Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Havering Council (202335663)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335663

Havering Council

11 November 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. Repairs to the communal areas.
    2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    3. Reports of overcrowding and her concerns about the landlord’s transfer list.
    4. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    5. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has a 5 year fixed term tenancy. The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a low rise block. She lives with her husband and 3 children. Her daughter is deaf and autistic, which the landlord was aware of. She has lived at the property since October 2020.
  2. On 27 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that her husband had fallen on the communal concrete stairs on 24 October 2023. The landlord had cleaned the stairs shortly before he fell. She was worried that the steps had no grip and were hazardous. She copied in her local councillor and included ‘complaint’ as part of the subject line. She chased the landlord on 2 November 2023 because she had no response to her complaint. She raised further issues with:
    1. Repairs to communal fencing, the communal ceiling, and damp and mould in the property.
    2. Historic incidents of antisocial behaviour, including verbal abuse.
    3. Her daughter had to attend school out of the area. She wanted assistance with rehousing.
    4. Her children of opposite sex were sharing a bedroom.
  3. On 8 November 2023 the landlord inspected the communal fencing. It noted that the fencing belonged to residents and was not its responsibility to maintain. On 30 November 2023 the landlord surveyed the property. It raised orders to hack off the plaster around the bedroom window and skim the wall, and mould wash all windows and doors.
  4. On 13 December 2023 the landlord conducted some filling and caulking around the window. It repaired the kitchen windowsill on 9 January 2024. After the resident cancelled an appointment in December 2023, the landlord conducted a mould wash on 10 January 2024. On 26 January 2024 the landlord hacked off the plaster in the bedroom and replastered.
  5. In January 2024 the resident sought assistance from the Ombudsman to pursue her complaint. We wrote to the landlord in February 2024 who responded to the resident and issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024. It provided a summary of repairs conducted at the property. It said there was no history of ASB and arranged for an officer to visit the resident. It assessed her housing application and noted that it had awarded medical priority previously. It partially upheld the complaint due to the delay in its response.
  6. The resident sought to escalate her complaint on 4 March 2024. She disagreed with the landlord’s summary of events. She said that she had reported many incidents of ASB, internal repairs were outstanding, the communal fencing was unsafe, and the landlord ignored her overcrowding. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that its asset management team conducted an inspection of the building on 31 January 2024. She said she was home all day and no one attended to assess the communal areas. She also said the landlord had surveyed the ceiling in the last year and works were pending asbestos testing. She was concerned that the ceiling would give way. She also said that she spoke to her neighbours and there were none that owned the communal fencing. There panels were lying broken on the floor and she wanted the landlord to make it safe.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. It reiterated its position regarding the communal fencing but offered to remove broken panels. It said that there were no defects found during the damp inspection and there were delays repairing the communal ceiling because of asbestos surveys. It would monitor the reports of ASB and it offered support with her housing application. It partially upheld the complaint due to delays. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Jurisdiction

  1. The resident raised concerns about overcrowding in the property and the landlord’s transfer list. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body”. The assessment of housing needs and the application of a council’s housing allocation policy concern its actions as a local authority. As a result, such complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO for assistance with her complaint about this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the maintenance of communal areas including stairs and landings. It provides timescales to conduct repairs dependent on urgency. It will conduct urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs within 28 working days of each report. It may conduct external works such as border fencing as part of a planned works schedule.

Repairs to the communal areas

  1. Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising, potential hazards. The landlord should consider the HHSRS when assessing the risks of falls to a resident.
  2. The ‘Building Regulations 2010: protection from falling, collision and impact’ stipulates that stairs should be constructed in a manner that prevents users from slipping, tripping, or falling. Section 1.10 of these regulations says that stairs in common access areas in buildings that contain flats should have apparent step nosing using a material that will contrast visually on the tread. The photographs of the communal stairwell provided to the Ombudsman by the resident show that the concrete stairs appear not to have any step nosing.
  3. In her reports to the landlord in October and November 2023 the resident reported an incident when her husband fell on the communal stairwell. She raised concerns that the concrete stairs were dangerous and slippery when wet. She sought further updates in November 2023. The landlord failed to respond to these concerns in October or November 2023 despite visits to the block on 8 and 30 November 2023. It should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and conducted some investigation to ensure that it was able to minimise any hazards present.
  4. Within her emails in October and November 2023 the resident also reported issues with the communal fencing and the ceiling outside her flat on the communal landing. The landlord appropriately raised an order to inspect the damaged fencing on 27 October 2023 and attended on 8 November 2023. It responded to the reports within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures.
  5. In its response to the councillor on 24 November 2023 the landlord said that it would meet with the resident on 30 November 2023. This was appropriate and would have allowed the landlord to inspect the communal areas and understand the resident’s reports. However, there was no record that it met with the resident on 30 November 2023. Additionally, its decision to respond to the report as a councillor enquiry protracted these issues. It should have recognised the formal complaint and provided a stage 1 response sooner. Its failure caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024 the landlord said that it found no broken fencing during its inspection on 8 November 2023. It found no record of repairs to the ceiling and asked for evidence of the reports or for the resident to log a new enquiry. It also said that it had conducted an inspection on the building on 31 January 2024 and found no record of immediate safety risks. It is unclear if the inspection on 31 January 2024 included the communal stairwell or ceiling. However, the landlord appropriately apologised for not updating the resident and its decision to arrange a further inspection was reasonable.
  7. The Ombudsman has not seen any copy of the notes from the landlord’s inspections listed above. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action the landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case it would have ensured that there were clear reasons for its decision making, that it could have shared with the resident.
  8. On reviewing the evidence, the landlord’s record keeping apparently contributed to its poor management of the resident’s reports. This impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters.
  9. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the communal areas in its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. It sought to resolve the issues with the communal ceiling and explained that there had been delays caused by an asbestos survey. It was appropriate to monitor the outcome of the survey before scheduling further repairs. It was also reasonable to offer to remove the wooden fencing that had been attached to its communal fence. However, its request for the resident to confirm that she wanted it to go ahead with this removal was unnecessary. There was no evidence to suggest that the fencing belonged to the resident and this unnecessarily delayed the landlord’s action to remove a potential hazard. The landlord’s apology for the delays was appropriate, however there was no means to put things right for the resident. She had taken time and trouble pursuing her complaints which the landlord had upheld.
  10. Following the landlord’s final response clarifying its position regarding the communal repairs, the resident continued to chase for updates. On 29 April 2024 she said that the landlord had not conducted the asbestos checks and she was concerned the ceiling could fall any time. The landlord should have taken a more proactive approach to this repair and provided its own updates to the resident. The records show that it did chase its contractor on the same day and that it later surveyed the ceiling and found no asbestos. The landlord scheduled works to the ceiling for 6 August 2024.
  11. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal areas. The landlord did conduct inspections of the communal areas and took action to resolve the issues with the communal ceiling. It recognised that there had been delays conducting repairs and responding to the resident in its complaint responses. However, there was no clear response given to the resident’s concerns that the communal stairs presented a trip hazard after her husband fell. It did not offer compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. The landlord should arrange for further inspection of the communal stairs and provide an update to the resident on how it could reduce any risk of trips and falls. It should pay the resident £100 compensation for her time and trouble.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The records show the resident first reporting damp and mould in her email to the landlord on 2 November 2023. She said there was condensation on the windows causing mould in the bedroom and she highlighted her son’s chronic asthma. The landlord conducted an inspection on 30 November 2023, which was within 28 days and therefore within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Its initial response to the report was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. However, there was no copy of the inspection or survey report available to the Ombudsman. In the absence of any copies of the landlord’s survey or inspection report the Ombudsman has been unable to decide whether the subsequent actions taken to resolve the damp and mould were reasonable.
  3. Despite the gaps in records available from the landlord, we can see that it did attend in November 2023. It raised orders to mould wash both bedrooms, hack off plaster around the bedroom window, and skim the wall in December 2023. These actions are reasonable and common practice in the sector. They show the landlord’s intention to resolve the substantive issues.
  4. When the resident was unavailable for a mould wash treatment in December 2023 the landlord appropriately rescheduled the order. The landlord rescheduled the mould wash for January 2024 and it was completed on 10 January 2024. It conducted the works within a reasonable period and broadly within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
  5. The landlord also conducted the works to seal gaps around the bedroom and kitchen window within a reasonable period. It initially scheduled the works for December 2023 and, after an issue with the contract, it returned in January 2024. The records show the landlord repaired gaps around the kitchen and bedroom windows on 9 January 2024. It resolved the plaster works in the bedroom on 26 January 2024. In total, there was around 38 working days from the date of inspection to the completion of all works. Given the scale of works involved, this was acceptable.
  6. In its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024 the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Its apology for the lack of communication was reasonable.
  7. The resident said that the landlord had not resolved the underlying cause of damp and mould in her escalation request on 4 March 2024. The landlord did not fully address these concerns in its stage 2 response. It said that there were no defects found during the damp inspection and believed the damp and mould to be the result of condensation. In the absence of any survey report the Ombudsman cannot determine if the damp and mould was the result of condensation alone. Additionally, the landlord’s statement contradicts its actions which were to hack off and replaster the bedroom and repair seals around windows. The landlord did not provide an adequate response to these concerns in its stage 2 response. It did not treat the resident fairly as a result.
  8. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property. Its actions throughout the timeline are broadly reasonable. It inspected the property within 28 days of the initial report. It took action to remedy the damp and mould. It provided mould wash treatments and sought to repair plaster in the bedroom and window seals in the kitchen and bedroom.
  9. However, its stage 2 response lacked any detail regarding its actions. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that there may be an underlying cause of damp and mould. There records available do not provide an adequate assessment of the cause of damp and mould. The landlord should contact the resident and conduct a damp and mould survey. It should include a risk assessment of the property and an action plan to remedy any damp and mould identified. It should pay the resident £100 for her distress and inconvenience.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that she had been reporting incidents of ASB from her neighbour in 2022 and 2023. The ASB related to verbal abuse from her neighbour in response to her daughter’s banging and screaming. She explained that her daughter was deaf, autistic, and had ADHD and her behaviour was related. She has shown records of phone calls made between her and the landlord from March, April, July, August, and September 2022, and March and July 2023. The records available to the Ombudsman show that the landlord had no recorded ASB incidents between January 2022 and October 2023. In the absence of any record of discussions had during these dates, the Ombudsman has been unable to make a finding about their relevance to reports of ASB.
  2. The most recent reported ASB incident was in November 2023 and related to the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s unrelated criminal offences. However, in her email to the landlord on 2 November 2023 the resident did pass comment that other neighbours in the block were smoking cannabis. There was no evidence to show that the landlord recorded this allegation as ASB or conducted any action in response.
  3. In view of the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 February 2024 was reasonable. It reflected on the evidence available to it and noted that there were no open ASB incidents. It considered the resident’s circumstances and its decision to arrange a visit to her and discuss her concerns was appropriate.
  4. Following the landlord’s visit to the resident in April 2024 it noted that she said the ASB had reduced significantly. The landlord’s internal records show that it considered interim measures to reduce the impact of the daughter’s screaming and banging on the other neighbours. These included reinforcing the ceiling below, installing underlay and rugs in the resident’s home, and fitting soft wall padding to reduce noise transference. These were all reasonable adjustments and demonstrated the landlord’s recognition of the resident’s personal circumstances.
  5. However, the landlord determined that it was unable to provide any of these measures itself. It had not made its decision when it issued its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. Its response at stage 2 was reasonable. It highlighted the reduction in ASB and agreed to monitor the case and provide support. The landlord later updated the resident with its findings on 1 May 2024. It recommended that the resident seek assistance from an Occupational Therapist or Children’s Social Care for help with funding the suggested alterations to the property. It did not provide the contact details for these services, and it would have been helpful to the resident that it did.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB. Its records show that it responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB. Its response to the concerns raised in its complaint handling was reasonable. Its decision to meet with the resident following her complaint to understand her circumstances was appropriate. The landlord introduced a reasonable adjustment policy in May 2024 that allows for adjustments to physical features in a property. The landlord should assess the resident’s circumstances against its reasonable adjustment policy to determine if there are physical adjustments that would reduce the impact of noise transference to her and her neighbour.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, as a complaint. It will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. The resident’s emails in November 2023 included the word ‘complaint’ in the subject line and were set out as a dissatisfaction of service. The landlord failed to correctly record her reports as complaints and therefore did not provide a response within the timeframes set out in its policy.
  2. The landlord did not record a complaint until after the resident first contacted the Ombudsman. On 21 February 2024 we wrote to the landlord and disputed its decision not to record her emails on 2 November 2023 as a complaint. We asked it to record a complaint and provide a response by 28 February 2024. The resident had taken additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider whether the landlord’s response was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. We also consider if the landlord considered our own guidance on remedies.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2024. This was within the targets set by the Ombudsman, but around 3 months after the resident’s first complaint. It recognised that the resident complained in November 2023 and it appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it did not set out any learning and it did not put things right in the circumstances.
  5. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord missed the opportunity to reflect on its complaint handling in its stage 2 response on 8 April 2024. It did not identify any learning from its failure to correctly record the complaint in November 2023. It did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal areas.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
    3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of overcrowding and her concerns about the landlord’s transfer list is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Arrange for further inspection of the communal stairs and provide an update to the resident on how it could reduce any risk of trips and falls.
    3. Contact the resident and arrange a damp and mould survey. It should include a risk assessment of the property and an action plan with timescales to remedy any damp and mould identified. It should provide an outcome of its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    4. It should pay the resident £250 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £100 for her time and trouble.
      2. £100 for her distress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for its complaint handling failure.
    5. Provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices and the Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (available on our website) to ensure it retains clear records relating to repairs.
  2. The landlord should assess the resident’s circumstances against its reasonable adjustment policy to determine if there are physical adjustments that would reduce the impact of noise transference to her and her neighbour.
  3. If it has not already done so, the landlord to remove the broken fence panels as proposed during the complaints process.