Havering Council (202008258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008258

Havering Council

21 July 2021

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 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 concerns:

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould at her property and the remedial works offered by it for this.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The property is a first-floor, two-bedroom flat, situated in a building comprised of similar properties.
4. As per the landlord’s records, there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the residents at the property.

Summary of events

5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 August 2020 to lodge a stage one formal complaint regarding the mould found in the property, and the works proposed by it to remedy this. Additionally, she advised that:

1. There were various other repair issues, including the presence of mould at her property, which had been ongoing for six years.
2. A surveyor had visited the property and advised that “the walls would need to be looked at behind the [thermal] boards”; however, their superior subsequently attended the property with a contractor, and determined that the “mould had not gone through the [thermal] board”.
3. She was unhappy with the mould developing in the property, especially as one of her young children had asthma.
4. As a result, the resident sought for the “thermal boarding [to be] removed to reveal [the] mould damage behind, [the] mould [to be] dealt with correctly”, the windows to be repaired, “basic painting to be completed to repair the damages”, and for an “official mould surveyor” to attend the property.

6. The landlord issued the resident with a complaint acknowledgement on 4 August 2020, in which it advised that a response would be provided “no later than 17 August 2020.”
7. The resident then followed up with two emails on 5 and 20 August 2020, in which she provided photographs of the mould, raised further concerns regarding an incident where a wooden beam “fell from the ceiling straight on to [her] head”, and reported a missed appointment by one of its surveyors on the latter date.
8. The landlord then issued a stage one complaint response on 14 September 2020, in which it addressed all of the points raised by the resident and advised that it would partially uphold her complaint, as per below:

1. In respect of her reports of mould that had been ongoing for six years, it stated that it could not locate any records of this prior to 11 March 2019. Following this report, the landlord advised that it had attended the property on 8 and 12 April 2019; however, it could not carry out the necessary checks due to a lack of access. It said that it subsequently re-attended the property to inspect the mould issue and complete the associated works on 24 April, 30 May and 3 June 2019 and then, following a new report of mould made on 23 January 2020, it inspected the property on 27 July 2020.
2. It acknowledged that a mould “wash down” was carried out, but this was not “done to an acceptable standard”, and so it advised that it could arrange for a “damp specialist” to survey the property.
3. In respect of the repairs needed to the property’s windows, it advised that, following its investigation, it had found that three work orders had been raised since October 2019, and “on each attendance,…[it] carried out repairs to the hinges”. The landlord therefore agreed “that the works have not been completed to a satisfactory standard”, offered to send a new surveyor to inspect them, and advised that window “units [would] only be replaced once they are beyond repair and would be replaced [on a] like for like [basis]”.
4. It apologised for the incident concerning the “wooden beam”, advised that it could not locate any logs reporting this recorded in the previous 12 months, and requested further information from her for this for it to look into further.
5. Regarding the rest of the repair issues that had been outstanding since 2014, it advised that it would not be able to look into these due to the amount of time that had elapsed, and that the surveyor who would inspect the windows could arrange “any other works required”.

9. The resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on the same day, as she disputed the information and explanation provided by the landlord in its initial complaint response. This included the fact that it did not attend the promised appointment that was to take place two weeks after the inspection on 27 July 2020, the level of mould present at the property during the inspection, and the attitude and competency of a member of its staff.
10. The landlord issued the resident with a stage two complaint acknowledgement on the same date, and advised that it would “aim to respond within 25 days”, which was followed up by its holding emails to her on 7 and 21 October and 3 November 2020, confirming that its response had been delayed.
11. On 21 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she was expecting surveyors to inspect her property on that day at 9.30am; however, they did not attend and instead contacted her via telephone after the appointment time to advise that they would attend later that day.
12. The surveyors subsequently attended the property on 22 September 2020, and a “survey quotation” was issued on 25 September 2020. They recommended for the fan in the kitchen to be upgraded, for a new one to be fitted in the bathroom, for the removal of the thermal board initially to address any mould on the original wall, and for the “affected surface areas” in the first bedroom to be washed with mould solution.
13. On 19 November 2020, the landlord issued the stage two complaint response to the resident, in which it addressed the following points:

1. She was dissatisfied with a member of its staff’s attitude and competency. However, following its investigation, the landlord decided to not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as it deemed this “unsubstantiated”, but it did offer her an apology for its delays in satisfactorily completing previous mould treatment, washing and repapering works at her property.
2. She reported that it was yet to effectively deal with the mould in the property. The landlord decided to uphold this aspect of the complaint, as it had “taken too long to resolve”, and it now expected to complete fan upgrade and bedroom mould wash works at the resident’s property on 26 November 2020 and living room thermal board, wall treatment, skirting board and decorating works in mid-December 2020. Although it deemed that certain delays were outside of its control, with it stating that she had declined its thermal board removal works in her living room and first bedroom.
3. She was dissatisfied with a lack of communication by it. The landlord also upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint, and acknowledged poor communication on its part as it did not clarify its agreed actions for the mould at her property following its attendance there on 27 July 2020 until a subsequent meeting with her on 22 September 2020.
4. She reported that she was unable to ventilate the property due to blocked vents. The landlord did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint, as it had previously identified these were “working properly”, and so it advised her that this should be resolved through regular condensation management and cleaning.
5. As a resolution it decided to offer her: £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience that she had been caused; the above “comprehensive detail of the work agreed…and dates for completion”; and an inspection of the property by a surveyor to confirm what work might be necessary to the thermal boarding in the first bedroom that she had reportedly attempted to remove herself.

14. The resident then requested for her complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 23 November 2020.
15. On 7, 8, 10 and 11 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to advise of various concerns regarding its outstanding works for the mould at her property and its lack of contact about these, including that her and both of her children had been experiencing “symptoms of mould poisoning” for the previous four to five months. Additionally, she advised that she was “in the process of having this investigated through the doctor”; of her intent to take legal action for this; and that she felt that its lack of action (i.e. removing the thermal boards, treating for mould and then redecorating) would “leave the property unsafe and unliveable”, as it proposed to replace the boards.
16. The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 December 2020 to address her above concerns and to provide an update on the works outstanding at the property. In respect of these, it confirmed that:
    1. Works to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans, and mould treatment with a specialist solution (that was due to be done in one of the bedrooms) were completed on 26 and 27 November 2020.
    2. Its contractor had attended the property to remove any remaining thermal boards in the lounge area, treat the area with a mould solution, replace the thermal boarding and skirting, and decorate the “affected areas”, at the end of the first week of December 2020; however, it could not do so due to a lack of access to the property.
    3. It also had to consider whether any damage had been done to the thermal board in the first bedroom at the property, which she had attempted to remove herself, as this would need to be removed and replaced if damaged, and the cost of doing so might be added to her rent account as a rechargeable repair.
    4. It acknowledged her latest correspondence as a request to escalate her complaint to the third and final stage of its complaints procedure, which it was considering whether or not to progress to a panel review.
17. The landlord issued the stage three final complaint response to the resident on 15 December 2020. In its response, it determined that, following its review of the complaint and events that occurred, it was satisfied with the resolution offered at the second stage of its complaints procedure. The landlord explained that this was because it had found that its earlier complaint investigations had been carried out correctly, it had appropriately offered the resident £200 compensation in recognition of her distress and inconvenience, and it had satisfactorily outlined its actions for the repairs required at her property. It added that there was not enough evidence to support her view that mould had been present at the property for as long as she had suggested, and so it declined to progress her complaint to a panel review.
18. The resident contacted this Service on 12 March 2021 to advise that she wished to progress her complaint as there were still some outstanding repairs at her property. In its email to this Service, dated 6 May 2021, the landlord confirmed that it was yet to refit thermal boarding in the lounge area, refit the windowsill in one of the bedrooms and make good the area because it was not being given access to do so, as she was unwilling to have the thermal boards reinstated.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

19. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that she “must” allow access to her property to the landlord’s “employees and contractors…to inspect its condition, carry out repairs, maintenance, improvement works and to check who is living in the property.”

The tenants’ handbook

20. The landlord’s tenants’ handbook divides repairs into three categories, based on urgency, with the longest completion time for repair works being set at 28 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould and the remedial works offered

21. It is noted that the resident has stated that she considers that the mould issue at her property has exacerbated her and her children’s medical conditions. However, it is beyond the authority and expertise of this Service to determine whether there is a link between the presence of mould in the property, the landlord’s actions for this and her and her children’s medical conditions or to award damages for this, in the way that a court or insurer might, which are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation.
22. The resident’s report that mould issues have been ongoing at her property for the last six years is also outside of the scope of this investigation, which will instead focus on the events that occurred in her case since 23 January 2020. This is because this Service can only investigate matters that were raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, which usually consists of events that arose within approximately six months of her stage one complaint of 3 August 2020.
23. Additionally, it is important to note that this Service will ascertain the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould, and whether its actions were reasonable and in line with its policies and procedures. We cannot comment or make a determination on the extent of works proposed by the landlord, or whether a property would be habitable as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and the landlord is entitled to rely upon the expert assessments and recommendations of its staff and contractors in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
24. In its stage one complaint response, issued on 14 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the initial report of mould in the resident’s property, as per its records, was made on 11 March 2019. Remedial works were completed for this on 3 June 2019, and it provided dates for when it attempted to attend the property to carry these out, but could not gain access to do so, on 8 and 12 April 2019.
25. As per the landlord’s records, the next report of mould in the property was made to it by the resident on 23 January 2020, and it did not carry out an inspection for this until 27 July 2020. This Service nevertheless appreciates that attending the property may have not been possible for a number of months of the above period due to the restrictions imposed by the corona virus pandemic.
26. However, in order for the landlord to have been compliant with its tenants’ handbook’s set response times above at paragraph 20, it would have had to attend the property and complete any remedial works within 28 working days of the resident’s above mould report, which had passed prior to the commencement of the lockdown period in March 2020. It was therefore unreasonable that the resident had to wait for over six months for it to inspect her property following her latest report of mould to it, particularly as there is no evidence that it updated her on this or provided her with its expected timescale for the inspection during this period.
27. Also in its stage one complaint response, the landlord offered to arrange a new survey of the property on 22 September 2020, and a survey quotation was issued for this on 25 September 2020. Based on this, it was to upgrade the fan in the kitchen, fit a new fan in the bathroom, initially remove the thermal board, and treat the mould–affected areas in the first bedroom. The landlord confirmed that the fan and mould treatment works were completed on 26 and 27 November 2020, and that these were due to be followed by more remedial works to be carried out at the end of the first week of December 2020.
28. The landlord’s further works were to consist of the removal of any remaining thermal boards in the lounge area, the mould treatment of the area, the replacement of the thermal boarding and skirting, and the decoration of the affected areas. However, on 6 May 2021, it confirmed that it was yet to refit the thermal boarding in the lounge area, refit the windowsill in one of the bedrooms, and make good to the affected areas due to it not being given access to the resident’s property to do so, as she was unwilling to have the thermal boards reinstated.
29. It was reasonable of the landlord to carry out a new inspection on 22 September 2020 to identify any new repairs and this Service appreciates the various mitigating circumstances, such as the restrictions imposed by the corona virus, its lack of access to the resident’s property and scheduling conflicts. However, it took an unreasonable amount of time to complete the repairs that it identified at her property between its initial inspection on 27 July 2020 and its subsequent remedial works there on 26 and 27 November 2020. This led to unnecessary delays and inconvenience being experienced by the resident, was unreasonable, not compliant with the landlord’s tenants’ handbook’s 28-working-day timeframe, and was not fair to her.
30. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord’s stage two complaint response to the resident of 19 November 2020 both apologised to her for its delays in completing the remedial works for the mould at the property, and offered her £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience that she had been caused by this. This was in addition to the completion of the above works at her property, and its agreement to carry out the remaining works there, which it was not responsible for failing to complete after the end of the first week of December 2020, as it was not given access to do so.
31. Although it is of concern that the resident reported that the landlord’s proposed reinstatement of the property’s thermal boards would leave this “unsafe and unliveable”, it was reasonable for it to rely on its above surveys’ expert recommendation of these works to resolve the mould there in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. She was also obliged by her tenancy agreement above at paragraph 19 to allow it access to carry out the works, and so she and not it was responsible for its failure to do so after the above date.
32. With regard to the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation to the resident for its delay of almost nine months after its tenants’ handbook’s 28-working day timescale in completing its initial remedial works for mould at her property from 23 January to 27 November 2020, however, this was not proportionate to fully put this right. This is because, as outlined above, its timescale to carry out the works expired prior to the presence of mitigating factors, such as restrictions for the corona virus pandemic. Moreover, the landlord continued to delay completing the works at the property after it was able to attend this from 27 July 2020, which was not appropriate.
33. To conclude, this Service appreciates the landlord’s efforts to carry out inspections and the remedial works identified during these, along with its apology and offer of compensation of £200 to the resident to seek to put right its delayed works. However, as per the information provided to us, there were unnecessary delays identified on its part, which have led to a finding of service failure in its handling of her reports of mould and remedial works, as its compensation offer did not fully put these right.
34. This Service’s remedies guidance instead recommends compensation in the range of £250 to £700 for service failure over a considerable period of time involving a failure to act in accordance with policy to address repairs. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay to this to the resident, less an amount recognising the factors affecting its delays that were beyond its control, such as the restrictions of the corona virus pandemic. It has also been ordered below to re-offer her the completion of any outstanding remedial works for mould at her property, if it has not completed these already.

The landlord’s complaint policy and procedure

35. The landlord operates a three-stage complaint policy and procedure, as per below:
    1. Stage one – the landlord is to acknowledge the complaint within three working days, and issue a written response within ten working days.
    2. Stage two – an acknowledgement is to be issued within three working days, and a written response within 25 working days.
    3. Stage three – the landlord will acknowledge receipt within three working days, decide whether to conduct a panel review, and issue a written response within 30 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

36. The resident raised a stage one formal complaint on 3 August 2020, for which the landlord issued an acknowledgement on the next day. It advised that it would issue a written stage one complaint response by 17 August 2020, but it did not do so until 14 September 2020. The landlord’s acknowledgement complied with its complaint policy and procedure’s set timeframe of three working days, but it did not adhere to the response time of ten working days, set for complaints at the first stage of the policy and procedure, as its response was 19 working days later than this timescale, nor did it appear to update the resident on its delay.
37. Moving forward, the landlord adhered to its acknowledgement timeframe of three working days for the resident’s stage two escalation request of 14 September 2020 on the same date. It then issued a stage two complaint response on 19 November 2020, which did not adhere to its above complaint policy and procedure’s response timeframe of 25 working days, as this was 23 working days later than this. Yet it was fair and reasonable of the landlord to issue the resident with holding letters and emails for its delayed complaint response, on 7 and 21 October and 3 November 2020.
38. Furthermore, the landlord’s stage three complaint acknowledgement and response were issued in a timely manner that was compliant with its complaint policy and procedure’s timescales of three and 30 working days, respectively. This is because it acknowledged the resident’s stage three complaint from 7 December 2020 on 10 December 2020, and it replied to the complaint on 15 December 2020.
39. To conclude, as per the information presented above, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint due to its total delays of 42 working days in issuing the stage one and stage two complaint responses to her, for which it did not update her in respect of her stage one complaint.

Determination (decision)

40. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould at her property and the remedial works offered by it for this.
41. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

42. The landlord inspected the property, identified the works required, attempted to complete these, apologised and offered compensation; however, the compensation was not proportionate to the unnecessary delays and inconvenience caused to the resident.
43. The landlord failed to issue stage one and stage two complaint response within the timeframes set out in its complaint policy and procedure, and it did not update the resident on its delay in respect of her stage one complaint.

Orders and recommendations

44. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident the £200 compensation that it initially offered her, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident a further amount of £200 compensation for the delays caused to her, which is broken down into £150 for its delays and her distress and inconvenience related to the remedial works for mould, and £50 for its delays and her time and trouble related to its complaint handling.
    3. In the absence of a compensation policy, the above compensation was calculated based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is to be paid within four weeks.
    4. Contact the resident within four weeks to re-offer her the completion of any outstanding remedial works for mould at her property, if it has not completed these already.
45. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Consider providing further repairs and complaints handling training to its staff to ensure that any repair reports and complaints are dealt with in a timely and efficient manner in accordance with its policies and procedures in relation to repairs and complaints. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/landlords-info/e-learning/, and consideration of our remedies guidance at https://hos.staging.civiccomputing.com/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/.
    2. Review the thoroughness of its records system for repairs, to ensure that information is logged and acted upon in a timely and accurate manner.
46. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the above recommendations.
47. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.