Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202312775)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312775

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.

Background

The resident has a joint assured tenancy agreement with her husband which started on 14 July 2000. The property is described as a 2-bedroom mid terraced property.
The resident has told this Service that she has epilepsy.
The resident reported damp in the kitchen on 29 April 2022. In response, a technical inspector attended the resident’s property on 24 May 2022. The inspection identified that damaged plaster should be removed back to the brickwork and a damp proof membrane applied before the wall was replastered. Also, the extractor fan to the kitchen should be renewed. The work was post inspected on 3 November 2022 and assessed as not meeting the required standard. A recall was issued to the contractor.
On 3 January 2023, a works order was raised to erect scaffolding to the rear elevation for ridge tiles to be repointed. Two days later, the resident informed the landlord that a plasterer had attended but they could not undertake the required plastering works as the roofing works remained outstanding.
The resident complained to the landlord on 1 March 2023 that:
1. An inspection had taken place on 24 May 2022 when it was established that the kitchen wall required damp proof sealing and plastering. The resident stated that she was informed that work was to start on 8 August 2022 but it did not.
2. The resident also gave times that work was due to start in October 2022, November 2022, December 2002 and January 2023 but had not.
3. In November 2022, the work carried out by the contractor was inspected and found to be sub-standard so a recall was issued for the work to be done again.
4. The cause of the damp was diagnosed to be from the chimney breast. Roof repairs, pointing under the kitchen window and an installation of an air brick were required. An inspection was carried out on 12 December 2022 which diagnosed that the work was urgent as the kitchen ceiling was bowing.
5. The plasterer was unable to carry out kitchen wall plastering in January 2023 as the kitchen remained damp. The scaffolding was struck in February 2023 but, following this, the roofer advised that the ridge tiles were incorrectly installed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged that damp works were required since December 2022 and it upheld the complaint. Once the scaffolding had been installed, its contractor had completed the chimney work on 16 March 2023. Further appointments had been arranged for 17 March 2023 and 21 March 2023 to complete the roofing works and repairs to the kitchen ceiling. It concluded by saying that it was sorry that the resident had to complain.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 23 March 2023 and 24 March 2023. She explained that the landlord’s complaint response did not address all the issues she had bought to its attention and the works had not progressed. The resident:
1. Corrected the complaint response advising that the kitchen repairs had started in May 2022 and not December 2022.
2. Advised that plastering was done in October 2022 but the roof works were not to the required standard with damp returning to the property.
3. Stated that, after making the complaint, she had sent an email to the landlord regarding the conduct of the scaffolders. The scaffolders had not used a ladder, climbing on the gate and fencing to reach the top of the scaffolding. A video was available if the landlord wanted her to send it.
4. The contractor made a hole in the kitchen ceiling then left as he assessed that the chimney breast was not safe.
5. The roofers attended on 21 March 2023 and installed roof ridge tiles and lead flashing. In doing so, they caused damage to the neighbour’s roof. It was not fair that she was left to deal with her neighbour’s dissatisfaction with the contractor’s workmanship.
6. The pointing and the air brick had not been installed and the apology from the landlord lacked sincerity. Finally, the resident stated that she wished to speak to someone about her complaint.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 April 2023. It provided a timeline of events from the inspection carried out on 24 May 2022 up to 25 March 2023 when a structural survey was carried out to the resident’s property. The survey found that the cause of the damp was the chimney breast. The kitchen ceiling would need to be replastered and the work to the pointing remained outstanding.
The landlord said that the property was scheduled to have a new roof later that year and the kitchen floor replaced. It added that it expected to receive the structural report within 10 days and once it was received, it would send the resident a plan with timescales that it would work to. On completion of the works, it would consider whether a compensation or goodwill payment was warranted and it apologised for the delays experienced by the resident. Its contractor would contact the resident and her neighbour about the work required to the guttering and pointing works by the time the resident received its complaint response.

Events after the complaint process ended.

The structural report was received by the landlord on 17 April 2023. The report concluded that the structural condition of the rear external wall was unacceptable. Ridge tiles on the rear extension had not been fully mortar bedded in place or secured with dry fix brackets. Water damage had occurred to the first-floor structure around the chimney. The report recommended:
1. Roof of the rear extension covering the chimney
  1. Inspect the roof covering for leaks. Renew underlay, tiles, under-cloak, mortar and lead flashing as appropriate.
  2. Repair the verge and secure the mono-ridge tiles properly.
2. Chimney breast.
  1. Option 1 – remove the remaining chimney breast masonry at first floor level and possibly at roof space. Make good surrounding surfaces and structures.
  2. Option 2 – Expose the first-floor structure below and around the chimney breast and introduce adequate support for the chimney masonry and replace any defective structure.
3. Ground floor ceiling and first floor timber joists.
  1. Existing ceiling to be replaced. Existing timber joists to be inspected and strengthened where required.
4. Inspection
  1. Inspection to be carried out 12 months after the repair work is completed.
A works order was raised on 10 May 2023. A recall was issued as the roof was leaking into the property with the overflow pipe leaking every day. The works order also included the following:
1. Bathroom works – pre-inspection of kitchen ceiling.
2. Kitchen ceiling – apply skim coat to entire kitchen ceiling after completion of chimney works.
3. Remove a section of kitchen ceiling and support bathroom chimney.
4. Scaffold and repair roof.
5. Inspection of chimney and damp.
The technical inspector report on 15 June 2023 set out the schedule of works to be carried out to the kitchen ceiling and bathroom chimney breast. This included the roofing works to start on 19 June 2023. These were:
1. Roof removal on 22 June 2023, insulation installation on 23 June 2023 and roof replacement on 26 June 2023.
2. Removal of chimney to bathroom on 28 June 2023 and bathroom decoration on 29 June 2023.
3. New suspended ceiling to kitchen on 30 June 2023.
4. Pointing works to rear on 6 July 2023.
5. Inspection on 7 July 2023.
The resident provided dates of missed appointments, quotes and receipts to landlord for her compensation claim.
On 21 June 2023, the health and safety site inspection form showed that the roof replacement works had been completed. The technical inspector noted on 28 June 2023 that the outstanding works were to insulate the roof to 400mm and to install floor coverings to the bathroom and kitchen.
A post inspection was carried out on 6 July 2023. The removal of the bathroom chimney breast, the kitchen ceiling and the re–roofing were assessed as satisfactory. The cost of the floor covering to the kitchen and bathroom were to be offset against the compensation claim made by the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident regarding the compensation award on 6 July 2023. It assessed that an award of £435 was appropriate, broken down as follows:
1. It had no record of an emergency repair being carried and neither had it been notified that its contractors had caused damage when they were working at the property. Therefore, it had assessed that it was not required to make a compensation payment for this.
2. The resident was entitled to £375 for the damage to blinds, sofa, carpet and general cleanliness.
3. It had carried out work to the bathroom and kitchen and had requested that its contractor carry out remedial works to those rooms. It would not pay compensation for damage to other rooms.
4. It had not received a report that the resident did not have long term access to the kitchen or bathroom facilities while work was being carried out at the property. Therefore, it could not offer compensation for this.
5. It was not aware that its staff had missed agreed appointments, therefore it could not offer compensation for this.
6. It was aware that its contractor had missed appointments in August 2022 which had not been rebooked until October 2022. Also, appointments on 17 March 2023 and 21 March 2023 had been missed. Therefore, £30 compensation was awarded.
7. Since the repair was raised in April 2022 and the complaint made in March 2023, it had no evidence that correspondence had not been answered or responded to.
8. The resident had improved the property at their own expense so compensation was not payable for this.
9. It recognised that it did not complete the repairs within 28 days as these were raised in April 2022 with some not completed until October 2022. Following an inspection in November 2022, its contractor did not attend until 9 December 2022. Works were raised again in December 2022 which were not completed until July 2023. There were therefore 3 instances of service failure and it awarded £30 in recognition of this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 July 2023 to advise that she had been informed that the roof had been incorrectly installed. Around 2 weeks later, the resident advised that after having the carpets professionally cleaned, marks could still be seen.
On 21 December 2023, the landlord carried out a post inspection of the kitchen ceiling. It assessed that the flat roof was leaking due to the weight of the scaffolding while the roofing works were taking place. Rainwater was entering through the far-right hand corner and a works order was raised for a further inspection.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. She said that the delay in carrying out the work was too long and the decorators did not take care of her belongings. In addition, she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation award.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint regarding a fall in the property. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by the court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident has raised concerns about a further leak to the bathroom ceiling, following the roof replacement, and visible marks to her carpet which have not been removed despite professional cleaning. It is also noted that the resident requested permission to undertake bathroom works. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this Service cannot investigate them at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond through its complaints process. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these issues resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
It is alleged that the landlord’s contractor caused damage to a neighbouring property while carrying out roofing repairs to the resident’s property in March 2023. If the neighbour is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this matter and the damage caused to their property, they will have to make their own complaint to the landlord.
As mentioned above, this Service would not normally consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In this case, we have therefore assessed whether the actions the landlord proposed in its final complaint response were carried out in a reasonable timescale.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.

The Ombudsman will consider what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This will include whether the landlord has acted in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, its repair obligations and our Spotlight Report on damp and mould. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain the home to a reasonable standard, respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable time frame and take appropriate action. If a landlord contracts out its repair service, it should have adequate oversight of that service.
The landlord’s property services standards state that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days of receiving a report. With regard to roof repairs, these are handled on a ‘planned’ basis.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are:
1. Be fair;
2. Put things right;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, our investigation will then consider whether the landlord has ‘put things right.’
The landlord’s technical inspector attended in May 2022 and found that works were required to resolve the damp in the property. This should have been completed within 28 days – June 2022. By August 2022, the damp works had still not been completed. The landlord later stated that this was due to the unavailability of plaster. However, the landlord’s records do not give any information regarding the duration of the unavailability of the plaster or the action it took to mitigate this to resolve the presence of damp in the property. The lack of information means it is not possible to fully assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s delay in completing the plaster works to the kitchen.
Landlords should maintain accurate and contemporaneous records to help monitor outstanding works and contractor performance. From May 2022 to October 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord did so which led to inconvenience to the resident. This was not in line with this Service’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (October 2021) which expects landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach by taking timely steps to resolve damp. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the reason for the delay prior to the April 2023 final complaint response. This is not reasonable.
The resident informed the landlord of the impact of the delays on her and her family such as a 3-week period in October 2022 when it failed to organise the removal of sockets and a radiator before the plasterer attended. This meant that the plasterer left without undertaking any work. Once the radiator and skirting boards were removed, there were periods when there was a lack of heating in the property. The landlord did not address this in its complaint response – this demonstrated a lack of empathy on the part of the landlord in recognising how its failings impacted the household living conditions.
The technical inspector carried out an inspection of the work carried out by its contractor in November 2022 and assessed that the workmanship was poor. The plaster had not been returned to the brickwork before the damp proof measures were applied. Therefore, the resident experienced further inconvenience as the sub-standard work carried out to the property led to her continuing to live with damp conditions.
There were occasions when the landlord failed to arrange works to avoid further inconvenience being caused to the resident and contractors exacerbated this. For instance, the plasterer had to re-attend in January 2023 because works could not be completed while the roofing repairs were outstanding. The following month, the roofer incorrectly installed the ridge tiles and damaged the neighbouring property which the resident reported as affecting her relationship with the neighbours.
When it became apparent that the works during 2022 had not resolve the damp problem, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a structural survey in March 2023. The attempt of an independent diagnosis in the kitchen and bathroom indicated that the landlord had taken the matter seriously and wanted to identify the correct cause of the damp.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the property is safe for the resident to occupy. Therefore, once it was informed by the structural engineer in April 2023 that the acro props installed in the resident’s property were not secure, it had a responsibility to act. There is no evidence that it took action to secure the acro props or that it raised the health and safety concerns with its contractors. This is not appropriate. The landlord has a duty to act on reports that it receives about the competence of its contractors and to take the appropriate action.
The landlord drew up a schedule of works to remedy the damp in the property in June 2023 – this involved further inspections, the removal and reinstatement of the roof, the removal of the chimney to the bathroom, the installation of a suspended kitchen ceiling and pointing works to the rear of the property. It was reasonable of the landlord to conduct these works in accordance with the findings of the structural survey.
In its final complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that once the works were completed, it would assess her entitlement to compensation. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) informs landlords that effective complaint resolution involves putting things right. Any remedy should consider the extent of the service failure and the detriment caused to the resident. Therefore, the landlord should have assessed and awarded a compensation amount during the complaint process.
In its review of the complaint, the landlord accepted that it had not met its repairs service standard of completing the repairs within 28 days. It accepted that the works were reported in April 2022 and that the repairs were not completed until July 2023. Overall, this represented an unacceptable delay of around 15 months.
The landlord identified itself that on 3 separate occasions, its service failed – it took from April 2022 to October 2022 to complete kitchen plastering repairs; after an inspection in November 2022, its contractor failed to attend in December 2022; a further works order was raised in December 2022 and the agreed schedule of works was only completed in July 2023. The landlord awarded the resident £30 for the 3 service failures it had identified. This was not reasonable as the compensation award did not reflect the significant delay experienced by the resident in getting the repairs completed and the impact of living with damp in the meantime. This level of compensation is within a range that the Ombudsman would recommend for a minor service failure over a short duration and therefore not proportionate given the circumstances of the case.
The resident provided a list of items that were damaged with receipts and the landlord made an award of £375 accordingly. The landlord’s compensation policy states that insurance claims relating to damage to third party property would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to make this award.
The resident requested that the landlord carry out decorations to the whole property, stating that its contractor had not correctly covered her possessions, resulting in soot damage. The landlord determined that it had carried out work to the bathroom and the kitchen and agreed for its contractors to make good to those areas. It considered that while the work was being carried out to the property, it had not been advised of damage being caused by its contractors. This decision was in line with its compensation policy which states that it will make good the damage caused to any decoration. Where a landlord has an obligation to repair, there is also an obligation to make good any damage to decoration as a result of the repair work. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to make good the decorations to the kitchen and bathroom.
In its assessment of the compensation due to the resident, the landlord found that there were 3 missed appointments by its contractor: in August 2022 and on 2 separate occasions in March 2023. However, in its review of the complaint, the landlord did not consider the ineffective appointments that had occurred at the resident’s address. Examples of this were 9 December 2022 (when the roofers attended but could not carry out any work as the scaffolding was not struck), 5 January 2023 (when the plasterer attended but could not do any work as the plaster was not dry) and 23 February 2023 (when the roofer attended and assessed that the ridge tiles had not been installed incorrectly). The landlord failed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. This was not reasonable.
The landlord determined that it had no evidence that it had not responded or acknowledged communication from the resident and so compensation was not warranted for this. However, the landlord did not consider the poor communication as it failed to keep the resident informed of the progress of repairs, resulting in her having to chase and complain. The landlord apparently relied upon the resident to inform it of occasions where repairs could not be carried out (for instance, because the property remained damp or the scaffolding had not been erected) rather than pro-actively liaising with its contractor. The landlord did not demonstrate that it proactively managed repairs progress, likely contributing to delays and time and trouble caused to the resident.
It is not disputed that since early 2023 pointing was required under the kitchen window and an air brick was to be installed. This work remains outstanding. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have ensured that all repairs that were required to remedy damp and it indicates that the landlord did not fully put things right to meet its repairing obligations.
On escalating her complaint to the landlord in March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that its contractor was not complying with health and safety legislation when accessing the scaffold. The resident offered to provide the landlord with video footage. There is no evidence that the landlord reviewed the footage, addressed the report with its contractor or answered the resident’s concerns in its complaint response. This was not reasonable as it had a responsibility to ensure that when carrying out work to its properties, its contractors complied with safety legislation. Its lack of response did not offer reassurance to the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously.
In summary, the resident experienced excessive and unexplained delays for over a year before repairs to resolve damp were completed. There were failings in the landlord’s communications, record keeping and active repairs management that contributed to the delays. This impacted multiple rooms in the property and likely caused distress and inconvenience. Given the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s compensation award was insufficient.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,335 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of reports of damp in the property (this is inclusive of the £435 it awarded in its compensation review dated 6 July 2023).
3. If it has already not done so, arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident to carry out the pointing by the kitchen and living room windows and to install the air brick.
4. Assess whether a further award of compensation is due to the resident in recognition of the continued delay in completing the pointing and air brick works. It should explain its decision to the resident and this Service.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, if it has not already done so, the landlord should:
1. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection and draw up a schedule of works to resolve the defect to the replacement roof.
2. Address with its contractors the health and safety concerns the resident raised regarding their use of scaffolding.
3. Inform the resident how she can make an insurance or damages claim for the fall that caused her injury.