Thurrock Council (202301374)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301374

Thurrock Council

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of works required in the resident’s property.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 16 February 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a house. The resident lives with her family. The resident had no recorded vulnerabilities.
In 2022, following an in depth appraisal of its housing stock, the landlord undertook to complete a project at the resident’s property which would improve the thermal efficiency of the property and extend its lifespan.
As part of these works, the landlord planned to install external wall insulation, which required the contractor to block the existing airbricks in the property to enable the installation of a new ventilation system. It is unclear from the evidence provided, when the existing vents were blocked up, however it is evident that they had been blocked up when an inspection for damp and mould was completed in February 2022.
In the inspection, completed by a contractor, the report states that there was black mould in numerous rooms, and on the external walls at the junction with the ceilings. It reported that most of the air vents were covered over which prevented air flow within the rooms.
On 15 November 2022, the contractor contacted the landlord as they had received complaints from the resident regarding damp and mould in her property. The contractor said the lack of ventilation made the problem worse.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 February 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. The landlord said in March 2022 that the insulation improvement works would take 9 weeks and that due to the nature of the works she had to remove her shelving. Therefore, she had her belongings in boxes.
2. The contractors had not finished the windows and guttering, and the damp had got 10 times worse.
3. She was meant to have loft insulation done that day and so had spent the last week removing items from it and had used one of her children’s bedrooms as storage. The contractor attended and informed her the work could not go ahead as the insulation was wet from holes in the roof.
4. The resident said she had already informed the contractor of the damp insulation when it completed the inspections.
5. She also had a blockage in her bathroom sink.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the delayed works, the landlord said recent surveys had shown the need for extensive works. It confirmed it had completed all surveys and works would begin week starting 20 March 2023.
2. It confirmed a delay with the loft insulation works due to the leak in the roof. Its contractors would repair the roof and then replace the insulation. It confirmed work would begin week starting 6 March 2023.
3. With regards to the half completed windows, it confirmed its scaffolders had broken a window. It said it had fitted new windows in preparation for the external wall insulation. The landlord confirmed the contractor would replace the broken window week beginning 6 March 2023.
4. With regards to the blocked sink, the landlord confirmed a contractor would attend to inspect the issue. As part of the wider works at the property, the landlord said it would renew the bathroom pipework.
5. To address the damp and mould in the property, the landlord said it had made arrangements for its contractor to carry out treatment.
6. It said it was sorry for the delays and the inconvenience caused.
On 9 March 2023, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process as she was dissatisfied about the following points:
1. That the contractor should have completed works the previous week but had not started.
2. The landlord has taken over a year to complete its assessments.
3. The covered vents had allowed mould to grow. There was damp on the walls causing the wallpaper to fall off and puddles on the floor.
4. The landlord had looked at her blocked pipes previously and the resident felt the issue was “shrugged off.”
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 April 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the roof repairs, the landlord had to undertake enabling works which included erecting scaffolding. The scaffolding was adapted to complete roof repairs on 6 March 2023. Following the roof works, the insulation work would begin.
2. It confirmed the resident was ill on the date its contractor was due to replace the window.
3. With regards to the delays to complete the assessments, the landlord said following the initial design and surveys, it was found that the roof felt was defective. This was not immediately obvious, and its contractor needed to wait for the loft to dry out.
4. Following the roof repairs, its contractor would attend to replace the loft felt and install new insulation.
5. With regards to the mould, the landlord was sorry if the resident felt it had dismissed her concerns. It confirmed the work it was completing would improve the overall fabric and thermal performance of the building.
6. The landlord said it had arranged for its contractor to attend to address the mould, but the resident declined the works and wanted to wait until the external insulation works had completed.
7. The landlord said it was sorry if the resident felt it had dismissed her ongoing concerns about the blocked pipe. It confirmed its contractor would renew the pipes as part of the planned works.
8. It asked the resident to contact it to arrange for the mould works and an inspection of the blockage.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord completed the external wall insulations work on 18 April 2023. It fitted the new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom on 28 April 2023. A schedule of works provided to this Service shows that it had completed all works on 1 September 2023.
The resident bought her complaint to this Service on 12 May 2023 due to the works being outstanding. She said the landlord had told her the works would be completed on 22 May 2022 yet a year later, the works were outstanding. She said she had lived for over a year with severe damp and mould which had caused health problems for her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident reported the impact these delays had on her health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the presence of damp and mould and the residents health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she the wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installation provided by it. It sets out it is responsible for maintaining insurance for the structure of the property, but its responsibility does not cover replacing a resident’s personal items. It advises residents to take out content’s insurance.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it is required to maintain the outside and inside structural or party walls, roofs and any frames which open onto the outside of the building.
It says that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 20 working days. It says that batch repairs will be completed according to the programme set out.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy set out that it will carry out remedial repairs and actions including maintaining the fabric of the property to avoid penetrating and rising damp.
It sets out that following inspections by contractors, it will inform residents of possible causes of damp and mould, recommend effective solutions, all necessary remedial works including estimated timescales to complete works.
It sets out that for severe cases of damp and mould, its surveyor will complete a survey, and any identified repairs would take place as a routine repair within a 20 day target time.

Works required to the resident’s property.

The landlord’s repairs logs and evidence provided do not adequately capture all the events relating to the repairs raised in this case. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this helps the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, including the management, and monitoring of outstanding repairs. Furthermore, the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management recommends that a landlord “knows its products, services and residents well, and that it uses this data to inform business and financial planning.” This investigation has ordered that the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping.
The resident raised in her formal complaint that the landlord said in March 2022 that the repair works would take 9 weeks. The resident raised her formal complaint in February 2023, 11 months after the original works were due to take place. No evidence has been provided to show why there was such a delay or that the reasons for the delay were communicated to the resident at any point. This not only indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping but also a lack of urgency to undertake the major works required.
The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, said that following surveys it had been identified that the property required extensive works. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s repair policy sets out that batch repairs are done according to the programme set out, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it had given a timeline of the expected works to the resident to manage her expectations as to when works would be completed. Providing such information would have enabled the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations.
As part of the ongoing works, the resident’s external vents were blocked to install a new internal ventilation system. Although the exact timing of the blockage is unclear, an inspection report from 21 February 2022 showed that mould had developed in the resident’s property due to the covered air vents. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of any action taken regarding the damp and mould. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord was working to improve the property’s ventilation, the extensive timescale for completing the works should have prompted consideration of temporary solutions, such as a dehumidifier, to alleviate the issues during the ongoing work. Additionally, it would have been appropriate to conduct a risk assessment to understand the severity of the damp and mould. Failing to do so showed a disregard for the resident’s situation.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor reported that the resident had complained about damp and mould. The contractor confirmed the issue was exacerbated by poor ventilation. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered the time between the vents being blocked and the commencement of new works. Given that the landlord’s ventilation improvement strategy was still ongoing, and it was previously aware of the damp and mould issues, this was another chance for the landlord to consider temporary solutions. The landlord missed a further opportunity to conduct a risk assessment to understand the extent of the damp and mould and to consider temporary solutions. This oversight further demonstrates the landlord’s disregard for the situation and lack of empathy for the resident, who had been living with worsening mould for almost a year.
In her formal complaint, the resident then raised that the damp in her property had got “ten times worse” since the works began. In stage 1 response however, the landlord appropriately confirmed that it had arranged for its contractor to contact the resident to arrange for mould treatment works. While it would have been useful for the landlord to have done this at the earliest opportunity and not following a formal complaint, it was appropriate that it took action and showed a renewed commitment towards resolving the issue for the resident.
On 14 March 2023, the contractor contacted the resident to arrange mould treatment. However, the resident declined, preferring to wait until the external insulation works were completed. Since the resident declined the treatment, any consequences of the damp treatment not being done cannot be attributed to the landlord at this stage.
Furthermore, in its stage 2 response on 11 April 2023, the landlord asked that the resident allow it to complete the damp treatment works before the external wall insulation works. This was to ensure that it could address the damp and mould as soon as possible. It was appropriate for the landlord to clarify its position and encourage the resident to allow the treatment works.
As part of the improvement works, the landlord was scheduled to replace the loft insulation. However, when the contractor arrived on 22 February 2023 to perform the replacement, they discovered a leak in the roof. Although it was not ideal that it only found the leak at this stage, it was reasonable for the landlord to delay the insulation work to carry out the necessary roof repairs first.
In its stage 1 response on 9 March 2023, the landlord confirmed its position and said that it would replace the insulation once it had completed the roof works. It said that the works would begin that week. However, since it gave the response on the Wednesday, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to confirm whether the works had started and to provide further information on the expected timeline to manage the resident’s expectations. This would have been particularly important given the extensive delays the resident had already experienced.
Furthermore, the stage 2 response on 11 April 2023 revealed that although the scaffolding had been adapted for roof repairs in March, no actual repair work had begun. This was inappropriate, considering it had been 33 working days since its contractor had found the roof leak. Landlords need to have effective and robust systems in place to track and monitor repairs, ensuring works are completed within its policy timescales.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it communicated the reason for the delay to the resident. Effective communication is essential for managing residents’ expectations. The lack of communication caused the resident to escalate the complaint to receive an update. This delay in completing the roof repairs ultimately led to a further delay in the resident receiving her new loft insulation.
It is important to note that despite this Service requesting evidence, the landlord has not provided any information showing when it was first found that the loft insulation needed replacing. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether there were any delays in addressing the loft insulation replacement. However, the lack of evidence suggests an issue with record keeping.
In her formal complaint, the resident raised an issue with her bathroom sink blocking. The landlord appropriately confirmed, in its stage 1 complaint response, that it had arranged for its contractor to inspect the blockages.
The evidence provided suggests that the landlord’s contractor tried to attend the resident’s property to inspect the pipework however the appointment was not able to go ahead due to the resident being ill. The landlord has not provided evidence of when this appointment was, however, the landlord appropriately asked the resident, in its stage 2 response, to contact the landlord to arrange the inspection. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Furthermore, the landlord set out in both its complaint responses that it would be renewing the resident’s bathroom pipework as part of the overall improvement works in the property.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property fell below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. Although the Ombudsman understands that the landlord undertook an extensive improvement project, including the resident’s property, these works left the resident living with damp and mould for a significant period. Issues of damp and mould raised by the resident and contractors were seemingly ignored, as the landlord focused on the improvement works rather than considering temporary solutions to alleviate the issues. The landlord’s communication also fell short of the expected standard. The lack of communication throughout the process left the resident unaware of when the landlord would complete the work. It did not communicate effectively in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the resident’s property.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the works required to the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,000, made up of the following:
1. £500 for the overall delays in this case.
2. £250 for its lack of effective communication.
3. £250 for the overall distress and inconvenience.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of the compliance with the above orders.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review of the failings identified in this case, conducted by a senior. The landlord must reflect on the failings and consider where it can incorporate any lessons into its policies and processes, particularly regarding record keeping for repairs. This is especially important when it has planned significant improvement works for its properties, to ensure the works are effectively managed, delays are minimised, and residents are not left living in unacceptable conditions. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.