Norwich City Council (202316506)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316506

Norwich City Council

29 May 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 facia boards and guttering including its lack of communication regarding repairs.
   2. The resident’s reports of mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom house. There are 2 children residing in the property. The landlord is a local authority.
4. Between June 2022 and June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord damage to the fascia boards and concerns about mould in the property. On 22 June 2023, she made a complaint to the landlord about its lack of communication regarding repairs to the fascia boards and guttering, mould on the bedroom window, and issues with an asbestos survey on the fascia boards.
5. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. It said it had raised 2 repair orders for fascia boards and guttering. The guttering had been cleaned internally, but there was no damage to the fascia boards and they had not been cleaned as that work was due to be carried out as part of a 2024-2025 programme by another contractor.
6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated the complaint to stage 2. She said there were cracks in the fascia board that had not been repaired and an asbestos survey was not carried out.
7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 30 August 2023, it repeated the explanation of its stage 1 response and added that a new repair had been raised for cracks in the fascia boards and to inspect the guttering. The operative reported that the issue was not with the guttering but instead a new roof was required as approximately 3 to 5 of the fascia boards protruded, causing rain to go down the external wall instead of into the gutters. It said a follow on appointment for a roofing operative had been made for 1 September 2023.
8. As part of its response, the landlord said the contractor conducted a refurbishment asbestos survey to assess behind the fascia boards and panelling but confirmed that no samples were taken as none of the materials contained asbestos. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing repair issues.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response and in August 2023, she escalated her complaint to this Service for consideration. She is unhappy with the lack of communication from the landlord, the outstanding repair, and the mould that remains on the window when she has 2 young children in the property. She seeks for the repairs to be completed and compensation for her time, trouble, and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident and her children’s ill-health.

11. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her and/or her children’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
12. The resident has also logged other complaints with the landlord about ongoing issues with the lounge ceiling repairs, decant and temporary accommodation, communication on these issues, and asbestos surveys. While the landlord incorrectly addressed some of these issues in its stage 2 response of August 2023, it has since issued a separate stage 1 response to these matters on 26 September 2023. As the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of any stage 2 response to this complaint, it is not considered further in this assessment.
13. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to that complaint, she may wish to escalate it to stage 2 and, thereafter, refer the matter to the Ombudsman. Our records indicate that the resident has previously contacted this Service about the more recent complaint and this was logged under case ref. 202324577. The resident should, therefore, ensure this reference is quoted on any future correspondence relating to that complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and its communication

14. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. It aims to attend, by appointment, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 60 days. It defines routine repairs as non-urgent failed or damaged items that do not adversely effect the tenant’s use of their home. The repair report for the fascia boards and guttering meets this definition.
15. The resident first made a formal complaint in June 2022, about damage to the fascia. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in August 2022 and arranged internal cleaning of the gutters (this specific complaint was not brought to the Ombudsman for investigation). However, where there is evidence the resident has been raising the same issues and expressing dissatisfaction for some time, it is important for landlords and the Ombudsman to consider earlier expressions of dissatisfaction whenever a related complaint is raised.
16. It is noted that the landlord failed to revert to the resident in August 2022 to ask her to clarify what the outstanding repair issue was if she thought it had not responded correctly. Instead, it told her to raise another repair request if issues were outstanding. This was not an appropriate response. The landlord should have investigated if it had failed to carry out the requested repair as the resident said, and it should have re-opened the existing request to investigate that further.
17. Records show that a further repair was raised on 25 August 2022. Limited information is available for this, but the work orders log shows this noted as “gutter: locate fault and rectify.” Between this log date and May 2023, there is no evidence of the landlord carrying out repairs or keeping the resident updated about what it was doing. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to be proactive where repairs cannot be completed within a reasonable time by: communicating the cause of the delay to the resident; explaining what it intends to do to resolve those delays; and identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact. It failed to do this.
18. The resident called the landlord on 4 May 2023 and said someone had visited that day for an asbestos survey on the fascia and drainpipe but she had not been informed of the appointment. She said she had previously chased the landlord on 23 March 2023, but had heard nothing until the contractor visited her. This is contrary to the landlord’s own repairs policy and what we consider to be good practice. Appointments for visits should be made in good time and confirmed in advance of attendance.
19. Following this call, an internal landlord email was sent with a request to update the resident. There is no evidence of this update being provided. Consequently, the resident logged her complaint on 22 June 2023.
20. There is no evidence that the roof repair mentioned in the landlord’s stage 2 response was undertaken or that the repair reported by the resident has been completed and in a timely manner. The records show that the resident continued to chase the landlord after the stage 2 response for an update and reported the issues as ongoing.
21. The landlord has failed to meet its obligations to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe, to confirm appointments before attendance, and to keep the resident updated with its progress. Its failures amount to maladministration. The landlord is therefore ordered to establish what work remains outstanding on the fascia boards and guttering and confirm to the resident the repairs it plans to undertake. It should provide this service with evidence of having done this. All outstanding work related to the repair should then be carried out within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
22. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £150 for the poor service and inconvenience caused by its failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.

Damp and mould

23. The Ombudsman has produced, and published on its website, a spotlight report on damp and mould which sets out this Service’s expectations on how landlords should manage such reports effectively and makes recommendations in that regard.
24. The landlord’s internal email of 4 May 2023 noted that the repair was reported through as damp and mould. The resident’s complaint of 22 June 2023 stated that there was mould on the bedroom window so she did not open it due to concerns about her children’s health, who are asthmatic. The stage 1 response noted there was black mould on the fascia boards that had not been cleaned. Further correspondence from the resident to the landlord prior to the stage 2 response showed her continued concern about the mould and her children’s health. In fact, she continued to raise these concerns after the stage 2 response was issued.
25. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of damp and mould, or even acknowledged her obvious concerns; and it should have. There is no evidence of a damp and mould inspection and assessment, which should have been conducted to assess the risks to health. The resident said she thought the ongoing issues with the fascia and guttering were causing the mould. Even if the landlord thought this was unlikely to be the case, it should have investigated this properly. At the very least it should have referred the resident to the damp and mould section on its website which provides a dedicated team’s contact details, alongside additional information on damp and mould.
26. Further, the landlord was repeatedly made aware that there were children in the property with health issues who would be considered vulnerable. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of how it responds to vulnerability or what its policy is for responding to repair reports from vulnerable residents. An internal email from the landlord notes that there are no listed vulnerabilities on its systems for the resident. Together, this shows that the landlord failed to consider the individual circumstances, including vulnerabilities, when responding to the resident’s concerns about the effect of the ongoing issues on her and her children’s health.
27. These failures amount to maladministration. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to undertake an assessment and produce a report of its investigation of the damp and mould in the property, and share this report with the resident. It should provide this service with evidence of having done this. Its report should include specified timeframes for all identified work to be carried out. It is additionally ordered to pay the resident £150 for the poor service, upset, and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
28. It is also recommended that the landlord review its own practices in light of the contents of the spotlight report. This is in order to prevent the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports from occurring again in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

29. Section 6.7 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to address all complaint points raised. Section 6.8 of the Code sets out that, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
30. The landlord’s corporate complaint policy, found on its website, sets out the timeframes for responding to complaints; namely 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also states that complaints and escalations will be acknowledged within 5 working days of being made.
31. The resident made her complaint on 22 June 2023 and received the stage 1 response on 4 July 2023, which is within the specified timeframe. However, there is no evidence of an acknowledgement having been sent. It is unclear when the resident requested the complaint to be escalated, but an internal email on file suggests this to be 27 July 2023. There is no evidence of an acknowledgement having been sent, and the stage 2 response was issued 24 days later, which is outside its stipulated timeframe.
32. The resident complained about the fascia board repairs, damp and mould, asbestos survey, and the lack of communication. The landlord responded to her concerns about the repairs at stage 1, and at stage 2 provided clarification about the asbestos. It failed to respond to her complaint about its lack of communication and her reports of mould at both stages.
33. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the asbestos survey at stage 1, and while it then provided an explanation at stage 2, it failed to provide the resident with a copy of the asbestos report it had obtained in May 2023. The landlord should routinely share with the resident any reports it has procured as a matter of good practice. Particularly where, as is the case here, the resident thinks the survey was not conducted at all but the landlord is in possession of a report.
34. As stipulated by the Code, the landlord should be responding to all the issues raised by its resident, and where it does not, it should explain why it is not doing so, clearly setting out its reasons. The landlord further created confusion by addressing unrelated matters such as the lounge ceiling repairs in its stage 2 response. The landlord will be aware that even in the case of multiple complaints and overlapping issues, it is obliged to follow its internal complaints process and issue a stage 1 response on all those matters before escalating to stage 2.
35. In this instance, the landlord considered some of these issues, i.e. the lounge repairs, within the stage 2 response for this complaint, and then later issued a stage 1 response on 26 September 2023. There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is therefore ordered below to pay the resident £100 for the upset and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures. It is also recommended to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
36. Determination (decision)
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
       1. Repairs to fascia board and guttering and its lack of communication regarding this.
       2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Establish what work remains outstanding on the fascia boards and guttering and confirm to the resident the repairs it plans to undertake. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this. All outstanding work related to this repair should then be carried out within 4 weeks of this report.
    2. Undertake an assessment and produce a report of its investigation of the damp and mould in the property, and share this report with the resident. It should provide this Service with evidence of having done this. Its report should include specified timeframes for all identified work to be carried out.
    3. Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate).
    4. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £400 compensation as follows:
       1. £150 in recognition of the poor service and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the fascia and guttering repair and lack of communication.
       2. £150 in recognition of the poor service, trouble, and upset caused by its handling of the damp and mould reports.
       3. £100 in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor handling of the associated complaint.
    5. Provide the resident with a copy of the asbestos report for the fascia boards that it procured in May 2023.
39. Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its procedures to ensure it effectively manages repairs reported to it to avoid similar issues. In carrying out a review, it should pay specific attention to how it communicated with the resident and how it ensures moving forward that appointments are confirmed before contractors attend. It should provide evidence to this Service that action has been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar failings.

Recommendations

40. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Reviews the Spotlight report on damp and mould, available on this Service’s website, in order to prevent the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s damp and mould reports from occurring again in the future.
    2. Reviews its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy and the Code, in order to prevent its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.