London Borough of Newham (202343454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343454

London Borough of Newham

19 December 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. Reports of a leak and damp and mould.
   2. Concerns about staff conduct.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. He occupies a 1-bedroom ground floor flat with his wife and young child. The tenancy commenced in December 2018. The resident has asthma and advises his child has breathing issues.
4. On 28 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord there was damp and mould in the property which had damaged his belongings. The landlord attended the property on 14 December 2022 and checked the flat above for leaks and subsequently carried out works. In May 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the mould had returned and the landlord’s contractor inspected that month. Subsequently on 7 June 2023, the resident reported a leak between the wet room and hallway. The landlord’s plumber attended on 22 June 2023 and found the wet room floor needed to be resealed.
5. On 16 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the leak. He said the landlord’s plumber attended on 22 June 2023 and recommended installing a bathtub to resolve the leak. He added that the landlord told him that it intended to replace flooring and tiles in the wet room which he felt would not resolve the issue and did not align with the recommendation of its plumber but was told the plumber’s report did not mention installing a new bathtub in place of the shower. The resident was also unhappy about how the manager from the plumbing team had spoken to him, and their conduct when he asked questions which he felt amounted to bullying. He added his wife was heavily pregnant and he wanted the leak resolved before she gave birth.
6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 September 2023. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience by the repair issue and length of time resolving the matter. It said it had passed the resident’s request to its relevant teams, and would get back to him with an update. It also passed his concerns about staff conduct to its plumbing repairs manager to investigate.
7. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 30 October 2023 as nobody had contacted him as promised and no work had been carried out to resolve the damp and mould. He added there was now a new-born child in the property. The resident chased for a response on 8 and 15 November 2023, stating that the property was full of damp, and the leak in the hallway was unresolved.
8. On 29 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor was due to inspect the wet room and damp and mould, but this was moved to 1 December 2023. Also on 1 December 2023 the landlord provided information on how to claim for damaged items through its insurers and advised it was awaiting its contractor’s recommendations prior to issuing its stage 2 response. Work was carried out at various times in January 2024 and a post-inspection took place on 22 January 2024. In February 2024, the resident was offered £500 compensation by the landlord.
9. On 28 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 (final) response. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the matter and provided a summary of events. It agreed there were significant service failures in resolving the leak and damp and mould affecting the wet room and hallway. It apologised that he had received conflicting information regarding the bathtub and that there was a missed appointment on 29 November 2023. It said that as the property was accepted with a wet room it would not install a bath, but a repair was needed in a corner of the wet room and after this damp and mould treatment would take place. Regarding staff conduct, it said this matter was being dealt with by an independent member of landlord staff and apologised that the resident felt the plumbing manager’s conduct was unprofessional. It also apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2. On 27 February 2024, its contractor recommended further works, and once these were resolved, the landlord would then decide on an amount of compensation.
10. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman he said there was still damp and mould in the living room, bedrooms and hallway of the property. He added he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation. In April 2024, the landlord installed a new wet room and treated the damp and mould. However, the resident advised in May 2024 that the damp and mould persisted despite repeated visits and the household’s health and wellbeing was being affected. He felt, given the continuing repair issues, the landlord should move him.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

11. The resident advised that this issue was historic, and he experienced leaks around 2019 and 2020. While this may be the case, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As this case concerns the formal complaint made by the resident on 16 September 2023, the investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from November 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in February 2024, and any commitments it made. 
12. The resident also advised that the damp and mould he experienced impacted the health of the household. It is beyond the remit of this service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as this would be more appropriately dealt with through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused, and this investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and legal obligations and whether it acted fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and damp and mould

13. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure, outside and shared areas of residents’ homes. It will also maintain the installation for supplying water and sanitation. The landlord’s repairs policy dated August 2024 states it is responsible for repairing and maintaining drains, gutters, and external pipes including water service pipes and overflow pipes.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that urgent repairs, those which may affect the comfort of residents and may cause damage to the property if not carried out urgently, should be completed within 3 or 7 days depending on the nature of the work required. Routine repairs, those that are not urgent but may cause inconvenience to residents, should be completed within 20 working days. Emergency out-of-hours repairs, which includes major water leaks, should be attended within 4 hours to make safe and any outstanding work carried out at a later date. From the evidence, it appears the leak was not major and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to treat this as either an urgent or routine repair.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy also states it has a dedicated damp and mould taskforce to respond quickly and effectively with the aim of intervening early to prevent such issues developing into major health and safety risks. It adds it ensure a thorough assessment is undertaken to identify the cause of damp and mould with all options being considered. The landlord will acknowledge service requests made relating to damp and mould within 48 hours of receiving the request, and an inspection will be scheduled within two weeks of the initial contact. The timing of the work will depend on the complexity of the issue and the scale of the work to be completed.
16. Throughout the policy there is an emphasis on treating residents who report an issue with damp and mood with respect and empathy and with an appreciation of the seriousness of the problem. It notes that cases will be comprehensively and accurately recorded on its system and that residents will be kept up to date with progress and consulted on how and when works will take place. The landlord will take a proactive approach to identifying and resolving cases of damp and mould; and where damp and mould are identified as part of other repair works being undertaken – such as a leak – this will be recorded and action taken to resolve it. The Ombudsman recognises that this policy was not available at the time of the resident’s initial damp and mould reports, but is referred to as a sensible guide.
17. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 28 November 2022. In response the landlord arranged attendance, checked the property above for leaks and made good the resident’s hallway and redecorated his flat. The landlord’s records indicate this was completed by mid-December 2022. The landlord acted fairly by promptly attending and carrying out work, but it is unclear from its records what the outcome of the inspection was and whether the landlord established the root cause of the damp and mould. This may indicate issues with its record keeping.
18. In May 2023, the resident made another report stating that the mould had returned. The landlord’s contractor inspected that month and produced a scope of planned works following this. While this was a reasonable initial step to take it is unclear what, if any, works were undertaken following this May 2023 inspection. Following another report, the landlord’s plumber attended on 22 June 2023. It is recognised that the resident asserted he was told a bathtub would be installed to resolve the leak, however the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this. Indeed, as the property was accepted in 2018 with a wet room, the landlord was entitled to repair the wet room leak and was under no obligation to make any alterations to the wet room.
19. In the landlord’s submissions, it stated that its plumber found the leak was traceable to seals which needed replacing. The landlord acted reasonably by attempting to book these works in, however, its records show that the resident refused this work. The landlord clearly set out in its final response that it was sorry the resident received conflicting information about installation of a bathtub and confirmed that, as the property was accepted with a wet room, it would not install a bathtub. This was a fair response.
20. Nonetheless, the landlord should have resolved the leak and damp and mould once it was on notice of the issue. Although the resident initially appeared to refuse works, the landlord should have contacted the resident again, clearly stating why it needed to complete the work, and offering dates for this to be done. However, it failed to do so within a reasonable time. When the resident made a formal complaint in September 2023, it missed several opportunities to resolve the matter sooner through its stage 1 complaints process and it was only as a result of the resident’s chasing in October and November 2023 that the landlord progressed matters further. These delays caused distress and inconvenience as well as time and trouble for the resident.
21. Despite the landlord’s September 2023 stage 1 response saying it would contact its repairs team, it took no further action until 1 December 2023. Furthermore, the evidence showed the contractor missed an earlier appointment on 29 November 2023. This was an avoidable delay and the landlord acted contrary to its repairs policy timescales and failed to inform the resident about the progress of their repairs. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to wait a considerable time to progress matters.
22. Following the inspection of December 2023, its contractor advised the landlord on 4 December 2023 that damage to the floor and wall tiles were the most likely cause of the issues. They recommended a number of work to the wet room to prevent further damage to the hallway and remove damp and mould in the hallway. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractor who undertook the inspection, though the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident felt this was a repeat of previous attempts to resolve the same issue that he had reported in previous years.
23. The landlord arranged these works for 18 December 2023 with an aim for completion by 10 January 2024. Although various work took place in January 2024, the resident continued to report the leak persisted and the landlord did not complete the recommended works to the wet room until mid-April 2024, around 8 months after the resident’s formal complaint. This was a considerable delay.
24. The resident estimated he had lost earnings as a result of taking days off work to accommodate appointments, one of which, 29 November 2023, was not attended by contractors. The Ombudsman appreciates the distress caused when the resident has taken time off to accommodate contractors, only for appointments to be missed, or cancelled without being informed ahead that this would be the case. This would have caused frustration for the resident who clearly wanted the repair issues resolved.
25. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to reimburse a resident for loss of earnings for repair appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repair appointments are repeatedly missed or have failed to resolve the issue.
26. In the resident’s November 2022 correspondence, he said he threw away belongings affected by mould. The Ombudsman has seen the resident was sent an insurance incident report form on 1 December 2023 and also on 27 February 2024. The resident advised he submitted the form on 28 February 2024, but a landlord internal note dated 8 October 2024 states its insurance department had not received anything relating to this matter. In view of this a recommendation has been made below.
27. In March 2024, the resident reported that he had incurred additional expenses including purchase of a dehumidifier to mitigate damp conditions, which resulted in increased electricity bills. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, if the resident incurred clearly defined and evidenced costs which were due to the landlord’s actions/inactions, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider whether reimbursement is due. While it is appreciated the resident’s report was made after the landlord’s final response, it is not clear if this has been addressed and a further recommendation has been made below.
28. It is concerning that the landlord did not carry out any risk assessments in this case despite repeated reports of damp and mould and the fact that a young child occupied the property. Furthermore, inspections took place in May, June and December 2023 so the landlord was aware of the extent of the mould. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. The resident advised the landlord in March 2024 that he has asthma. In accordance with its repairs policy, recorded vulnerability will form part of the consideration and decision-making when designing and scoping the delivery of the repairs service to the resident. In the landlord’s submissions to this service, it advised there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to update this.
29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” outlines that ‘landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner’. It continues that ‘landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly to manage resident’s expectations’. In this case, the resident was left exposed to damp and mould in his property for a prolonged period because of the landlord’s inability to satisfactorily coordinate necessary remedial works. Further, the adverse effect caused to the resident was likely to be more significant as he occupied the property with a young child, though it is noted there is no evidence to suggest the child’s active living space (e.g. their bedroom) was affected.
30. Although the landlord provided some information about repairs, its records often lacked sufficient detail and were unclear which proved challenging for the service to understand what actions were carried out and when. In line with our report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. No orders or recommendations have been made in this case, as similar record keeping orders have been made in previous landlord cases.
31. In the landlord’s final response, it said it would “make an appropriate award of compensation” once the repairs were completed. The resident requested a review of the compensation in March 2024 and despite the landlord’s assurance that it would review his request, it did not appear to get back to him. Additionally, the landlord did not respond to the Ombudsman’s information request made on 8 November 2024 regarding any compensation paid. This has been considered as part of the Ombudsman’s orders.
32. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and of damp and mould in the property was poor. The landlord was on notice of damp and mould from November 2022 and it carried out a number of inspections, but it did not carry out a risk assessment nor take any meaningful action within an appropriate time. This was contrary to its repairs policy and caused distress and inconvenience to the household. It is noted that the landlord did not offer any temporary solutions such as a dehumidifier to the resident while he was awaiting repairs. The landlord should have been more proactive in dealing with the reported issue, but there were substantial delays between the resident making his formal complaint in September 2023 and the issue being seemingly resolved in April 2024 by installation of a new wet room and treatment of the damp and mould. Yet, it is noted the resident said in May 2024 that there was still damp and mould in the property.
33. While the landlord recognised these “significant service failures”, apologised, and made an offer of £500, this did not, in the Ombudsman’s view, go quite far enough to adequately reflect the level of detriment to the household with a young child living with a leak and damp and mould for a prolonged period. In line with the service’s remedies guidance, awards between £100 to £600 compensation should be considered where the Ombudsman has found failure which had an adverse impact on the resident. As such, orders have been made below.

The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct

34. The resident said that during a phone call on 6 September 2023 a landlord’s plumbing repairs manager was rude and dismissive. He said they cut him off and did not allow him to speak, and he felt their behaviour was unprofessional, condescending, and amounted to bullying. The resident also added the plumbing repairs manager said they would close outstanding repairs regarding the property and that any complaint raised against them would be rejected by them. This was part of the resident’s formal complaint of 16 September 2023.
35. On receiving concerns regarding staff conduct, the landlord has an obligation to address these. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide if bullying has taken place, but we can look at the landlord’s responses to resident’s reports. In the case of an allegation of bullying by the landlord’s staff, this would be dealt with via the landlord’s internal disciplinary policies and procedures. The actions taken by the landlord in response would thus be kept confidential, as per the requirements of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
36. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it passed the resident’s complaint to its plumbing repairs manager to investigate. This was inappropriate as this was the member of staff the resident wished to complain about, and may indicate it had not understood his particular concerns. In the circumstances, the landlord should have advised that his concerns would be looked into by an independent member of staff. The initial approach by the landlord was unfair and likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
37. It is noted the resident did not appear to pursue the staff conduct issue in his escalation request. Nevertheless, the landlord acted appropriately by considering the matter in its final response where it acted fairly by advising that this was being dealt with by an independent landlord member of staff for them to action internally. Further, it apologised that the resident felt the staff member was unprofessional and that this was not how the landlord wanted to be perceived and that residents should feel comfortable speaking with all staff. These subsequent actions were reasonable and proportionate given the circumstances.
38. The landlord’s complaints policy states a complaint about the conduct of a council staff member should be investigated by an appropriate service manager with authority to make decisions on potential actions in relation to the employee. While the complaint can be responded to as part of its complaints policy, any decision or actions that relate to an employee matter may not be communicated or recorded in the complaints management system. This service has seen evidence that an investigation was carried out, and that the staff member in question was spoken to.
39. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord has a disciplinary policy under which it investigates staff conduct, and that it would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident for confidentiality reasons. However, in responding to a complaint regarding staff conduct, the Ombudsman considers that it would be appropriate for the landlord to share a reasonable and proportionate level of detail with the resident regarding its investigation and the outcome. For example, the steps the landlord has taken to consider the resident’s allegations which may include staff interviews and review of its internal records. By doing so, the Ombudsman considers that the resident would be provided with an outcome to his complaint and reassurance that it has been taken seriously.
40. However, while the landlord’s final response referred to the resident’s concerns and set out clearly how it intended to deal with the matter, it did not appear to the resident that his concerns had been actually investigated since the landlord did not follow up with information about the outcome nor provide any assurances. This is unsatisfactory as the resident was left without any resolution. Additionally, considering the resident wrote to the landlord in September 2023 to report his concerns about staff conduct, it took the landlord over 100 working days to provide a response. The time taken for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about staff conduct was therefore inappropriate, as was the lack of explanation given to the resident. An order and recommendation have been made.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

41. The landlord’s complaint policy aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In circumstances where a landlord is unable to provide a response within these timescales, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to inform the resident of the extended timescale for response. Any extension must not be more than 20 working days without good reason and the reason(s) for delay must be clearly explained to the resident. When a landlord informs the resident about an extension, they must be provided with the contact details of the Ombudsman. This is in accordance with sections 6.15. and 6.16. of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
42. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 16 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 20 September 2023. While this was within its complaints policy timescales, it came across as rushed as it did not fully address the resident’s complaint points and simply advised it had passed his concerns on. This likely caused distress and frustration to the resident who may have felt the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
43. The resident subsequently asked to escalate the complaint on 30 October 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate the matter at this point. Indeed, despite the resident emailing again on 8 November 2023, the landlord still took no action. It was only when the resident contacted it again on 15 November 2023 that it escalated the complaint and promised the stage 2 response by 13 December 2023. By not escalating sooner, the landlord missed an opportunity to provide its final response sooner which likely delayed getting matters resolved. Its complaints policy also adds that the resident is not required to explain their reasons for requesting an escalation to stage 2.
44. While the landlord contacted the resident on 17 January 2024 explaining that its final response was delayed and that it aimed to provide a response by 24 January 2024, it should have done this prior to its committed deadline in its stage 2 acknowledgement. Not doing so was inappropriate and contrary to the Code. This likely caused further frustration to the resident. In any case, the landlord failed to keep to its commitments on more than one occasion. It issued its stage 2 response on 28 February 2024 – over 80 working days after the resident’s escalation request of 30 October 2023. This was a considerable delay and caused further distress and frustration for the resident who may have felt the landlord was ignoring his concerns.
45. Additionally, the Ombudsman recognises that the stage 2 final response was issued more than 20 working days after its advice that it was unable to meet the previously promised deadline. This was contrary to the Code and a further failing on the part of the landlord.
46. While the landlord offered an apology in its stage 2 final response for the delay, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation for its complaint handling failings. The Ombudsman remedies guidance suggests awards from £100 for a failing that caused an adverse affect to the resident. In view of this, the service has made a finding of maladministration and an order has been made below for remedy.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and damp and mould.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

50. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £850 made up of:
       1. £500 as offered in February 2024, if it has not paid this already.
       2. A further £100 for the failings identified in its handling of reports of a leak and damp and mould.
       3. £100 for the failings in its handling of concerns about staff conduct.
       4. £150 for the failings in its complaints handling.
    3. Inspect the property to ensure it has resolved the leak and damp and mould and carried out all appropriate remedial works such as further mould washes, where appropriate. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a report of the outcome of the inspection. If further works are required, it must undertake these within an appropriate time period. It must also ensure any areas affected by a leak, damp and mould are made good, if it has not done so already.
51. The landlord must provide evidence that it has attempted to comply with the orders within the above timescale.

Recommendations

52. The landlord should:
    1. Consider reimbursing the resident for the purchase of the dehumidifier in line with its compensation policy and whether there have been increased utility costs as a result of the delays in carrying out repairs and consider reimbursement where appropriate.
    2. Contact the resident again to provide necessary information for him to commence a claim under its insurer in respect of any loss of belonging due to mould.
    3. Ensure that a vulnerability flag on the resident’s records reflects all occupants’ health conditions.
    4. Review its staff training needs regarding communication ensuring all staff are communicating with residents professionally, politely and factually.
    5. Consider whether a managed move is appropriate in this case. In doing so, the landlord should write to the resident with its decision.