Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202219208)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219208

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

6 June 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of disrepair and damp & mould in his porch.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a three- bedroom house.
In 2018, the resident reported concerns he had about the state of his porch which was a twin porch with a shared middle wall. He informed the landlord that the porch was rotten and he was concerned that it might collapse. In 2019, the landlord completed extensive repairs to the porch including installing a manual vent, repairing the walls, ceiling, window frames and door.
On 18 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord stating that the recently decorated porch was ‘quickly falling apart’. He said the walls were cracking and the new paint was flaking off. The landlord raised a repair job on 21 June 2022, and attended on 19 September 2022. The outcome of this visit is unclear.
The resident made a formal complaint on 19 September 2022. In summary he stated that despite recent decoration to the porch, the paint was flaking off and there was mould on every wall including the ceiling. He also stated that both of his children had health conditions that were impacted by mould.
The landlord did not register or acknowledge the resident’s complaint of 19 September 2022. The resident then made another complaint on 25 October 2022. In summary he stated as follows:

The porch had been visited by the landlord’s representatives on numerous occasions over the last 2 years, and he had been informed that the porch would be fixed, rebuilt, or dismantled. The team that attended previously were unable to offer a permanent fix.
There was a significant amount of mould inside the porch, the paint was flaking off and the structure was unstable.
His children suffered from medical conditions that were impacted by mould. He felt the landlord had ignored his concerns around his children’s health being impacted by mould.
The issue had been dragged out and delayed beyond reasonable timeframes.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s second complaint on 26 October 2022 and issued a stage 1 response on 11 November 2022. In summary it stated as follows:

That it had reviewed previous notes and asked its building surveyors to attend the property on 9 November 2022 to assess the condition of the porch.
The surveyor reported that the porch was outside the thermal envelope of the property and not a habitable space.
That its recent report of 9 November 2022 considered the structure to be safe and it would not remove the porch.
Since wet boots and coats were stored in the porch, there was always the possibility of mould forming on surfaces within the porch when warm air from the main property was released onto the cold surfaces of the porch.
It noted that there was ventilation to the porch by way of a passive vent.
It could not find any evidence that it agreed to remove the porch.
It noted that it had previously arranged for a contractor to carry out works on the resident’s porch in 2019 which included but was not limited to, the reglazing of glass, fitting on a manual air vent, treatment of damp & mould effected areas, and decorative works.
It apologised for the level of service the resident had received.
It did not uphold the complaint; it encouraged the resident to report any issues that needed repair to the customer services team.

The resident made an escalation request on 11 November 2022, in summary he stated as follows:

He disagreed with the decision reached after the inspection of 9 November 2022, he said he did not believe the contractor inspected the property.
That there was a large amount of mould growing rapidly in the porch.
Even though the porch was not considered a habitable space, it was directly attached to the main entrance and any air movement caused by an

opened door carried a risk of himself and his children inhaling the mould.

That given his children’s medical conditions, this should be permanently addressed.
That specific disrepair to the porch should have been picked up during the inspection like the splitting joints that linked the window frames on the left side of the porch and the flaking paint on the ceiling.
The porch was getting flooded during intense rain fall.
His neighbour’s had displayed antisocial behavior towards him.
The landlord was discriminating against him.

The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 22 November 2022 and raised a job on 30 November 2022, with a target date of 12 December 2022 to carry out an MOT, Damp and Mould survey and to address the leak issue.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 December 2022, in summary it stated as follows:

It stated that on receipt of the resident’s complaint it followed due process in both the registration of his complaint and issuing him with a complaint acknowledgement within one day of the complaint being registered.
It responded within twelve working days of the stage one complaint being registered with the resident’s prior agreement to extend this from ten working days.
It arranged for a building surveyor to attend the property on 09 November 2022. The feedback from this visit was that the porch structure was in satisfactory condition and as such there was no intention to have it removed.
That the porch was outside of the property and was not considered a habitable space. It also noted that the porch had existing ventilation in place.
It noted that as the porch was not a habitable space any access to and from it should not present a health risk but agreed to attend to complete a damp and mould inspection.
It could not find any evidence to suggest any of its representatives had advised that the structure would be removed.
Looking through its records, it established that in 2019, it had undertaken significant works to repair the porch.
That in its stage 1 response whilst it did not consider it necessary to remove the porch, it encouraged the resident to raise any further repair request.
It did not uphold the complaint.

After the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident contacted this Service, stating he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and his children’s health had become worse because of the damp and mould in the porch.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 and agreed to remove the porch, it arranged for a feasibility study to determine how to proceed with removing his side of the porch while leaving his neighbours side intact. The landlord subsequently removed the porch sometime between August and September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated that he has experienced issues with the porch since 2018. This Service has seen evidence of porch repairs completed in 2019. Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period usually 6 months. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from 18 June 2022 to 7 December when the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
The resident has complained about the effects of damp and mould on his children’s health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould in the porch and the decline in the resident’s children’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider that their children’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. We have however considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident might have experienced during this time.
The resident complained about several new issues in his escalation request such as:
1. The porch getting flooded during intense rain fall.
2. His neighbour’s displaying antisocial behaviour towards him.
3. The landlord discriminating against him.
4. Disrepair to the window frames on the left side of the porch.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure. “In this instance the resident would need to log a complaint with the landlord about the above issues as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to bring the new complaints to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair and damp & mould in his porch.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has separate categories for different repairs, including routine and planned repairs. Routine repairs are carried out where there is no risk to the resident’s home but the issue may cause inconvenience. These take 28 days to complete. Planned repairs are for fencing and larger building works where there is no risk to the home. These take 90 days to complete. The landlord accepted it was responsible for completing repairs to the porch, these repairs are classed as planned repairs which should be completed in 90 days.
When a resident makes a repair request, this Service would expect the landlord to attend within the timeframe specified in its policy and keep clear records of repair appointments & outcomes from such visit. It would also expect the landlord to inform the resident of scheduled visits and communicate the outcome of these visits and any subsequent plans to remedy the repair.
The resident made his initial repair request on 18 June 2022 and the landlord attended on 19 September 2022. This was 3 days outside of its timeframe for planned repairs. Furthermore, the landlord’s repair records do not include any entry for what happened during this visit. Also, there is no evidence to show the outcome of this visit was shared with the resident. Whilst the landlord was only 3 days outside of its timeframe for planned repairs this Service would have expected it to have shared any plans for future repairs on the porch with the resident. The landlord’s action was unreasonable and understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Following on from the resident’s initial complaint on 19 September 2022, there are various entries on the landlord’s internal records systems about the landlord attending the property to complete multiple jobs between 21 September 2022, and 19 October 2022. However, the records did not include any explanation of what jobs were raised or completed. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord not keeping clear records was a failing and not in line with this Service’s expectation with regards to robust record keeping. This Service will be making an order with regards to record keeping at the end of this report.
The landlord’s records showed its building surveyor attended the property on 9 November 2022. However, there is no evidence indicating the resident was informed of this visit prior to the landlord attending. Furthermore, after the building surveyor attended the landlord did not share the reports of the visit with the resident, this led to him questioning if the visit even took place and further damaging his trust in the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident of this visit and given him an opportunity to be available when the surveyor attended the property so he could highlight any areas of concern he had. This lack of communication from the landlord was not reasonable and would have caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s building surveyor concluded that the porch structure was in satisfactory condition and as such there was no intention to have it removed. A landlord would be entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not dismantle the porch was reasonable in the circumstances.
Although the landlord was reasonable in heeding the advice of its surveyor in relation to not dismantling the porch there were failures identified with regards to its record keeping, its level of communication and not attending the property within its planned repairs timeframe.
The resident raised several concerns in relation to damp and mould in his porch. Reports of damp and mould would normally fall under the landlords’ routine repairs policy and should take 28 days to complete. However, in its self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould the landlord states the following:
1. When a damp & mould case is reported, it aims to carry out a home MOT within 10 working days of the report, complete a mould- wash and then, if necessary, refer to its Asset team for a building survey.
The resident reported damp and mould in his porch in his initial complaint of 19 September 2022 and in his subsequent complaint on 25 October 2022. Although the porch was not classified as a habitable space, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown it was taking the resident’s concerns about the presence of damp and mould and the impact on his children’s health seriously by completing an MOT and damp & mould survey in accordance with its published timeframe.
Whilst the landlord did acknowledge the need for an MOT and damp and mould survey and raised an order for this on 30 November 2022, this was 36 days from when the resident made his initial report of damp and mould on 25 October 2022. This was outside the landlord’s routine repairs policy of 28 days and its damp and mould policy of 10 working days. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s record keeping, its level of communication, not attending the property within its planned repairs timeframe of 90 days and its routine repairs timeframe of 28 days. Considering these failures, this Service finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair and damp & mould in his porch and an order for compensation has been made below in line with this Service remedies guidance.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s records showed that the resident made an initial complaint on 19 September 2022, however the landlord did not register or acknowledge this complaint.
The resident then made another complaint on 27 October 2022, which it acknowledged and responded to in accordance with its timeframe. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why it did not consider the resident’s initial complaint of 19 September 2022. This was a failure on the part of the landlord and would have understandably caused the resident to think his complaint was not being seriously, thereby prompting him to make another complaint and increasing the distress and inconvenience he already experienced around the situation.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response, that the resident agreed to an extension from 10 to 12 days for it to provide its stage 1 complaint response. However, there is no record of any communication exchanged with the resident showing when this was agreed. This was not reasonable and not in line with this Service expectation regarding maintaining robust records.
In his escalation request the resident raised new issues including reports of antisocial behaviour by his neighbour, reports of discrimination by the landlord, disrepair to the porch windows and reports of the porch getting flooded when it rained. This Service would expect the landlord to inform the resident if it intended to register the new issues as a new complaint or sign post the resident on how to make a new complaint or report.
The landlord was reasonable in providing clear advice and signposting the resident on how to raise antisocial behaviour reports and in raising repairs to inspect the leaks in the porch. However, it did not sufficiently address the resident’s reports of discrimination. This likely led to the resident making a subsequent complaint about discrimination to the landlord. The landlord should have directed the resident to make a separate complaint regarding the discrimination concerns. The landlord’s action in not addressing this element of the resident’s escalation request was not reasonable and understandably caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
This Service finds that there was Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and an order for compensation has been made below in line with this Service remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of disrepair and damp & mould in his porch.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £550 compensation comprised as follows:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to reports of disrepair and damp & mould.
2. £300 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so the landlord must self-assess against this Service spotlight report on knowledge and information in relation to its record keeping procedures. It must share its assessment with this Service. This assessment should include what improvements have been made to ensure improvement in its record keeping.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.