Havering Council (202221133)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221133

Havering Council

27 June 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of overcrowding and request to move.
2. Reports of damp and mould and subsequent damage to belongings.
3. Reports of repairs to the boiler.
4. Reports of flooding to the bathroom and subsequent damage to the flooring.
5. Reports of repairs to the windows, door and intercom.
6. Associated formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Overcrowding and request to move.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
In the resident’s complaint she raised concerns about being overcrowded, which she believed to be “against the law” and requested that the landlord move her to a more suitable property. While we appreciate that being overcrowded would have been distressing for the resident, this matter falls property under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This is because overcrowding is dealt with as part of a local council’s duties as a local authority and not part of its housing functions, thus, it is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s remit to consider.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident was the secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, where she resided in a 1-bedroom first floor flat with her 2 children. She moved from the property on 13 March 2022.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 April 2021, stating that she had to repeatedly report issues with her boiler, and had no heating or hot water during the cold weather. She was overcrowded in a 1-bedroom flat with 2 young children, which she believed to be “against the law”. There was damp and mould in the property, which was affecting her and her family’s health, and she had to throw away belongings. The property had flooded 3 times and she had to replace the flooring. The windows and door were broken, causing draughts, and her intercom did not work.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 May 2021, providing an explanation for each of the resident’s concerns. It offered £20 compensation for a missed appointment.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 June 2021. She said that the heating contractor’s lack of action had caused health issues. Communication had been poor, leading to her calling more than 15 times for boiler repairs in a matter of months, and the boiler was still not fixed. She had been raising concerns about damp and mould for 2 years. She repeated that the flooring had to be replaced due to flooding. She wanted better communication and understanding as the matters were impacting her health.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 18 November 2022, apologising for the delay in providing its response. It provided an explanation for each of the resident’s repairs, acknowledging some delays, and offered £265 in compensation. This included £20 for the missed appointment, £95 for periods where she had been without heating and hot water, and £150 for poor complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said that she had to resolve the mould herself due to the landlord’s lack of action. She repeated her concerns about the boiler repairs and flooring. She had provided medical evidence of the impact on her and her family’s health, which had been ignored, and she wanted the compensation offer to be reviewed.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she advised that the damp and mould was affecting her and her children’s health. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of damp and mould and subsequent damage to belongings.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The evidence, provided to this Service, showed a previous stage 1 response dated 19 March 2021. The landlord had raised the resident’s concerns of damp and mould to its repairs team, and once the Covid-19 restrictions eased, a visit would be arranged. However, its repairs logs, from the period up to the current complaint, showed no evidence of repairs being raised for damp and mould.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that her property was damp, and unless she left the windows open all the time, mould grew quickly. She had to throw away wardrobes, clothing, toys and bedding. She was constantly cleaning the walls, which had affected her eczema. When her son was less than 10-days old, he was taken to hospital with pneumonia, which doctors believed could be due to the damp and mould in the property. A Surveyor was sent, after she had got someone to paint over the mould, who told her to “just keep cleaning it.”
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had investigated the damp and mould, which had been addressed under a previous complaint, therefore it had no further comment to make.
The landlord’s response was not reasonable given that the resident was still reporting issues with damp and mould. It also failed to show any empathy for her health concerns or detriment this was causing, in particular to her young son. It should have arranged to re-inspect the property to address the resident’s concerns.
In the resident’s escalation request she stated that she had been contacting the landlord, about damp and mould, for 2 years. The constant cleaning was causing her skin to be sore and she had several prescriptions for steroid creams. She had taken it upon herself to call someone in to “damp proof,” and she repeated that the surveyor had said, “its just an old building, its going to happen, just carry on cleaning it, and keep on top of it.”
While this Service does not doubt the resident’s assertion that she had been reporting the issues for over 2 years, there was no evidence provided by either party to confirm this.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it could see that she had sought to resolve the damp and mould herself. It had been unable to assess the severity during the surveyor’s visit due to this. As the building was old the surveyor had advised her to continue cleaning and create proper airflow to alleviate the damp. It could see no further inspections and appreciated that she had followed the advice given. It could see from the medical evidence provided, the high number of times she was prescribed creams for her eczema. She had also provided her son’s medical evidence. While it sympathised with the situation, it was unable to say for certain that the issues in the property would have caused the health concerns. However, it did feel the damp and mould issues should have been further addressed.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the resident’s health concerns, however, it failed to provide any further guidance in relation to making a personal injury claim with its insurance department. It failed to address the resident’s reports about damaged belongings. It would have been appropriate to have advised her that she could also make a claim against its insurance with relevant evidence. While it acknowledged that it should have further assessed the damp and mould concerns, it failed to offer any recompense or demonstrate how it would prevent a similar failing in the future.
The landlord failed to consider its obligations under HHSRS or investigate the potential source and cause of the damp and mould. It was not reasonable to assert that it was an old building, and that the resident should continue to clean, without further investigating the cause.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published October 2021, provides recommendations for landlords which set out 26 recommendations which included:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitable qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
It is not known whether the landlord has a damp and mould policy. However, its website states that “when you report a mould issue, a surveyor will carry out a thorough check of your home to see if there are any leaks that are causing the issues. If we find anything, we will act quickly to ensure these are resolved”. The landlord should consider whether the guidance on its website is sufficient to ensure appropriate action is taken and whether it has an adequate policy and practice in place.
For the reasons set out above, this Service, finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reports of repairs to the boiler.

The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs will be undertaken within 4 hours of the request, however subject to the individual issue, this may require making safe only, pending follow on works. Urgent repairs are undertaken within 3 working days, routine repairs within 28 working days, and out of hours repairs within 4 hours. Repairs to heating and hot water systems will be undertaken within 1 working day between 31 October and 3 May. Where it misses an appointment £20 compensation will be paid.
The landlord’s repairs logs showed 7 entries relating to no heating or hot water between 30 March 2021 and 9 September 2021. Some of the repairs logs showed different error codes and demonstrated that it was aware that there were young children in the property.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that over the previous 2 months she had had to call out the heating contractor for no hot water and heating, often going without heating and hot water for 2 to 4 days. This happened again the previous weekend and was not classed as an emergency. The landlord had not been logging the issue as an existing repair, therefore, the contractor was wasting time by doing a quick repair for the same problem, to happen a few days later, and repeating the process.
The resident wrote further on 28 April 2021 stating that the heating issue was continuing. She had been without heating and hot water since the previous Friday. She called on the Monday for someone to come out, the operative left 5 minutes later, and the boiler shut down again. She called again the same day, to be told someone would visit on the Tuesday for no one to turn up, new parts would be ordered, and they would return on Wednesday. She chased the repair and was assured someone would attend. At 6:45pm someone called to say no one was attending and she had to call the next day to book another appointment.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated its contractor had no record of a call on 23 April 2021, however, there was a record for 26 April 2021. An emergency repair was raised for the contractor to attend the same day. Following its visit, it discovered that parts were required. It had no record of a repair being arranged for 27 April 2021. The engineer had been delayed on a previous job and was unable to attend, it apologised and offered £20 in compensation for the missed appointment. A new appointment was raised for 30 April 2021, but the contractor failed to gain access, but returned on 4 May 2021 and installed the new parts.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in that it had investigated the matter, checked its repairs records, and its offer of compensation was in line with its policy. It is often the case, when carrying out repairs, that parts will be required and a further appointment made to complete repairs. It is not known, however, whether temporary heaters were provided, and it failed to consider that the resident had been left without a working boiler.
In the resident’s escalation request she stated that quick fixes and poor communication had resulted in her having to call more than 15 times in a matter of months. The boiler was still not fixed and she had over 2 weeks without heating and hot water. She and her children were unwell due to the flat being so cold.
In its stage 2 response the landlord listed all of the repairs raised for the boiler, explained what work had been undertaken on each visit, and when work was completed. It stated that it had attended on each occasion, and that operatives would investigate the issue initially to eliminate possible reasons for the boiler failures. It could see periods between each job where the boiler was functioning correctly. It was, however, not satisfied with the repetition of works and the length of time it took to rectify the issue fully. Therefore, it proposed a goodwill payment for the time she was without a functioning boiler. It apologised that this was not properly addressed in its stage 1 response and offered £95 compensation.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns, apologised, and offered compensation. It also acknowledged that it had not properly addressed the matter in its stage 1 response, demonstrating that it had learnt from the complaint. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord made an offer of redress, prior to the investigation, which has satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reports of flooding to the bathroom and subsequent damage to the flooring.

The landlord’s repairs logs showed 4 repairs to the resident’s bathroom between 30 August 2017 and 28 May 2021. These related to the toilet leaking into the flat below, back surges to the sink and bath, and sewerage overflowing.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that her flat had flooded on 3 occasions causing her to replace the bathroom, hallway and living room flooring. A surveyor attended and said he would get someone out to look at the bathroom flooring due to it being so damaged.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated its surveyor visited on 18 March 2021, but did not recall a discussion about the bathroom floor. It would arrange a further inspection.
The landlord’s response was reasonable having spoken with its surveyor and agreeing to arrange a further inspection.
In the resident’s escalation request she stated that she had to replace the flooring on 2 occasions due to the old pipework around the building. It had happened again a few weeks prior, and she had to call someone out as dirty water was being brought up through the pipework, which was unhygienic.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it was sorry that the resident was displeased that the surveyor could not recall discussing the bathroom flooring. It was agreed that the surveyor would reattend, which happened on 7 July 2021, but it was unable to gain access. The tenancy agreement stated that any flooring laid by the resident was her responsibility and this would have to be covered under her home contents insurance.
While flooring in the hallway and lounge is generally the resident’s responsibility, landlords generally supply kitchen and bathroom flooring. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the matter. Had the damaged flooring been as a result of lack of action for a repair, it would have been appropriate for it to consider replacement flooring in the bathroom or advise the resident to make a claim against its insurance. This Service, therefore, finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about flooding and damage to the flooring.

Reports of repairs to the windows, door and intercom

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for window frames and external doors, along with communal areas. Its tenant handbook states that an outside window, door or lock that is not secure will be repaired within 1 day. Repairs to window frames will be completed within 20 days.
The landlord’s repairs logs showed 1 repair for the intercom on 28 May 2021 with a completion date of 30 May 2021. There were no repairs logs in relation to windows or the front door.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that she had advised the surveyor, when visiting her home in March 2021, that the windows were broken. There was a draught which someone was supposed to attend, the appointment was re-booked over a month later, but still no one attended. The front door was unsafe as fittings were loose and someone could push the door hard and open it. She had a non-molestation order against her ex partner and this was causing her anxiety. She had also reported that the intercom was not working, which was also causing anxiety, as she did not know who was entering the building. Someone had been to fix it but it still did not work.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that a repair was arranged for its contractor to attend on 19 March 2021, to overhaul the front door, bedroom and kitchen windows to prevent draughts, tighten any loose handles, and renew the balcony door handle. Its contractor advised that there was a delay in obtaining parts and works were completed on 11 May 2021. It apologised for the delay and for any inconvenience caused. Its operative attended on 5 May 2021 to install a new panel button on the intercom, tested it and confirmed it was working.
It is not disputed that there was a delay in completing the window and door repairs. From 6 January 2021 there was a third national lockdown due to Covid-19 where contractors were experiencing difficulties in procuring parts and materials in order to complete repairs work during this time. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays but failed to consider compensation for the delay. It should have considered securing the front door, to alleviate the resident’s concerns, within 1 day as outlined in its tenant handbook. It failed to consider its obligations under HHSRS which states that entry by intruders is considered a hazard. Health effects include mental harm, stress and anguish.
The landlord’s response regarding the intercom was appropriate. It had investigated its repairs records and confirmed that it had replaced the panel. There was no evidence to suggest that the repair remained outstanding for any period of time.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, while not mentioning the windows, door or intercom, she stated that the area was very unsafe and people were constantly arguing, fighting and smashing windows.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the resident had been concerned about the area being unsafe due to anti-social behaviour. It was sorry that she did not feel safe when living in her home. It acknowledged that she no longer lived at the address, however, it had investigated and found no reports of any anti-social behaviour.
The landlord’s response, while acknowledging that the resident felt unsafe in her home at the time she was living there, failed to acknowledge that it had taken over a year to respond at stage 2. It should have addressed the matter when reported in June 2021 and taken measures to provide guidance and support at the time the resident was residing at the property.
For the reasons above, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows, door and intercom.

Associated formal complaint.

At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 25 working days. Stage 3 complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days, where the landlord would then decide whether to conduct a panel review and issue a response within 30 working days. It should be noted that the landlord now operates a 2-stage process which is in line with this Service’s complaint handling code.
The resident raised her complaint on 26 April 2021. The landlord responded on 12 May 2021, 11 working days later and 1 working day later than its complaints policy timescale.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 17 June 2021, acknowledged by the landlord on 22 June 2021, where it stated it would respond within 25 working days. It also stated that it was experiencing a high workload and it was unlikely that the complaint would be dealt with within its published timescales.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January 2022 to provide an update on her stage 2 complaint. It stated that the complaint officer, initially assigned to the complaint, was on extended sick leave. To prevent further delays the complaint had been reassigned. It wrote further on 16 March 2022 and 3 May 2022 stating that it had not received information from the relevant service areas in order to investigate the complaint.
The landlord responded on 18 November 2022, 363 working days later and 338 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. It stated that the team had been experiencing a backlog of complaints and apologised for the delay. It offered £150 compensation for its late response.
The resident wrote further on 25 November 2022, expressing her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, and that she felt her concerns had been dismissed. She was dissatisfied with the compensation offer and wanted to take the matter further. The landlord responded on 28 November 2022 stating that the complaint had been closed and it was unable to provide any further comments. It is not known why the landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 3, or whether it had changed to a 2-stage process at this time.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. While the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, the delay was significant. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales or this Service’s complaint handling code. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the length of time the resident had been waiting for a response. The landlord did not demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent delays in the future. For these reasons, this Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), reports of overcrowding and request to move is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Associated formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of flooding to the bathroom and subsequent damage to the flooring.
2. Reports of repairs to windows, door, and intercom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the boiler.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident a total of £815 broken down as follows:
1. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £75 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, in failing to fully investigate the residents reports of flooding and damage to the bathroom flooring.
3. £75 for distress and inconvenience for failing to secure the front door.
4. £150 for time and trouble in relation its complaint handing failure. (this is in addition to the £150 offered in its stage 2 response)
5. £265 offered in its stage 2 response (if not already paid).
The landlord is ordered to send a written apology, by a senior member of staff, to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it has an adequate policy and practice in place to assess and remedy damp and mould.