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice, reviewing internal guidance around recording vulnerabilities, and carrying out appropriate staff training. However, it is of concern that there is no indication that the landlord has taken such steps to do so in light of its poor record keeping in the resident’s case, as outlined above.
The landlord’s corporate complaints procedure, dated December 2020, shows that it operates a 2-stage procedure. This says that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 15 working days.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised that it failed to deal with the resident’s initial formal complaint, but did not provide a date for when it was received, instead acknowledging this on 11 May 2022. As part of the landlord’s final response, it provided further insight and acknowledged that it did not appropriately deal with the resident’s initial formal complaint, which it received on 22 April 2022, dealt with informally, and then raised formally in May 2022. It further acknowledged that it failed to appropriately deal with the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 1 June 2022, when she did not receive a response within 10 working days, as it had not issued its stage 1 response yet.
The Ombudsman was also told by the resident that she raised a further stage 2 complaint in August 2022, as she had still not received a stage 1 response and remained dissatisfied with the landlord. The landlord again failed to acknowledge or respond to the escalated complaint, which prompted the resident to contact uson 3 October 2022to help progress her complaint.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord wrote to the resident with its final position on the works at the property in an undated letter following its inspections there, it did not do this through the formal complaints procedure, and this did not address her requests for new windows, insulation and a kitchen radiator. Moreover, had the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint formally with the same information, the resident would have had the option to escalate her complaint within a more reasonable timeframe. As this did not happen, the resident had to wait 123 working days after the procedure’s 10-working-day stage 1 response timescale from her initial complaint of 22 April 2022 before a formal stage 1 response was received on 2 November 2022, which only occurred after she contacted the Ombudsman.
In the landlord’s final response, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint and apologised, it also said that its service had been reminded of the need to provide a timely response. This was also issued on 1 February 2023, which was 18 working days after it acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 6 January 2023, and so slightly exceeded its corporate complaints procedure’s 15-working-day stage 2 response timescale, but not the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s 20-working-day one. However, the landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of the delay the resident experienced at stage 1, nor did it provide any compensation for the delays experienced. As such, it has not taken sufficient action to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to section 6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. Therefore, the decision to not award compensation in recognition of its failings was not reasonable.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort spent pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. We consider whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident, taking into account the evidence that has been provided.
Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss, and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to always keep appropriate records in her case, and to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within a reasonable timeframe. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which had an adverse impact on the resident, a payment from £100 recommended. The landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her case, and that she had been chasing a response to her complaint for a number of months, and therefore should have taken steps to ensure a response was provided in a reasonable timeframe. In recognition of this, the Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation.
The landlord has also been recommended below to take steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s case by reviewing its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, outstanding repairs, and request for insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its record keeping and complaint handling.

Order and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report for its poor record keeping and complaint handling in her case.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. If the resident still wishes to seek alternative accommodation, continue to assist the resident with this process.
2. Contact the resident to arrange for it to carry out and keep a detailed record of a survey of all of the issues that she reports are still outstanding at her property, and of its position and any repairs or remedial works for each issue.
3. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and residents’ vulnerabilities, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
4. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.