Wokingham Borough Council (202324792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324792

Wokingham Borough Council

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
2. Reports of a repairs to damaged plasterwork, and ceilings.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow, and his tenancy started in November 2018. The resident is recorded as vulnerable due to health conditions. Throughout his complaint both the resident, and his partner who lives in the property, were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident, and his partner, as “the resident”.
In November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about damp and mould in his property. The landlord instructed a specialist contractor to survey the property. The contractor inspected the property, and sent the landlord its findings on 16 November 2022. The contractor’s report identified that mould growth was noted in both bedrooms. It identified that the extractor fan in the kitchen was not working, and the fan in the bathroom, was turned off, but worked when tested. The report stated that there was evidence of “leakage” from the guttering that contributed to the mould issues. The contractor recommended replacing the kitchen fan, and repairing the guttering.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022 to report a leak coming through the ceiling in his bathroom. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2023 to make a complaint about its handling of the repairs in his property. He stated that he had “waited in” the day before for it do complete remedial repairs following the leak, but nobody had attended. The resident also raised a concern about damp and mould within the property and the windows. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2023. It set out that it had booked repairs it had booked in, and offered £100 in compensation for “delays and lack of communication” for the repairs.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 24 March 2023. He stated he was “getting nowhere” with the outstanding repairs at his property. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 3 May 2022. It set out its position on the outstanding repairs and when they would be completed. It upheld the resident’s complaint and restated its offer of £100 in compensation. The resident contacted the landlord 19 May 2023 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and expressed a concern that there was “nothing happening” with the repairs.
A contractor for the landlord completed a ‘mould wash’ at the resident’s property on 19 May 2023. The contractor advised it was unable to repair 1 window, and it needed replacing.
The landlord opened a stage 3 complaint and sent its stage 3 complaint response, following a resident panel, to the resident on 22 August 2023. The resident panel upheld the complaint and asked the landlord to complete a “full review” of the outstanding works needed, and provide a report to the panel by 21 September 2023. It listed its understanding of the outstanding repairs, and said it would revisit its offer of compensation once the repairs were completed.
The landlord completed further mould washes, and redecoration works in September 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 October 2023 and offered him £500 in compensation for its handling of the repairs at his property. The resident contacted this Service on 2 May 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He stated that there were still issues with mould and the windows in his property.

Assessment and findings

Damp, mould, and the associated repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the structure, and the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. For the purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act windows are included as part of the landlord’s repair responsibility.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy states that it has 4 categories of repair, which are:
1. Priority 1 (emergency): which it will attend to within 4 hours.
2. Priority 2 (urgent): which it will attend to within 2 working days.
3. Priority 3 (routine): which it will attend to within 15 working days.
4. Priority 4 (non-urgent/planned): which it will attend to within 40 working days.
The policy categorises non urgent gutter repairs; plaster repairs; extractor fans; and window repairs as priority 3 repairs.
The resident raised a concern that the repairs issues in the property, and the landlord’s handling of them, affected his physical and mental health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint in May 2024, he raised a concern that he was blamed for damage to the windows. He said the landlord had not completed the repair because of this. His concern about this is noted. However, as this matter was raised after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, it is not within the scope of our investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of later repairs, and any claims it made about his behaviour in relation to the windows, he may wish to raise a further complaint. We have, however, considered the landlord’s handling of the window repair during the complaints process, and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
When the resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in his property, in early November 2022, the landlord instructed a specialist surveyor to complete a full inspection of the property. This was appropriate and evidence that the landlord sought to adopt the recommended approach set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which states landlords must ensure “investigations are thorough and that appropriate tools are used”. The evidence shows that the inspection was thorough and took damp readings to support its findings.
While appropriate to conduct a thorough assessment of the causes of damp and mould in the property, the evidence shows the landlord did not act on the recommendations within a reasonable timeframe. The recommended replacement of the extractor fan and guttering were outstanding when the resident raised his complaint in February 2023, which was well outside of the timeframe set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions he described, which was increased due to concerns about his health. The unreasonable delay in attending to the repairs increased that distress. That the resident needed to raise a complaint in order to get the landlord to address the repairs caused a further inconvenience.
It is concerning that, given the conditions identified in the survey, that the landlord did not attend to the recommended repairs with more urgency. This is of particular concern considering the vulnerability of the resident, and the concern he raised about the impact of damp and mould on his COPD. We do not seek to make a determination whether the landlord’s lack of action amounts to a personal injury. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not act with the appropriate urgency, or have due consideration for the individual circumstances of the resident, and his vulnerability.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 22 February 2023, was appropriate in setting out when it hoped to complete some repairs. That is apologised and offered compensation for the delays in completing the repairs was also appropriate. The complaint response did not show the appropriate level of learning about its handling of the repairs, give an assessment of what caused the delays, or what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This was unreasonable, and the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust and reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously and had learnt from its admitted failings.
In relation to the repair to the guttering and the inspection of the windows, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. As it had done with other repairs, it did not say when it hoped to attend. It is noted it stated it had raised the repair on 8 February 2023, but that it did not give a timeframe of when the contractor would attend was unreasonable. This was dismissive of the resident’s concerns, and a shortcoming in its handling of the matters.
The evidence shows that the landlord replaced the defective extractor fan in the kitchen on 18 April 2023. This was 5 months after it was on notice and well outside of the 15 working day timeframe set out in its repairs policy. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions in his property, the unreasonable delay in attending to a repair increased the detriment experienced by the resident. Internal email from February 2023 show that the landlord was unclear on whether its contractor had replaced the extractor fan. This is evidence that its oversight of contractors carry out repairs on its behalf was poor. It is reasonable to conclude its poor oversight, and information management, contributed to the delays in progressing the repairs.
In relation to the repairs the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of, 3 May 2023, was also inappropriate. It set out that the repair to the guttering was due to go ahead that month, and that it had completed a repair to the windows. While appropriate to set out the latest position on the repairs, it offered very little assessment of its handling of those repairs to that point. It failed to reflect that it had been on notice about the guttering repair for 6 months, and the window repair took place 2 months after it was on notice. Considering both of the repairs were outside of its target timeframes, the lack of detail about the issues was inappropriate.
As part of our investigation, the landlord provided evidence that shows the guttering repairs were completed on 2 May 2023. This was 6 months after it was on notice, and an unreasonable delay. This was well outside of its target timeframe for repairs and was a further failing that caused an inconvenience.
The lack of learning and assessment of its handling of the repairs was unreasonable and lacked transparency. Its approach was inappropriate, and caused the resident an inconvenience. He was evidently unhappy with its handling of the repairs, its lack of assessment of its own actions meant it failed to address his concerns in a meaningful way.
The tone of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also inappropriate. That it stated it had “acted reasonably to progress repairs” was unreasonable, considering several of the repairs remained outstanding. It is noted it accepted there were delays, and restated its offer of £100 in compensation. Considering there were evidently further delays after it issued its stage 1 response, it is unclear why it did not increase its offer of compensation. That it did not do so was inappropriate, and evidence it failed to fully consider the circumstances of the case.
Considering the resident was still reported that the repairs were outstanding by the time the landlord issued its stage 3 complaint response, on 22 August 2023, it was an appropriate for it to state it would do a “full review” of the property. It is concerning that the landlord was not more proactive in progressing the repairs up to that point, and the evidence shows it lacked the appropriate oversight of contractors carrying out repairs on its behalf. The lack of learning in its earlier complaint responses supports the conclusion that, while admitting failings, the landlord did not seek to do the appropriate learning.
Again, its stage 3 complaint response offered very little learning about its handling of the repairs up to that point. While it is noted it said it would revise its offer of compensation once the repairs were completed, that it did not show learning was unreasonable. This caused the resident an inconvenience, as it again failed to reassure him that it would not continue to make the same mistakes in its handling of the repairs.
The lack of learning from its admitted failings is apparent and is illustrated by an internal email sent in September 2023, when the landlord stated it was “unacceptable” that repairs identified as part of the resident panel had not yet progressed. This is evidence that the landlord continued to make the same failings, and had not learnt from the outcomes of the case.
The landlord complete further remedial repairs to the windows in September 2022. While it is noted the resident wanted them to be replaced, the evidence shows the landlord was satisfied the windows were in working order, and communicated its position to the resident in October 2023. While evidently disappointing for the resident the landlord explained its position with clarity.
While the landlord’s position on whether to replace the windows was reasonable, the evidence shows there were unreasonable delays in attending to the repairs. It did not attend to the initial repairs for 2 months after it was on notice, and its records around what repairs it did complete are poor.
It is unclear when/if it replaced 1 window that was identified as unrepairable in May 2023, which is a further failing in its handling of the matter. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for its latest position on the windows. On 11 July 2024, the landlord said it was satisfied the windows were left in working order after its repairs visit on 17 October 2023. It was silent on whether the unrepairable window had been replaced. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping.
The resident was inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly raise and chase the landlord about repairs to the windows. An internal email, from 8 November 2023, indicates an operative raised a concern that it was “very damp around the seal and it seems to be retaining water”. Considering the above failings, and evidence the matter is outstanding, a series of orders are set out below.
There were also unreasonable delays in attending to the repairs identified in the survey from November 2022. The guttering repair was completed 6 months after it was on notice, and the fan was replaced 5 months after it was on notice. Considering the vulnerabilities reported by the resident, it is concerning that the landlord did not attend to the repairs with more urgency.
Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered connected to a person’s protected characteristics. The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not have due regard for whether the resident had a disability, as defined by the Equality Act. he landlord failed to consider the resident’s unique circumstances, and the potential impact of damp on his health.
The initial survey, of November 2022, stated that an additional extraction system may be needed, if the issue persisted. We note that the resident’s property is due for demolition in “approximately 3 years time”. However, considering the resident expressed a concern that damp and mould was still an issue in the property, and the above recommendation, we have made an order for a damp and mould inspection below.

Repairs to damaged plasterwork, and ceilings

The evidence shows that the landlord was on notice about the need for remedial repairs to the plasterwork, following a leak, from 29 November 2022. The evidence provided shows the landlord gave itself a target date to complete the repair of 20 December 2022. The records provided do not show what, if any, repairs were done at that time and no outcomes are recorded. This is a failing in its record keeping, and can reasonably be concluded to have impacted on its response to the repair. What the evidence does show is that the landlord did not fully complete the repair within its own target timeframe, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
Based on the records provided it is unclear what actions the landlord took to resolve the leak at the time. This is a failing in its record keeping. As part of his complaint the resident claimed that “nothing” was done about the follow up repairs until January 2023. Based on the evidence provided, it is not possible to corroborate the resident’s claim. However, it is reasonable to conclude that it did not attend to the repair within a reasonable timeframe, as when the landlord received the resident’s complaint it booked further repairs to the bathroom.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 22 February 2023, accepted it had “missed appointments” to complete the remedial repairs to the bathroom ceiling. While appropriate to apologise and offer redress for this admitted failing, the landlord failed to show appropriate learning about the delays, and what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. This caused the resident an inconvenience as it failed to appropriately address his concerns, and missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
The evidence indicates that the landlord completed remedial works in the bathroom on 8 March 2023. While the exact detail of the works is not clear from the records, an internal email from 9 March 2023, indicates the works were completed. This was 4 months after it was on notice about the repair, and outside of the timeframe set out in its policy. This was unreasonable and caused the resident an inconvenience. The evidence also indicates that the landlord did not fully complete the repair at this visit, as the contractor in attendance did not “make good the wall”. The resident was cost time and trouble by needing to raise this issue with the landlord.
The evidence indicates that the further works in the bathroom plastering were completed some time in April 2023. From the record provided, it is not possible to determine the exact date the works took place, which is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. An internal email indicates the landlord signed the works off around 20 April 2023. This was 5 months after it was on notice, which amounts to an unreasonable delay that was outside of its policy timeframes.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was inappropriate in relation to the plastering repairs, as it offered no assessment of its handling of the matter, and very little learning. The evidence also indicates that its comments that the repairs were outstanding were inaccurate. It cited that its contractor would be in touch to book the repair. However, as above the landlord had already inspected and signed off the works around 20 April 2023. This is evidence that the stage 2 complaint investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness. This caused the resident a further inconvenience. The landlord’s stage 3 response also showed very little learning about its handling of the matter, which was also inappropriate.
The evidence indicates that the repair was fully completed in April 2023, which was 5 months after it was on notice, and well outside of the target timeframe set out in its policy. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions of the plasterwork. The evidence shows that the landlord did not complete the repairs at its initial visit, which was already unreasonably delayed. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise the matter again and wait a further month for the repair to be fully complete.

Repairs redress

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
While this Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. It is concerning that after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure, it continued to make similar failings. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation until 2 months after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. It is recognised that a later offer of compensation was made. However, considering they were made after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure, this has impacted on the degree to which the offers put right the evident failings.
It is not possible to determine how the landlord calculated its offer of compensation against the individual repairs in this case. We have therefore considered the offer of compensation as a whole, and whether it put right to failings identified above. Considering the lack of learning shown in its complaint responses, and the fact the landlord continued to make similar mistakes, we have determined its offer of £500 in compensation did not fully put things right for the resident.

Complaint Handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days of the landlord acknowledging the complaint. Stage 3 of its procedure consisted of the resident’s complaint being reviewed by a ‘resident panel’. If the resident asked for a stage 3 complaint, the resident would be given the “next available date” for a resident panel. The policy stated the formal response would be sent within 5 working days of the panel.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), at that time, stated that 2 stage complaints procedures are “ideal”, and “complaints should only go to a third stage if the resident has actively requested” it. The Code states landlord’s must sent stage 3 responses within 20 working days.
The landlord sent both its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe set out in its policy and the Code, which was appropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 26 working days after it was made. This was outside of the timeframes set out in the Code. While not an excessive delay, that the landlord did not apologise for or acknowledge the delay in its response was inappropriate.
The inclusion of a third stage in the complaints process created a protracted process for the resident, which caused an inconvenience. The inconvenience this caused was increased by the fact the stage 3 panel did not take place until 17 August 2023, 5 months after he expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 2 response. This was an unreasonable delay and outside of the timeframes mandated in its policy and the Code, which caused the resident a further inconvenience.
It is worth noting that the landlord has since changed its policy and now operates a 2 stage complaints procedure that is compliant with the Code. As such, we see no need to make an order in relation to its complaints procedure.
That the resident did not the receive a formal final response until 22 August 2023. This delayed him being able to bring his complaint to this Service to investigate. This caused a further inconvenience. That the landlord did not acknowledge, offer redress, or apologise for the delay at stage 3 was inappropriate, and a further shortcoming in its complaint handling.
The landlord operated a protracted complaints process that was hard to access for the resident. It failed to acknowledge the, albeit minor, delay at stage 2. There was an unreasonable delay in sending the stage 3 response which caused further inconvenience and unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process. As such, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have made a series of orders below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to damaged plasterwork, and ceilings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £950 in compensation. The landlord’s £500 compensation offer should be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp, mould, and associated repairs.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs damaged plasterwork, and ceilings.
  3. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Instruct an appropriately qualified operative to attend the resident’s property to inspect the windows, to identify any repairs that may be needed.
4. Instruct its staff responsible for investigating complaints to complete our e learning on dispute resolution. The e learning courses can be found on our Learning Hub on our website.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:

Considering the failings identified in this report, complete a review into its handling of the repairs including how it can reduce the risk of similar failings happening again. The review should consider:
1. Following up on reports of repairs, and booking repairs in a timely manner.
2. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident, and his particular vulnerabilities.
3. The recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Instruct an independent damp specialist, surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection should:
1. Be a full inspection of the property to identify possible causes of damp and mould
2. Consider the resident’s concerns about ongoing repairs issues in the property.