Norwich City Council (202220934)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220934

Norwich City Council

20 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:
1. repairing the cracks in the balcony,
2. subsequent repairs to address the damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident occupies the property with his lodger.
Between 2021 to 2023 the resident reported issues with the balcony 18 times. The landlord attended the property to conduct a structural survey in February 2022.
The resident first reported damp and mould in his property in February 2022 which was caused by rain water entering from the balcony. The landlord’s structural survey mentioned dampness and water within the ceiling. The landlord attended the property in March 2022 and carried out a mould wash. Between 2022 and 2024, the resident reported issues with damp and mould in his property 10 times.
The resident complained to the landlord, it is unclear when this was. He said:
1. The balcony was cracked, resulting in rain water entering the property.
2. Previous appointments to rectify this issue had not been attended.
3. The walls and ceiling were wet.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. In relation to the missed appointments it apologised and explained the contractor was no longer working for it, so could not provide further details on the reasons. It explained a new a contractor would be in touch.
2. It apologised for the delay, and for not meeting expectations.
On 24 October 2022 the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. He said:
1. He had been waiting over 18 months for something quite dangerous to be repaired.
2. No work had started, although he was told work would start in May 2022.
3. The explanations by the landlord kept changing as to why the issue had not been fixed.
4. He was still experiencing damp and mould in the property due to the outstanding balcony repair.
On 7 November 2022, the landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It would carry out remedial works on the balcony and it had contacted its specialist contractors who arranged a visit on 3 November 2022.
2. It apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 25 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that he was not happy with the response he had received. He was concerned about the balcony collapsing and causing harm. The resident requested an in-person conversation with the landlord to get answers.
On 4 January 2023, the resident chased his stage 2 escalation and explained no work had gone ahead.
On 24 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that there had been unacceptable delays in its response to his issues over a lengthy period of time. It had worked on improving its response times to repair requests.
2. That he still remained dissatisfied with the impact the damp and mould had on his health and the outstanding repairs that needed completing.
3. It was seeking to carry out the repairs in a timely manner.
4. Balcony repairs commenced on 13 January 2023 and were now completed. The repairs were to stop rain water entering the resident’s property. It had discussed with him that a period of 3 months would be required to allow the drying out process to occur. When the drying out was complete it would carry out the repairs to the plasterwork and artex. It would arrange a further assessment in April 2023.
5. The damp survey was completed by contractors on 18 January 2023. It was not yet in receipt of the formal report but had discussed with the surveyor their findings, which were:
  1. Opening up the structure where the damp meter showed high moisture readings to determine the cause of the damp and to check on the insultation in the cavity.
  2. The possible provision of a radiator in the hallway.
  3. Adaptations to the existing windows to reduce the draughts within the property.
  4. Replacement of existing extractor fans.
6. An asbestos specialist had confirmed an asbestos survey would take place on 27 January 2023. The survey would determine if there are any material or finishes within the dwelling that contain asbestos. It would consider any recommendations in its remedial works programme.
7. An electrical insulation condition report was carried out by contactors on 9 November 2023. An order had been placed to carry out repairs to a defective smoke alarm. The works could not commence until the asbestos survey has been completed. The team would contact the resident to arrange a date that this would take place.
On 23 March 2023, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord about the outstanding repairs caused by the water ingress and damp in the property, and the poor customer service he had received.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 23 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. It contacted the resident on 23 March 2023 to go through outstanding repairs action in relation to the ongoing work to resolve the water ingress and damp within the property
2. The Interim Director of Property Services reviewed the case and contacted the resident on 30 March 2023 to discuss the resident’s complaints.

Post complaint

In December 2023 the landlord decided to decant the resident. In January 2024 the resident agreed the offer of the property for the decant. In February 2024, the resident moved into the decant property.
On 27 May 2024, the resident signed a tenancy agreement for the flat he had been decanted into and will not be returning to his previous property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The issues raised in the resident’s new complaint to the landlord in March 2023 will not be considered as part of this investigation. This is because the resident raised the issues after the landlord’s formal stage 2 response and consequently it did complete the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The resident has said he considers that the issues affecting his property have impacted his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and notes the impact of damp and mould on resident’s health is well documented. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore 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. Whilst we cannot consider the direct effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failures by the landlord.

Repairs to the balcony

The landlord has a weblink called its repair responsibilities. Although we do not know whether this was in place at the time of this issue. In the absence of a repairs policy and damp and mould policy, this Service has used the landlord’s submission to the Regulator of Social Housing from case 202224333 and the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (“It’s not lifestyle,” published in October 2021) to determine whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate. This says landlords should take ‘’proactive interventions’’ in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and 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, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord were limited in terms of detail and there appear to be significant gaps. These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property.
The records provided show that the resident had reported issues with the balcony above since 2021. This consisted of rain water entering into the property from the balcony. The landlord has said that it tried to contact the resident in September 2021 to arrange a structural survey and was unable to get through to the resident via phone, email or letter. The landlord did provide this Service with an email to the resident and internal emails that discussed not getting through the resident by phone in September 2021. We do not consider sufficient effort was made to contact the resident. When the landlord could not get hold of the resident in September 2021, it has not shown that it tried to contact the resident again during the period of October 2021 to February 2022. We would expect the landlord to take more steps to contact the resident regarding such a serious matter of a structural survey. The delay of approximately 5 months was unacceptable.
The structural survey completed by the landlord in February 2022 identified potential health and safety risks. The landlord did not receive the structural report until the end of April 2022. The report said there was an issue with a slab on the balcony which was allowing the rain water to enter the property and made the ceiling and walls wet. The report identified that the corrosion could be a hazard, if no action was taken. The loose concrete could completely detach and fall to the ground with the risk of causing injury. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took any action about the health and safety risks identified in this report.
In March 2022, the resident explained that the rain water coming into his property was affecting the electrics. The landlord said it would arrange for an electrician to attend as an emergency. This was an appropriate response. The resident refused an electrician to attend his property as he believed he would be left in ‘darkness’. The landlord did not demonstrate that it offered the resident any reassurance or explained the process of the repair or what it could do if a light had to be disconnected. The repair records show the job was completed in May 2022. This was potentially a risk to the resident if not promptly resolved, the landlord has not shown that it considered the risk and what action it could take to mitigate this.
On 20 July 2022 an internal email stated there were no health and safety issues regarding minor defects to the balcony at the property and remedial works were planned for that financial year. It is unclear how the landlord reached this decision, as the structural survey from April 2022 identified a hazard that could be a safety risk. It is important for landlord’s to use all evidence available to inform its decision making and to satisfy itself and residents of any risk of harm has been mitigated against. The landlord in this case appears to have not given consideration to the structural survey when prioritising this repair and this was unreasonable.
There was a gap of 6 months between April and October 2022, where the landlord took no action. This was unreasonable. The resident was left for 6 months with rain water coming into the property and causing damage to his belonging which he had reported to the landlord.
In October 2022, the landlord considered the balcony required remedial work, to prevent the water ingress into the property. It contacted a specialist contractor to carry out a site visit and assess the issue and provide a quotation for the remedial works. In November 2022 a specialist visited the site.
In December 2022, the resident spoke to the major works and services manager and explained he had been waiting over 18 months for repairs to the balcony to take place. The major works and services manager arranged to meet the resident at the property on 6 December 2022. This was appropriate, as it showed customer focus and trying to rebuild relationships with the resident.
In the stage 2 response the landlord said the balcony repair commenced on 13 January 2023 and had been completed by 24 January 2023. The repairs log does not mention when this repair was completed. There had been an unacceptable delay of approximately 18 months in carrying out the repair, and the landlord has failed to provide sufficient evidence of its monitoring of the progress of the required work.
The resident felt the need to chase the landlord for updates regarding the balcony repairs approximately 6 times between 2022 and 2023. There were occasions when the landlord did not respond to the resident. An example of this was when the resident said he kept phoning but not being called back on 26 October 2022. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was therefore not consistent and it failed to manage his expectations. This exacerbated the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord. The landlord also frequently failed to keep the resident informed of matters affecting him. He understandably believed that it was not taking any action to resolve the repairs to the balcony when this was not necessarily the case. Again, this will have increased his sense of frustration.
The landlord was not proactive in managing the repair, it did not explore why it had no response to its initial contact regarding a structural survey. Once the survey was conducted it took the landlord 2 months to receive the report, there is no evidence the landlord chased this. When the landlord was aware of the findings of the report, it then drew conflicting conclusions to the report without any explanation and did not prioritise the repair. The resident was left with balcony issues for over 18 months. The cumulative impact of delay in repairing the balcony had an adverse impact on the resident and his household. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why its approach was considerably delayed and explained this to the resident. This was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s complaint’s response it explained what actions it had taken to remedy the balcony issue. While the landlord apologised it did not go far enough in putting things right in a timely manner for the resident. It did not compensate the resident for the delays and communication. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony. The landlord appeared to have limited oversight of the issue before an effective solution was implemented. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay £500 to the resident for its delays in repairs to the balcony in his property.

The repairs to address the, damp and mould.

By April 2022, the landlord was aware of the dampness in the property from the structural survey. The landlord took 9 months to complete a damp survey in January 2023. The time frame to arrange the survey was not appropriate and it is unclear why there was a delay. The damp report was not provided to this Service. There is evidence there was a delay in the landlord taking action in relation to the mould.
While it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the root cause of the damp and mould, in this case the balcony repair. The landlord has not provided evidence that it considered the impact the damp and mould had on the household or if it could have taken any interim measures to improve the condition of the home for the resident. It could have considered supplying the resident with a dehumidifier or carrying out a mould wash. The landlord decanted the resident in December 2023 due to the damp and mould. There is no evidence of the landlord considering this approach earlier and it missed opportunities to review its position when the resident explained the impact the damp and mould was having on him.
In the first half of 2023 the contractor observed that the mould was getting worse. The damp survey identified damp meter readings were high, provision of a radiator in the hallway was recommended, changing the windows, and replacing existing extractor fans were necessary.
From the landlord’s repair log it undertook a mould wash to surfaces, it cleared the cavity wall area, fixed the windows and installed a wall fan. This work was raised on 20 February 2023 and was completed on 24 April 2023. The landlord took 2 months to alleviate the condition that the resident and his household were living in. It was not appropriate for the landlord to leave the resident living in a property with the damp ceilings over an extended time period.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances. It is evident that distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident and his household for which financial compensation is appropriate. The damp and mould affected his use and enjoyment of the property.
In the landlord’s complaint’s response it explained what actions it had taken to remedy the damp and mould issue. It explained it had arranged to carry out surveys for damp and mould. While the landlord apologised it did not go far enough in putting things right in a timely manner for the resident. It did not compensate the resident for the delays and communication. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issue. The landlord appeared to have limited oversight of the issue before an effective solution was implemented. Considering the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay £500 to the resident for its delays in resolving the damp and mould issue.
In October 2023, the Ombudsman issued a report about the landlord, highlighting concerns with its record keeping procedures. The report ordered the landlord to review its process, practices and procedures to reduce the risk of similar failures in the future.
In this investigation we have identified failures similar to those in our January 2024 report. To avoid duplication no further orders for the landlord to undertake an assessment have been made. We do expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account when delivering future service provision.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord repairing the cracks in the balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord in respect of subsequent repairs to, damp and mould .

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. The senior leadership team to write to the resident with an apology.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 made up of
  1. £500 for the delays to the balcony repair
  2. £500 for the handling of the subsequent repairs including water ingress, damp and mould
The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the recommendations below.

Recommendations

The landlord to meet with the resident to understand any damage caused to his personal belongings. The landlord should explains its position on this and if needed refer the resident to its insurers.