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

Tower Hamlets Homes (202309744)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309744

Tower Hamlets Homes

12 September 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. A roof leak which resulted in damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property was a 2-bedroom flat with 8 family members living in the property. In addition, some of the resident’s children living in the property have health conditions including sickle cell, sleep apnoea and autism. The landlord is aware of these conditions within the household.
  2. In December 2022, the resident reported a leak from her roof entering the rear bedroom of her property.
  3. On 30 March 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained the landlord had taken no action in response to the reported leak. The resident stated that there had been delays by the landlord in erecting the scaffolding, and the landlord informed her that the repair was considered a priority. She explained in her complaint that her property was overcrowded with 8 individuals living at the property, including children with significant medical needs, including respiratory issues. The resident expressed that the needs of her vulnerable children had not been taken into consideration by the landlord in its response to the leak.

 

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023. It explained that the resident’s neighbour who lived in the flat above her previously refused access to the landlord to investigate the leak. However, the landlord explained that it and its contractor were liaising with the resident’s neighbour to ensure access was granted. It also stated that it had asked its contractor to prioritise the repairs due to the concerns she raised about the health and wellbeing of her children. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repairs to resolve the leak and offered the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. On 15 April 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that the repair to the leak had been ongoing for nearly 4 months and still had not been repaired. The resident also stated that she asked the landlord if it carried out a risk assessment to consider her children’s disabilities and medical needs and the overcrowded status of her family.
  3. On 2 May 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that the leak was still outstanding and caused damage to the structure of her property and her belongings. She also stated that there was black mould forming along the affected area and her vulnerable children were being exposed to the poor condition of the property.
  4. On 2 June 2023 and 10 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord chasing for its stage 2 complaint response and explained that the timescale for it to respond had passed.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and stated it had staff shortages. In addition, the landlord apologised for the delays in repairing the leak and stated when its roofing contractor previously attended, it identified that there were asbestos roof slates which needed to be removed by a specialist contractor before the repairs could be completed. The landlord confirmed that the asbestos slates had been removed and the repair to the roof had been completed. It also increased the previous offer of compensation it made to the resident to £180 to recognise the additional delays she experienced.
  6. In August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and informed it that there was still a leak entering the rear bedroom. The landlord acknowledged this and confirmed that the leak was not from the roof but from the pipes in the loft.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was to receive additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. After the resident submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord moved the resident and her family to a larger property on 6 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

A roof leak which resulted in damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned as part of the complaint that the damp and mould at the property may have impacted her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her children’s health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the family. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on her and her children’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate it as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk, particularly to those with respiratory problems such as asthma. This service can consider the general risk and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her children’s health.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it’s responsible for roofs, drains and gutters and plumbing inside a resident’s home. The policy states that an uncontainable leak would be considered an emergency repair. Whereas a minor leak would be considered a routine repair.
  2. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy includes the following response timescales for the following repair categories:
    1. Emergency repairs – the landlord will respond within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs – the landlord will respond within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy also includes a section in relation to carrying out repairs for vulnerable residents. It states that it recognises individuals and groups who are vulnerable and may need extra consideration and support in the delivery of services. In addition, it explains that the landlord will always consider reducing the time taken where possible, for repairs for frail, elderly, or disabled residents.

 

Assessment

  1. In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that there was a roof leak entering the rear bedroom of the property. There was a considerable delay in the landlord responding to the leak report, and it failed to respond within the 20-working day timescale referenced in its own repairs policy. Due to the landlord’s failure to investigate the leak, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 30 March 2023, explaining that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the reported leak. In addition, she stated her property was overcrowded with 8 family members living in the property, and she explained her children had significant medical needs, including respiratory issues. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been very distressing for her and her family living in the property with the ongoing leak and the landlord should have done more to assist with this.
  2. The landlord erected scaffolding on the property on 5 April 2023. It explained it previously tried to do this, but a neighbouring flat to the resident failed to provide access. The landlord also stated that the neighbour also refused access on 12 April 2024. The Ombudsman recognises that the neighbour refusing access would have been outside the landlord’s control. However, we would have expected the landlord to consider other options such as tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour if they repeatedly failed to provide access to the landlord’s contractor to investigate the leak.
  3. On 13 April 2024, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the delays in resolving the leak and confirmed that it had asked the contractor to prioritise the leak repair because of the concerns the resident raised about her children’s health and wellbeing. The landlord also offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Whilst it is positive that the landlord recognised it had made errors, the amount of compensation offered was not sufficient to recognise the landlord’s failure to investigate the leak, particularly as several of the resident’s children had vulnerabilities.
  4. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 24 April 2023 and carried out repairs to the gutters and installed an eaves tray. However, these repairs failed to resolve the leak and shortly after, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2023 and explained that the leak was still ongoing, and she explained that there was black mould forming on the affected area in the bedroom and stated that the mould had damaged her belongings. The resident also stated that her vulnerable children were being exposed to damp and mould conditions in a severely crowded property.

 

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that sometimes it can be difficult to identify the cause of a leak. However, at this point, the leak had been ongoing for several months and led to mould forming in the property. Considering the leak had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time, the property was overcrowded and several of the resident’s children had health conditions and were vulnerable, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to consider whether it was appropriate to decant (temporarily move) the resident and her family to alternative accommodation or a hotel until the leak had been fixed. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered this option.
  2. In addition, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to signpost and provide the resident with details of how she could pursue an insurance claim with its liability insurer if it had one. However, the landlord failed to do this, which was unreasonable. Considering this, the landlord should refer the resident to its liability insurer or consider a claim itself for damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the damp and mould. If the landlord is considering a claim itself, it should explain the reasons for its decision regarding the claim to the resident in writing.
  3. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns that the leak was still ongoing. Its contractor attended the property on 4 May 2023 and the contractor identified that there was ongoing water ingress into the resident’s bedroom from the box gutter and defective slates and the previous repair which was carried out was unsuccessful. The contractor recommended that an asbestos contractor attend the property to remove asbestos slates, which were identified and stated the felt to the eaves required renewal and so did the slates. The landlord’s contractor made adaptations to the scaffolding on 19 May 2024, so the additional works could be completed.
  4. There was a further delay in the landlord’s asbestos contractor removing the asbestos slates and the roofing contractor carrying out the repairs to the roof. It eventually completed the removal of the asbestos slates and the repairs to the roof on 4 July 2023. The response to repairing the roof was unreasonable. Shortly after, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 July 2023, and it explained that the repairs had been completed. It also increased the resident’s compensation offer to £180 to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced from the further delays.
  5. Although the landlord believed it had completed the necessary works to resolve the leak. The repairs which were completed in July 2023, failed to fix the leak and shortly after, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that there was still a leak entering the bedroom and stated that there was also now damp on the front room ceiling. The Ombudsman acknowledges at this point that the leak had been ongoing for a considerable length of time and the situation would have been distressing for her and her family.
  6. On 29 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and explained that the leak was coming from the pipes in the loft and not the roof. Even though the landlord had identified where the leak was coming from, it failed to carry out the repairs promptly to fix the leak. As the leak was still ongoing and leading to damp and mould inside the property, the resident paid for a damp survey of the property to be carried out on 8 September 2023. The surveyor confirmed that there was damp staining evident on the wall in the main bedroom and in the ceiling in the reception room. The surveyor recommended that an extractor fan should be installed in the kitchen and bathroom and roof tile vents should also be installed. It also stated the regular cleaning of the mould was vital. The resident has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the receipt for the damp survey, which shows a cost to the resident of £400. As there was a considerable delay in the landlord resolving the leak which led to damp and mould in the resident’s property, the Ombudsman recognises why the resident requested a damp survey. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the damp survey costs of £400 incurred by the resident. The Ombudsman will send the landlord with a copy of the receipt the resident has provided for its records.
  7. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 13 September 2023 to inspect the leak. The notes confirm the contractor checked the loft area and identified a leak coming from the air admittance valve in the loft and found some tears in the roof protection. The contractor also stated the roofer was required to check the roof. Following the contractor’s attendance, the landlord’s notes indicate all repairs to resolve the leak were not completed until November 2023. The landlord also moved the resident and her family to a larger alternative property in November 2023. Initially, this was a temporary move. However, the resident has confirmed that the move was made permanent as the resident and her family were already on the housing waiting list to move to a larger property due to medical reasons. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a move in view of the family’s circumstances, but as set out above, it should have offered a temporary move sooner.
  8. Overall, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a roof leak which resulted in damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  9. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the significant delay and distress the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak and damp and mould within a reasonable period. The amount of compensation awarded includes the £180 compensation the landlord offered the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. In addition, the amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord, which had a significant long-term impact on the resident. In addition, it would also be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for its handling of the leak.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 30 March 2023. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 April 2023. The landlord’s response was on time and compliant with the timescales referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. It took the landlord nearly 3 months to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 15 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The resident chased the landlord for a response in June and July 2023 and then the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 July 2023. The response was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord apologised for the delayed response and stated that the reason for the delay was due to staff shortages. Although the landlord apologised for the delay and provided the reason, the delay would have caused inconvenience to the resident and she was delayed in progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman as she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  4. Given the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response, there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put this right.

 

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a roof leak which resulted in damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of the leak at the resident’s property and the associated complaint. The apology should come from a senior member of staff at director level within the landlord’s organisation.
    2. Pay the resident £1000 compensation for its handling of the leak. This amount includes the £180 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. Pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
    4. Reimburse the resident £400 for the damp specialist survey she paid for.
    5. Refer the resident to its liability insurer or consider a claim itself for damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the damp and mould. If the landlord is considering a claim itself, it should explain the reasons for its decision to the resident in writing.
  2. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.