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

Milton Keynes City Council (202307884)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307884

Milton Keynes City Council

28 May 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 the resident’s reports about:
    1. Damp and mould throughout the property.
    2. Outstanding repairs.
    3. Staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the local authority landlord. She is a wheelchair user and occupies a 1-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The resident reported issues at the property at various times in the years prior to the formal complaint investigated here. Some of those issues were raised in a disrepair claim in July 2021. The landlord agreed to pay damages of £1250 in April 2022 and complete repairs by May 2022. These were not completed, and it paid a further settlement of £550 in August 2022. It says there were further delays but provided a completion certificate saying all works related to the disrepair claim were completed on 30 September 2022.
  3. On 28 January 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She said there were outstanding repairs. She listed issues including damp and mould around the doors and windows of the property, cracks in the ceiling, and issues with the thermostat and her bathroom shower. She asked for further compensation. She also said that the landlord’s contractors humiliated her by arriving for appointments before her care staff were available or talking to her through care staff as if she was not able to understand them.
  4. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2023. It said its surveyor had visited in February 2023 and that all the issues she raised were either remedied or being addressed. It apologised for the way contractors had made her feel and said it would discuss this with contractors. It did not consider financial redress was required. The resident escalated the complaint, and the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 24 May 2023.
  5. In that response, the landlord referred to a damp and mould survey that it had conducted at the property on 6 October 2022. It said it had completed the recommended works. It also said it had arranged a date to complete plastering work and had also raised other works for jobs it said the resident had not raised at stage 1. It did not uphold her complaint.
  6. The resident came to the Ombudsman saying that it was not true that the landlord had completed the relevant works. She said the landlord had made her sign off repairs even when they were not completed, implying that they would not complete other repairs if she did not do so. She said that in the 4 years she had lived at the property she had had to redecorate twice and lift the carpets due to mould. She said the landlord was “without empathy”. She said she wanted all the repairs to be completed, for 1 year’s rent to be reimbursed and for compensation for the stress and mental and physical strain the damage to her belongings had caused.
  7. The resident says that, while the landlord has recently completed partial works, it has still not addressed the fundamental issues with damp and mould at the property, particularly with the damp proof course.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint in January 2023 and responded to through the landlord’s complaint’s process, which ended in May 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and 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. We have however, referred to events prior to those referred to in the January 2023 complaint where relevant to our consideration and to provide context.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould throughout the property.

  1. This Service’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; and clearly communicate to residents about actions. The Ombudsman’s view, expressed in that report, is that landlords should ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the situation.
  2. According to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), damp and mould are assessed as category one hazards caused by reduced ventilation and increased humidity. Preventive measures that could have a significant effect on ventilation and moisture production include:
    1. Damp proof courses, membranes and detailing around doors and window openings;
    2. External fabric kept in good repair to avoid rain penetration;
    3. Properly installed drainage;
    4. Properly installed and maintained rainwater goods;
    5. Properly ventilated roof and under floor spaces to ensure timber remains air dry;
    6. Continuous low-level background ventilation where necessary;
    7. Sufficient means of ventilation to cope with moisture from normal domestic activities without the need to open windows that could lead to heat loss, noise and security risks;
  3. The landlord does not have a repairs policy. However, it says it has a service level agreement to complete repairs within 28 days.
  4. The resident has been complaining about damp and mould since late 2019. As noted above, the landlord agreed to complete works and provided a certificate of completion in relation to those works, dated 30 September 2022. To address the damp and mould, it said that the walls and ceilings had been brushed down and anti-fungicide solution applied in the kitchen, living room and bedroom.
  5. However, in October 2022 the landlord attended the property to complete a further damp and mould survey. It made a number of recommendations to address damp and mould.
  6. The resident said that damp and mould persisted at the property and complained on 28 January 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response on 29 March 2023, the landlord said that it visited the resident on 20 February 2023 to investigate her reports. It said that repairs were discussed and that all the jobs raised were completed or in the process of being completed within the service level agreement of 28 days.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it visited the property on 21 March 2023 to, among other things, treat the damp and mould throughout the property. It returned on 29 March 2023, to complete the works. It reported that it also boarded the inside of the bin cupboard and applied mould wash where required.
  8. At stage 2 of the complaints process, on 24 May 2023, the landlord referred to the history of damp and mould at the property. It said it had completed a damp and mould wash after reports of the issue in December 2019. It also referred to previous damp and mould surveys in February 2020 and in October 2022, when it said a number of recommendations were made. These were:
    1. Clearing the guttering of moss, vegetation, and debris.
    2. Reducing ground levels to the front planting areas and addressing mortar pointing as this posed the risk of bridging the damp proof course (DPC) and allowing penetrating damp.
    3. Ensuring the rainwater down pipe discharged onto the block paving.
    4. Establishing the level of the DPC to the rear elevation. It said if this was breached, it may need to take action to ensure an adequate gap was achieved.
  9. It said those works had all now been completed and a damp and mould team were due to follow up with a phone call or inspection to confirm that there were no further issues or evidence that the damp and mould was returning.
  10. However, it is not clear that the steps the October 2022 surveyor recommended were completed within a reasonable period or at all. The landlord’s records note it arranged to complete works to clear the guttering and the other recommendations on 11 April 2022. It is marked that they were completed on 27 October 2022. However, the works could not have been raised on 11 April 2022 as the October 2022 survey had not happened at that stage. Further records from 2 March 2023 indicate the landlord raised a job to clear the gutters at the property on that date, which is an indication that the issues had still to be addressed. It could have been a repeat visit, but the records are unclear. The records say the works were completed on 21 March 2023. This is not within the landlord’s 28-day timeframe for repairs. Instead, it took almost 6 months, which is inappropriate.
  11. The October 2022 survey also said that the landlord understood the high damp readings in the bedroom cupboard were linked to the external rainwater downpipe. It said that when that issue was resolved and the plaster dried, it expected the problem to stop. However, the records do not report that any work was done to address or remove the waterpipe. The only record says that on 21 March 2023 part of the drainpipe was to be removed. It is unclear if this job related to the suggested works that the landlord said should be undertaken to the external rainwater downpipe.
  12. When the landlord was responding to the Ombudsman’s enquiries in April 2024, it said that there were some remaining works to be completed regarding the damp and mould recommendations. It said these were to:
    1. Lower the external ground levels 150mm below the DPC.
    2. Install drains to the front and back of the property, and
    3. To apply a liquid damp proof membrane below the DPC level.
  13. Despite the landlord claiming in May 2023 that it had completed all the recommendations made in October 2022, this does not appear to have been the case.
  14. It is notable that a survey conducted of the property in August 2021 (which the landlord would have been aware of), had already said that the “…low-level mould growth [was] considered to be due to the DPC being breached externally due to several raised beds and the ground-level extending above the DPC.” It also commented that the gutters were blocked, which, it said, was one of the causes of penetrating dampness.
  15. Our investigation covers the period after September 2022. However, it is inappropriate that the resident has been experiencing damp and mould issues at the property for some time. While the landlord took some steps to respond, it is concerning that the problem was reoccurring and that its records are not clear whether it took proper notice of the issues recorded in the August 2021 report or that it fully completed recommendations that were made in October 2022 to address the issue and prevent recurrence. This poor response to repeated issues involving damp and mould at the property, particularly after the October 2022 recommendations, amounts to maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, taking into account the significant impact this failure will have caused the resident we have ordered a payment at the higher end of our scale for maladministration.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about outstanding repairs.

  1. In relation to the resident’s complaint about cracks in the ceiling, the records show that the landlord responded to this report on 21 March 2023 and completed the work on 27 March 2023. This aligns with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response that works were either being completed or had been completed.
  2. However, confusingly, the records also show that the landlord raised another job to fill cracks in the ceiling on 27 April 2023 and that this was completed on 23 May 2023. The note on the file says, “Cracks going through ceilings in all rooms.” The records show this was not completed until 13 July 2023. Therefore, on the available evidence, it seems that the cracks to the resident’s ceilings were not, in fact filled or the work completed when the landlord said. Therefore, on the evidence, the landlord failed to provide an adequate service in this regard.
  3. In relation to the resident’s complaint about issues with her boiler, from September 2022, which is the period we are investigating, there were some call outs from the resident to the landlord about the boiler. On 28 December 2022 the landlord attended as the resident reported her boiler was not working. It reported that it replaced a valve. In February 2023 it attended again and this time checked the system, vented the radiators and adjusted the boiler temperature.  In its complaint response, while the landlord acknowledged that the resident had had issues with the boiler in the past, going back to 2020, it noted that she had not reported any issues more recently, apart from the February 2023 visit. The available records indicate that this was correct and shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports.
  4. In relation to the resident’s complaint that the property ceiling and loft hatch were leaking, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it understood that these issues were caused by the blocked guttering. It said that this had now been cleared. However, as set out above, the recommendation to clear the gutters had been made in October 2022. The records indicate that this did not happen until 21 March 2023. This was a failure of the landlord to acknowledge that its delay in addressing the gutters could have contributed to the leaks, rather than simply saying the problem was now resolved, which is inappropriate.
  5. In relation to the complaint the resident made about the property’s bathroom shower, extractor fan and issues with the bath and toilet, the landlord said it would inspect the plug and seal on the bath. However, it said these reports were not part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This was correct and an appropriate response. The records also show that the bathroom fan and shower cord were replaced on 13 March 2023.
  6. In relation to the resident’s complaint that the property doors became stuck and windows leaked water, in its stage 2 response the landlord said that the issue with the resident’s doors getting stuck had been addressed in her earlier disrepair claim. It said it understood that both her front and back door locks were changed as part of that response, and it could find no evidence of further issues or works raised after that. It said it would arrange an inspection to ensure no repairs were required. The records show this was raised as an issue on 27 April 2023. They show that the repairs were completed on 16 May 2023, which indicates some work was necessary. However, as the resident appears to have first reported the issue through her complaint, this was an appropriate response.
  7. In summary, the records are not clear that either the guttering work or the cracks in the resident’s ceilings were addressed when the landlord said they would be. This means we have made a service failure finding in this regard.

On the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

  1. At stage 1 of the complaints process the resident complained that operatives failed to keep appointments or turned up unannounced with no notice.
  2. The resident also reported an incident on 9 May 2023. The resident contacted the landlord to say it had booked an appointment for between 8 am and 1pm. However, the resident said she had stressed that she needed an operative to attend earlier as she had an appointment. She said the operative attended at 12:40 pm when she was on her way out and the contractors were rude to her.
  3. The landlord spoke with the contractor. It said that the resident had asked that they attend after 9am and had booked an appointment for between 11am and 2 pm. They understood that the resident would be in that day.
  4. It is not possible to say why this occurred. There may have been a miscommunication. Being presented with varying accounts, this Service cannot say which party’s account is the more accurate. We do not find a service failure because, even on the resident’s account, the landlord attended within a planned timeslot, albeit later than she would have liked. We cannot determine whether the contractor was rude. The landlord acted appropriately in trying to investigate what had happened. Further, at stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord confirmed that it had spoken with its contractors. It assured her that there was no intention to humiliate the resident and that they would try and support her to complete repairs in a way that made her feel comfortable.
  5. However, in relation to the attendance time for operatives, the landlord’s records show operatives should have been aware that the resident did not want any attendance until after 9:30am as she would not be able to answer the door until her carer attended. Even though this note was on file, the records show that on 21 March 2023 an operative did try and attend at 8:22am and 9:07am on that day. The record noted that the resident refused access and they returned later. This should not have happened. The resident felt it showed a failure to have consideration for her disability. This was a service failure because it showed a lack of consideration for the resident’s circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould throughout the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of outstanding repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1200 in compensation. The payment should be made within four weeks, comprising:
    1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the delay in completing works recommended in October 2022.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s service failure regarding outstanding repairs.
    3. £100 for the distress caused and inconvenience caused by the service failure in relation to staff conduct.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide an apology to the resident within 4 weeks.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should arrange for a full survey of the property and confirm, with evidence, that the recommendations made in October 2022 have been completed. If any issues relating to damp and mould remain, within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord should provide a schedule of works setting out its action plan to remedy those issues. It should provide a copy to both the Ombudsman and the resident.