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

London Borough of Brent (202233923)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233923

London Borough of Brent

25 July 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 the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp within his property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. On 6 December 2022 the resident reported a water stain on a corridor ceiling near his kitchen and wallpaper peeling off a wall. The landlord attended on 12 December 2022 and recorded that a survey was required to assess the damp patches.
  3. A surveyor attended the property on 10 January 2023 and noted that an asbestos check would be required before any work could be conducted.
  4. In February 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about outstanding repairs and missed appointments. On 20 February 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It explained that there had been several repairs to his radiators in January 2023 and apologised for the resident’s poor experience. It said that it had reminded the relevant departments of their responsibilities around communication and timely repairs.
  5. The resident responded to the landlord on 20 and 21 February 2023. He said that some of the facts within the response were wrong and that he had waited a very long time for someone to fix the damp ceiling and wallpaper issue that he had reported in December 2022.
  6. The landlord made a referral to its contractor for an asbestos survey on 17 February 2023. It chased this contractor for an update on 14 March 2023, and in response the contractor advised that they had completed a survey and no asbestos had been detected.
  7. On 20 March 2023 the landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response under a different reference number. In this response it explained that:
    1. A contractor had attended the resident’s property in December 2022 and noted that a survey would be required relating to damp patches. After a surveyor attended, a referral to check for asbestos was made.
    2. A contractor contacted the resident to book an appointment for the radiators on 19 January 2023, but due to a system error this appointment was rebooked for 24 January 2023.
    3. The contractor attended on 24 January 2023 but was unable to complete the work as it required a gas contractor. A new appointment for a gas contractor was raised and a repair was carried out on 25 January 2023 to tighten a radiator valve.
    4. Before any outstanding repairs could be completed, the asbestos check would need to be completed. However, the landlord apologised for the poor experience the resident had received and that it had reminded the appropriate departments of the need to act in a timely manner. It also stressed to the relevant departments the importance of good communication.
  8. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 21 March 2023. He explained that he had waited 4 months for the follow-on work to be completed relating to the damp and that this had caused a lot of stress. He stated that his flat had not been in a good condition for a long time due to damp and that he was suffering from depression and anxiety because of this. He also explained that his initial complaint sent in February 2023 had not received a final response.
  9. On 20 April 2023 the landlord corresponded internally about the asbestos report. It said that the asbestos report had been sent to the relevant team on 14 March 2023 and confirmed that no asbestos had been found. The report had also been forwarded to the appropriate contractor on 23 March 2023 to continue with the repairs.
  10. The landlord chased the contractor on 27 April 2023 for an update on the repairs. It reconfirmed to the contractor that the asbestos report had been sent on 23 March 2023 and that no asbestos had been found.
  11. On 5 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The response summarised the background of the complaint and said that:
    1. Issues with the contractor’s communication and booking of outstanding works had created delays. It had asked its own team to improve its communication with the contractor and booking practices.
    2. The resident’s property may have contained asbestos, and before works could be completed an asbestos survey needed to be carried out. It confirmed that this survey had been concluded and no asbestos had been found.
    3. It had arranged for a further inspection to take place on 12 May 2023 with the objective of evaluating all outstanding repair needs and creating a work plan to resolve the issues.
    4. It offered £200 in compensation for the delays, poor communication, and missed appointments. It also apologised for the unnecessary time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing a resolution.
  12. Between 11 May 2023 and 7 July 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property 5 times to complete some elements of repair and assess what work was outstanding. On 7 July 2023 a surveyor recorded that work was required in the bedroom, hallway, living room, and hallway cupboards to complete the repairs required to fix the issues.
  13. The landlord contacted the contractor on 8 November 2023 to say that the resident had been in touch as there were still outstanding jobs. It explained that the resident said he had had operatives come to look at the repairs, but no follow-on work had been attempted.
  14. On 15 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that he had been waiting almost a year for repairs to be completed and this was causing issues with his health.
  15. The landlord responded on 17 November 2023 to say that the works relating to the water stains and wallpaper peeling off would be conducted. It advised that it had liaised with its contractor, and it was confirmed that the contractor would renew plaster to walls and fix various cracks. It said the contractor would contact the resident within 5 working days to arrange an appointment. The landlord also confirmed that it had arranged an appointment for 23 November 2023 to fix the kitchen ceiling due to plaster coming off and repair any cracks.
  16. The contractor attended and completed the repair to the kitchen ceiling on 23 November 2023. Following this the resident advised the landlord that he had not heard anything from the other contractor, despite it being more than 5 working days since the landlord promised contact.
  17. The resident again reported the issues he had with damp directly to the landlord’s damp and mould team on 1 December 2023. The landlord chased the contractor on 5 and 12 December 2023 about the outstanding damp works. On 13 December 2023 the contractor advised that an appointment to complete the works had been arranged for 5 January 2024.
  18. Between 5 January and 15 March 2024 the contractor attended the resident’s property over 8 days and completed all outstanding work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he has suffered significant health issues due to the events considered in this investigation. He has provided medical records and letters from his GP to support this view. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s action or lack of action has had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We also are unable to calculate or award damages based on any potential personal injuries.
  2. Therefore, we are unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim with the landlord’s own liability insurance. However, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s actions may have caused.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that it is appropriate to review the landlord’s actions after its final complaint response in May 2023 as part of this investigation. This is because these actions relate directly to the resolution of the substantive issue of complaint.

Reports of damp

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it has 28 calendar days to complete a routine repair. It says that if a surveyor is required, one will attend within 28 days. Then within 5 working days of the survey the landlord will decide what work is required and write to the resident to confirm the timescale for the work.
  2. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which is available on our website. This recommends that landlords strengthen their approach to tackling damp and mould issues and improve communication with residents.
  3. The landlord implemented a specific damp and mould programme in April 2023 and carried out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report in October 2023. As part of this assessment the landlord implemented a specific damp and mould procedure. This says that it will act on reports of damp and mould within 28 days and work with the resident on a plan to fix the issue as quickly as possible. It also provides a specific email address for residents to report damp and mould concerns.
  4. It is positive that the landlord conducted a thorough self-assessment against the spotlight report and now has processes in place to deal with damp and mould separate from its general repairs policy. The self-assessment shows a willingness to learn and improve the service it is providing to residents, and it is important that this self-reflection continues.
  5. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a water stain and wallpaper peeling off his wall was reasonable. It arranged for a contractor to attend within 2 days and for a surveyor to visit and assess the issue within 28 days. This is in line with the repairs timescales set out in its policy.
  6. However, the landlord failed to act promptly after the survey was completed to arrange for an asbestos assessment. A referral for the asbestos assessment was sent on 17 February 2023, 28 workings days after the surveyor had advised one was required. This was an unreasonable delay and did not follow the policy of arranging work within 5 working days. This caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  7. The landlord received the asbestos assessment from its contractor on 14 March 2023 with confirmation that no asbestos had been found. However, no follow–up action was taken by the landlord until the resident made a complaint and the complaint had been investigated. This added to the resident’s frustration and inconvenience. An inspection was arranged for 12 May 2023 which was a delay of 41 working days from the point of receiving confirmation there was no asbestos. This was an unreasonable delay and did not follow the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy for completing repairs identified by a surveyor.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the delays, poor communication and unnecessary time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing a resolution in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £200 to remedy this. It therefore acted reasonably in recognising these failings and offering a remedy. At the time this remedy was offered, it was proportionate and in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there had been no permanent impact on the resident.
  9. Between 11 May and 7 July 2023 the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It carried out an inspection and arranged for follow–up action to be taken in line with the surveyor’s recommendations. Its communication with the resident during this time was also reasonable, as he was kept informed of the appointments that were arranged.
  10. On 7 July 2023 a further survey was carried out which identified additional works that would take up to 4 days to complete. However, the resident chased the landlord twice in November 2023 and contacted its specific damp and mould team in December 2023 before a contractor arranged for an appointment to complete the follow-on works for 5 January 2024. This was an unreasonable delay that caused inconvenience to the resident. This also showed that the landlord had not learnt from the issues identified in its stage 2 complaint response. The issues that had been raised about delays and communication continued, which added to the resident’s frustration.
  11. The work was completed by the landlord over various appointments between 5 January and 15 March 2024. The landlord told the resident the appointment dates and ensured he was kept up to date with the progress of the repair during this period, which was reasonable.
  12. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould stresses the importance of prompt and proactive action. However, in this instance the landlord’s actions fell short of what this Service expects. The initial report of damp was made by the resident on 6 December 2022 and the repair was not completed for 15 months. The actions of the landlord contributed to this significant delay. In all the circumstances this amounts to maladministration.
  13. While the landlord did offer a remedy of £200 in its May 2023 stage 2 complaint response, the same failings happened again between July 2023 and January 2024. The resident had repeatedly explained to the landlord that its failure to complete repairs promptly was causing a high degree of stress and anxiety. However, despite the stage 2 response promising to rectify the issues raised the landlord took a further 9 months to complete the repairs. This further delay caused the resident significant upset, distress, and inconvenience.
  14. Therefore, in addition to the £200 the landlord already offered it should pay a further £450 to acknowledge the impact caused to the resident for these repeated failings which was compounded by a lack of learning. In total, compensation of £650 should be paid to the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage formal complaints procedure whereby it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
  2. The resident initially made a complaint that was registered and responded to by the landlord within the 10-working day timescale. It responded to all issues raised and explained the actions it would take to ensure its service improved. The landlord’s actions in dealing with the initial complaint were reasonable and in line with its complaint policy.
  3. However, the resident sent 2 emails to the landlord on 20 and 21 February 2023 in which he requested to escalate the complaint. Instead of escalating the complaint to stage 2, a new stage 1 response was sent on 20 March 2023 under a different reference number. The landlord provided no explanation for this new stage 1 response or the delay in providing the response, which was sent 19 working days after the resident’s escalation email. This was unreasonable and delayed the resident’s ability to progress his complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 March 2023 and mentioned that he had yet to receive a final response from the original complaint he made in February 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response after 30 working days without any explanation for the delay. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s point that he had not received a final response to his initial complaint. This again fell outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience.
  5. The landlord’s actions did not have a significant effect on the overall outcome the resident received. While there were delays, these delays were of a short duration and had no permanent impact on the resident. However, there were 4 independent service failings during the landlord’s handling of the complaint. When taking all the circumstances into account it is the Ombudsman’s view that this amounts to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified.
    2. Pay £750 compensation to the resident, which is broken down as:
      1. £650 for its handling of the reports of damp. This is inclusive of the £200 already offered by the landlord.
      2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its offer of training for staff involved in complaint handling. It is ordered to consider whether it should provide refresher training or additional guidance on how to identify and deal with duplicate complaints raised during the complaint process. Evidence of its review and considerations should be provided to this Service within 12 weeks.