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

Colchester City Council (202343106)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343106

Colchester City Council

29 January 2025


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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould and related window repairs.
    2. Repairs to the intercom.
    3. Reports of excessive dust in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. At the time of his complaint, he lived in a 2-bedroom first floor flat with his wife and 2 children.
  2. After the resident moved into the property, he raised several issues which included problems with damp and mould. The resident suspected that part of the issue with the damp and mould was down to the state of the property’s windows. In addition, the resident raised issues with the property’s intercom system.
  3. On 4 December 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould issues and the failure to carry out repairs to the property windows as agreed. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 20 December 2023 which did not uphold the complaint. After the complaint was escalated on 2 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 January 2024. The landlord’s response said:
    1. The repair works detailed in its stage 1 response did not include all the works that had been previously agreed, but that all works had now been completed.
    2. That it acknowledged the confusion caused and apologised for the delay in conducting the repair work.
    3. Due to the delays experienced it would offer £100 in compensation.
  4. The resident raised a new complaint on 6 March 2024 due to the delays in completing repairs to the intercom. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay and advised that the contractor dealing with the intercom issue had struggled to obtain the required parts. The resident escalated this complaint on 14 March 2024 and the landlord issued its final response on 16 April 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay and the inconvenience caused. It also reassured the resident that it was working with its contractor to enhance signage, so residents were better informed when the system was being repaired.
  5. The resident raised a further complaint about the ongoing damp and mould issue on 18 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 April 2024 and did not uphold the complaint. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 April 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 10 May 2024. The landlord said:
    1. It apologised for the delays in completing recommendations made after surveys and inspections.
    2. That it would like to offer £500 in compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience and distress caused.
    3. To continue working with the resident it wanted to arrange a meeting to discuss the replacement window programmed works and other actions it could take.
  6. On 30 April 2024 the resident raised a complaint about excessive dust in his property. He explained that this may be due to a fire that happened before he had moved in, as the dust was related to leftover soot deposits. He said that this was causing problems with his and his family’s medical conditions, which included asthma. The landlord responded on 24 May 2024 at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said that its cleaning and redecoration works were carried out at the time of the fire in 2015 and that these works were conducted in accordance with the appropriate requirements. However, to resolve the issue it would like to meet with the resident to discuss a way forward.
  7. Following air quality tests, the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 5 September 2024. The specific complaint about excessive dust was not responded to at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. Following further discussions, a schedule of works was proposed, but these were put on hold by the resident on 14 October 2024. No further action was taken in relation to this, and on 2 December 2024 the resident began a new tenancy with the landlord after being allocated a 3-bedroom house.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 27 February 2024. The Ombudsman has seen that the resident raised several complaints before the one in December 2023. However, these complaints exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure more than 12 months prior to 27 February 2024.
  2. In the interest of fairness, this Service will only consider complaints that are referred within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, any complaints raised prior to February 2023 have not been investigated as part of this case. This investigation has primarily focussed on the resident’s most recent formal complaints from December 2023, March, and April 2024. These complaints deal with the actions of the landlord from June 2023 onwards.
  3. While the resident’s complaint about excessive dust has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman can investigate a complaint where it is of the opinion that there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the landlord has not acted in a reasonable timescale. In this instance as the resident asked to escalate his complaint in September 2024, and this was not done, it is fair to include this as part of the investigation.
  4. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has said that the landlord’s actions have caused or made worse the health conditions of him and his family. While this Service is an alternative to the courts it is unable to establish legal liability or determine that the landlord’s actions or inaction has had an impact on the health of a resident. Instead, this Service will consider whether the landlord responded to these concerns in an appropriate way.

Damp and mould and window repairs

  1. On 6 July 2023 a surveyor caried out a damp inspection report on the resident’s property. The surveyor recommended that:
    1. Mould affected surfaces should be cleaned down and a mould wash be conducted.
    2. Vegetation should be cut back and cleared at the rear of the property.
    3. A check to the integrity of the downpipe near the front bedroom should be conducted.
    4. Heating installations should be repaired and planned replacement within 5 years should be considered.
    5. Window repairs would be required and a planned replacement within 5 years should be considered.
  2. Following the inspection, the heating system was replaced on 25 August 2023. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable as it used its discretion to go beyond the surveyor’s recommendation of a repair and replacement within 5 years. Instead, it decided to immediately replace the heating system.
  3. However, the work to carry out a mould wash was not completed until October 2023, the work to complete the repair to the downpipe was not conducted until February 2024 and the work to cut back the vegetation was not completed until May 2024. The time taken to complete these repairs of 3, 7 and 10 months respectively was unreasonable. While the damp inspection did not consider there were any structural issues with the resident’s property, it is important to complete any recommended works within a reasonable time. The landlord’s repair policy for ‘routine’ repairs says that these should be completed within 20 working days. These repairs were completed significantly outside of its own repairs policy which caused the resident some distress and inconvenience.
  4. The landlord did attend the resident’s property on 24 November 2023 to complete the recommended window repairs. However, while it was able to finish part of the job, some of the recommended works needed to be passed to a specialist contractor to complete. It is not unusual for a referral to be made to a contractor to complete more specialised works. However, there was an unreasonable delay of 4 months in attending the resident’s property to complete the initial work. This delay frustrated the resident and caused some distress and inconvenience.
  5. This impact was exacerbated by the failure to effectively communicate and manage the resident’s expectations. The resident had expected all the relevant work to be completed by the landlord on 24 November 2023 as this was implied in an email sent to the resident on 16 November 2023. The landlord’s failure to properly explain the potential scenarios (such as a referral if matters became more complex), increased the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. Following the referral, the contractor met with the resident on 14 December 2023 and arranged an appointment for 12 and 15 January 2024 to:
    1. Conduct mould treatment to 2 bedrooms.
    2. Thermal board the kitchen.
    3. Replace 2 bedroom window gaskets.
    4. Conduct work to the patio door.
  7. Following further discussion with the resident the landlord attended and completed the following work in January 2024:
    1. It replaced the gasket seals to the windows in the lounge, kitchen and 2 bedrooms.
    2. Silicone was replaced to the patio door and bath.
    3. Mould treatments and paint was carried out to the 2 bedrooms.
    4. It thermal boarded and painted an area in the kitchen.
  8. The actions of the landlord between December 2023 and January 2024 were reasonable. After the referral to the contractor, work was agreed and completed in a timely manner. While the repairs did not take place within the 20-day repair timescale, this was due to agreeing a more convenient time for the repairs to take place with the resident.
  9. The resident raised a new complaint on 18 March 2024 and advised that mould in his property was still appearing despite the previous work and that this was having an impact on his and his family’s health. In its stage 1 response, dated 3 April 2024, the landlord summarised the work it had already completed and referred to the July 2023 survey.
  10. While the landlord can rely on surveys conducted by appropriately qualified people, it is important that any action is based on up-to-date information. When looking at the survey from July 2023, it says within the ‘limitations’ section that, “The inspection is snapshot in time with defects recorded that were evident at the time.” As the resident was reporting that the mould had returned following the recommended works being conducted, it was unreasonable for the landlord to rely on an outdated survey. This failure to promptly act on the resident’s new reports increased the resident’s distress, inconvenience and upset over the situation.
  11. After the stage 1 response was issued, the landlord continued to liaise with the resident. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about his and his family’s health and contacted its housing options team about this to ensure it was considered as part of the resident’s ongoing request to move home. It also advised that it could install a smart thermostat device. It explained that the device would capture readings for humidity, air pressure and temperature that would help the landlord identify potential issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to take these steps in order to try and find a permanent solution to the issues raised.
  12. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 April 2024 as he remained unhappy with the steps the landlord had offered to resolve the outstanding damp and mould issues. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays in completing some of the previous recommended actions. It advised the resident that it would like to meet with him to discuss the outstanding issues, such as the potential for replacement windows under its planned programme of works. The offer of a meeting to discuss the outstanding work and agree a plan of action was reasonable. This showed a willingness by the landlord to listen to the resident’s concerns and take steps to help.
  13. The meeting took place on 16 July 2024. While it took 3 months to organise the meeting, this was due to negotiation over the meeting terms and agenda. The resident made several requests to the landlord, such as making a recording of the meeting, which needed to be considered by the landlord before an agreement could be reached. The evidence shows that the landlord considered all requests made by the resident and consulted internally with the appropriate teams before agreeing a mutually convenient time to attend the resident’s property.
  14. Following the meeting the landlord promptly provided a summary of the agreed actions on 19 July 2024 which included, among other things, the installation of a smart thermostat, a borescope inspection, a review of the window replacement schedule for the resident’s property and ventilation works. This was an example of effective communication from the landlord which gave relevant information and helped manage expectations.
  15. The landlord reasonably carried out the initial works agreed in the meeting between July and August 2024. This included:
    1. Installing a smart thermostat on 26 July 2024.
    2. Conducting a cavity wall inspection on 12 August 2024.
    3. Reviewing the heating system on 15 August 2024.
    4. Assessing the ventilation system on 31 August 2024.
  16. Following this initial work a schedule of works was produced and sent to the resident on 3 October 2024 for approval. This was sent within a reasonable time as the landlord needed to deal with the results of the air quality tests it had performed before it could set out the works that were required.
  17. Despite the resident originally agreeing to the schedule of works, it was confirmed with him that the works were on hold due to the concerns he had about the air quality test results and the refusal to agree an appointment. No further works took place, and the resident was offered a new property. The landlord’s actions during this period were reasonable as it attempted to agree an appointment date for the relevant works to begin. The landlord was in consistent communication with the resident and was clear in the actions it could and could not take.
  18. The Ombudsman understands that complaints involving damp and mould can become complex when the cause is not easily identifiable. In this instance there is evidence of significant delays in carrying out the recommended actions from the July 2023 survey. There is also evidence that the landlord’s communication between July 2023 and April 2024 was poor and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. However, once the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024 it was more proactive in its handling of the resident’s concerns and showed a willingness to investigate and find a more permanent resolution.
  19. As part of its complaint handling across the resident’s 2 complaints, the landlord offered a total of £600 for the delay, distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s own remedies policy states that it offers a range of remedies including compensation which will reflect the detriment caused because of its failings. This Service’s guidance on remedies says that where there has been a failing that has had a significant impact on the resident a payment of between £600 to £1,000 is appropriate.
  20. While it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered a remedy, the Ombudsman does not consider this remedy to suitably recognise the full impact the delays had on the resident. Therefore, taking all the circumstances into account the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration and a total payment of £850 inclusive of the £600 already offered should be made.
  21. This compensation figure suitably recognises the significant impact to the resident. It is not at the lower end of the remedy scale as throughout the period in question, the resident consistently had to chase the landlord to ensure the appropriate steps were being taken and the communication from the landlord about the repairs was not always prompt and effective. The resident also had to deal with the worry of living in a property that was potentially damaging to his and his family’s health for an extended period.

Excessive dust

  1. Following the visit of an electrician on 29 April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say that he was told that the dust in his property may be related to soot which was left over from a fire in 2015. The resident raised this issue as a complaint with the landlord on 1 May 2024, and advised that there were people within the household with asthma. The initial response by the landlord was reasonable, it explained that as this was a historical issue that it would need some time to investigate. It provided the resident with a 30-day timeframe for a response and reassured him that the issue would be investigated fully.
  2. The landlord provided its response on 24 May 2024 which was within the timeframe it had provided. Within the response it confirmed the historical action it had taken in 2015 relating to cleaning and redecoration works. It advised that the works were conducted to the specified requirements at the time. The landlord explained that to resolve the issue it would like to meet with the resident and arrange a specialist contractor to conduct an inspection and air quality testing. The actions and steps suggested by the landlord were reasonable. It showed a willingness to investigate the issue of dust and work with the resident to find a suitable resolution.
  3. As discussed previously, the meeting was delayed until July 2024 due to negotiation over the meeting terms and agenda. At this meeting it was agreed that an air quality test would commence the week beginning 22 July 2024. This test was conducted on 24 July 2024, and the results were passed to the landlord on 13 August 2024. The landlord notified the resident that it needed to clarify some information in the report, and once this was done the report was shared on 29 August 2024. This shows that the landlord was being proactive in attempting to deal with the issue of excessive dust, it was communicating frequently with the resident to ensure that he was kept updated.
  4. The landlord summarised the reports findings to the resident on 29 August 2024. It explained that the recommendations were to improve ventilation in the flat and to investigate elevated levels of formaldehyde that had been detected in the property. It explained that its proposal was for a specialist to explore options for monitoring, testing, and devising an action plan to identify the cause of the formaldehyde. It also would arrange for a ventilation assessment to take place. The landlord went on to offer the resident a temporary move while the tests and remedial action was completed. It explained that it understood the resident’s concerns about his and his family’s health, and that a temporary move may alleviate some of the worry caused. The proposed actions by the landlord and offer of temporary accommodation was appropriate in the circumstances. It followed the recommendations within the report and showed it was considerate of the resident’s health concerns.
  5. Between 29 and 30 August 2024, the landlord and resident continued to liaise about the test results. The resident provided his opinion on the results and the potential impact this may have had on his family’s health. He requested the landlord consider offering a permanent move from the home. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s requests were appropriate. It maintained that it would follow the recommendations in the report and that a temporary move could be offered. It also advised that once additional data was available that this would be passed to its ‘housing options’ team to consider the impact as part of a medical matrix in their assessment of the resident’s banding.
  6. The ventilation system was assessed on 31 August 2024 and recommendations were made on relevant repairs. The landlord confirmed that these recommendations would be completed as part of the schedule of works that it was agreeing with its contractor and the resident. This approach was reasonable, the landlord promptly acted upon the recommendations within the assessor’s report and organised for the repairs to take place.
  7. The resident raised several questions to the landlord between 31 August and 5 September 2024 about the further air quality tests that would be conducted. Where it could the landlord answered these questions itself, where the questions were more technical it referred to the specialist contractor for an answer. Once this information was received from the specialist, it sent the answers to the resident. The landlord’s actions here were reasonable, it considered each of the resident’s points and questions and consulted with the specialist to provide appropriate answers.
  8. The further air quality tests took place on 12 and 16 September 2024. The specialist provided the results on 27 September 2024. The landlord then provided a summary and detailed the next steps in a letter issued to the resident on 3 October 2024. In the letter the landlord said:
    1. To address the resident’s concerns about his home and the potential impact on his family’s health it had conducted inspections and surveys.
    2. Following the relevant tests the formaldehyde found within the property did not present an indoor air quality risk at the levels detected.
    3. That after receiving the data into the air quality, it was satisfied that no further investigation was required, and that the property was safe to reside in.
    4. That the data and concerns put forward by the resident had been passed on to the housing options team, and that this team had awarded the resident its highest banding within the allocations policy.
  9. The landlord then provided a schedule of works to the resident on 3 October 2024 which followed the recommendations made in the reports and surveys. The actions of the landlord between 12 September and 3 October 2024 were reasonable. The landlord continued its investigation into the air quality issue based on the findings and information provided in the specialist reports. The landlord then acted on those recommendations in a prompt way.
  10. The resident queried the accuracy of the tests and the findings of the report in an email dated 3 October 2024. The landlord contacted the specialist with the challenges made by the resident, but was advised that the questions raised would not influence or change the results of the test, nor the recommended actions. On 14 October the landlord reiterated that it would not repeat any further tests, and that any remedial work was on hold awaiting the resident’s agreement.
  11. While the Ombudsman can understand that the resident was frustrated with the landlord’s stance on the results of the tests, the landlord was entitled to rely on the recommendations and findings of the specialist. The evidence shows that the landlord took the matter seriously, was proactive in arranging steps to evaluate the air quality and arrange remedial work based on the report recommendations. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the excessive dust issue.

Intercom

  1. The initial action by the landlord in dealing with the intercom repair was reasonable. After a report that the intercom system was not working on 20 September 2023 it promptly referred the job to a contractor who arranged an appointment to attend on 24 October 2023. The contractor logged that a follow-on job was required to replace the handset.
  2. The resident chased the landlord for an update to the repair on 30 January 2024. He said that after the visit in October 2023, he had heard nothing further. The landlord responded on 14 February 2024 to say that the contractor had told it that there were issues in finding a replacement handset. While there can be delays in sourcing the correct items, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed of its actions. The resident was required to chase the landlord for an update, and this caused some unnecessary inconvenience.
  3. On 1 March 2024 the contractor confirmed with the landlord that it had received the relevant handset, and the intercom was repaired on 4 March 2024. The time taken of 24 weeks to complete this repair was unreasonable. This was compounded by the failure of the landlord to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair. Taking all the circumstances into account, this amounts to maladministration.
  4. The resident raised a complaint about this issue on 6 March 2024, which was responded to at stage 2 on 16 April 2024. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and advised on future actions it would take to prevent a similar issue happening in the future. While it was good that the landlord acknowledged its failings and set out future actions, this did not compensate the resident for the delay, frustration, and inconvenience.
  5. When looking at this Service’s guidance on remedies, if there has been an adverse effect on the resident which had no permanent impact then a payment of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation which recognises the impact of the delay and failure to communicate, but that the impact stopped once the intercom was fixed.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint handling procedure. At stage 1 the complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and a decision will be made within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 the escalation will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and a response will be provided within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The resident made 4 different complaints which were made on:
    1. 4 December 2023
    2. 6 March 2024
    3. 18 March 2024
    4. 30 April 2024.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the first 3 complaints was reasonable. The complaints raised on 4 December 2023 and 6 March 2024 were responded to at stage 1 and 2 within the landlord’s policy timeframes. The landlord’s responses dealt with the issues raised and provided information on the next steps it would take for the appropriate issue.
  4. The complaint raised on 18 March 2024 was responded to within its policy timescale at stage 1. While its stage 2 response was sent 2 working days outside of its 20-day policy timescale, the landlord told the resident it would require more time. This is in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, in requesting an extension of time to respond to a complaint.
  5. The complaint raised on 30 April 2024 about excessive dust was acknowledged on 1 May 2024. The landlord then requested an extension of time to the 30 May 2024 to provide a stage 1 response as the issue was complex and related to historical matters. The landlord then responded at stage 1 on 24 May 2024, which was within the agreed extension. The landlord’s actions in managing the extension requests were reasonable, and the communication was prompt and effective when dealing with this complaint at stage 1.
  6. The resident requested escalation of this complaint in an email dated 5 September 2024. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this request or provide a stage 2 response. The landlord has explained that it believed this escalation request was related to a complaint the resident had made about his housing application which was responded to at stage 2 on 5 July 2024.
  7. The Ombudsman appreciates that there were multiple complaints ongoing at the same time and the issues raised about dust and the resident’s housing application overlapped. However, the resident was clear in his email of 5 September 2024 that he had issues related to the excessive dust and required a stage 2 letter to refer the matters to the Housing Ombudsman. The failure to provide this stage 2 letter was unreasonable.
  8. However, when taking all the circumstances into account this error amounts to service failure rather than maladministration. This is because the failing did not influence the overall outcome for the resident. Even if a stage 2 letter were sent, it is more likely than not that this would not have resolved the matter. This is because the resident made clear that he was going to refer the matter to this Service “irrespective of the outcomes”. In any event, by September 2024, the resident had already contacted this Service to refer his complaint which means the failure to provide a stage 2 did not delay his escalation.
  9. Therefore, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the time and trouble taken in pursuing a response. This is in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies which says that where there has been a service failure a payment of between £50 and £100 is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The repair to the intercom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of excessive dust.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write an apology to the resident to acknowledge the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £1,150 compensation (inclusive of the £600 already offered), broken down as:
      1. £850 (inclusive of the £600 already offered) for the failings related to the handling of damp and mould.
      2. £200 for the delays in repairing the intercom.
      3. £100 for the failure to provide a stage 2 response.