Folkestone & Hythe District Council (202336218)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336218

Folkestone & Hythe District Council

25 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repair and cleanliness issues in the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident was the introductory tenant of the property at the time of her complaint, a mid-terrace house owned by the landlord. This has now become a secure tenancy. She resides with her child, aged 9 months at the start of the period covered in this report.
The property was empty before the tenancy began and the landlord identified required works during the void period. It completed a final inspection on 1 September 2023, during which it completed some works, and identified others. The resident collected the keys on 4 September 2023. She emailed it the next day to report issues with the property, including urine-stained carpets, multiple leaks, a damaged door, and loose electrical sockets. It responded on 6 September 2023, advising her that it would contact her to arrange repairs of the issues or to explain what it would not do.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 October 2023 as it had not contacted her as agreed. She stated she was unable to move into the property until 18 September 2023 due to the amount of works required. She included a further list of issues she had discovered, including failed damp proofing and associated stains, a cracked manhole cover, historic leak damage to the lounge ceiling, and rotten skirting boards in the downstairs toilet. She had not received a waste bin, despite it telling her it had requested one for delivery. She had continued to pay rent for her old property while paying rent to the landlord as she could not move in straight away.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 25 October 2023. It broke her complaint down to 14 separate points and responded to each one. while apologising that neither its surveyor nor repairs contractor contacted her as agreed.
Also in its response, the landlord stated that the void inspector had asked for it to remove all carpets, so it was unable to explain why it had left any in place. It apologised for this. It acknowledged that the void condition was not up to its normal standard and apologised for this too. It said that none of the issues raised, or snagging works, would have prevented her from moving into the property.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint in a comprehensive email on 16 November 2023 as she felt that the landlord had not adequately addressed all the issues she raised. She stated it had not addressed 3 issues at all, including urine left over the upstairs toilet, active leaks in the property that she had repaired herself, and plaster works in the lounge covering old wallpaper. She responded to the 14 points, disagreeing that the property was in a suitable condition for her to move into, confirming that she had received positive contact from its surveyor and repairs contractor, and disputing other points made by it in its stage 1 response.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 15 December 2023, repeating the 14 points it had written at stage 1. It repeated that there had been a failure when its surveyor and repairs contractor did not contact her, as stated at stage 1. It apologised and offered to credit her rent account with 1 week of rent.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and brought the complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint the resident has reported the effect these delays have had on her and her son’s physical health. The Ombudsman is not able to make a determination about any links between the delays and the resident’s health concerns. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to her physical health is more appropriate for the courts and she may wish to seek appropriate advice if she wishes to consider that option.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy outlines its approach to responsive repairs, void property repairs, and damp and mould. It details its targeted response times for repairs which is within 24 hours for emergencies and within 28 working days for routine. It includes the Right to Repair timescales, which include leaking from a water or heating pipe with a 1 working day timescale. It states that void works or repairs are works required to bring an empty property to a re-lettable standard before a new tenant moves in. When it identifies damp and mould as being caused by structural issues, it will secure a diagnosis before agreeing repair works.
The landlord has provided its guidance for inspections in void properties to ensure they are in a lettable standard. This includes the following actions:
1. Inspect for faults to manhole/inspection covers.
2. Remove all previous tenants’ belongings, furniture, floor coverings including laminated flooring, carpet grippers and make good (unless indicated).
3. Thoroughly wash with disinfectant all floors, woodwork, kitchen units, sanitary fittings, and all other surfaces. If it is to leave carpets in a property, it is to ensure they are clean.
4. Various plumbing actions, including checking the toilets are flushing correctly and checking all pipework.
5. Ensure all double-glazed units are sealed and free from misting.
6. Repair/renew any defective door/window furniture.
7. Investigate any evidence or dampness.
The landlord’s customer feedback and complaints policy explains its 2–stage complaints process and its approach to redress. It states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of receipt and respond within 20 working days. It does not provide a definitive stage 2 response time but does state that a senior manager, independent of the relevant service area, will deal with the complaint. It says that in most cases, the most appropriate remedy to offer is an apology but that in other cases it will be appropriate for it to put right something that it did wrong or failed to do, such as specific repairs. It may consider restorative or financial compensation in circumstances where it is unable to put a customer back into their original position because of a time lapse or other events.

Reports of repair and cleanliness issues.

The landlord completed a void inspection on 17 July 2023, during which it identified required actions and works. These included a large property and garden clearance, removal of all carpets, replacement of vinyl flooring in the kitchen, rear porch, and toilet, a deep clean of the kitchen, multiple repairs to the lounge plasterwork and kitchen units and repair of a leak in the downstairs toilet cistern. It requested replacement recycling and food waste bins on 24 August 2023.
The landlord completed its final inspection on 1 September 2023. It found that the floor covering in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet were not in good repair, which were works it had identified in the July inspection. It replaced the downstairs toilet but there are no notes to show that it repaired the leak that it identified previously. It stated that it had cleaned most rooms, and the kitchen cleaning was in progress during the inspection. It noted on the report that the agreed specifications for the property seemed to be the bare minimum. The inspection report, which included photographs, demonstrated that it had not completed works that it identified previously in the void period, including the replacement of vinyl flooring, replacing the damaged door and the removal of all carpets.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2023, reporting problems in the property, which included issues that it had identified during its inspection on 17 July 2023. These included that she had to remove urine-soaked carpet, she had found multiple leaks from pipework including the previously identified downstairs toilet leak, a damaged door, and issues with plastering in the lounge. She asked it to confirm what it would do to rectify the issues. It replied on the next day stating that it would contact her but gave no timeframe for this. It did not contact her ahead of her complaint on 13 October 2023. This was not in line with its repairs policy, in which the Right to Repair timescales state that a leak from a water pipe should receive a 1 working day response. It was also in contradiction of its letting standards, which include the removal of floor coverings and the repair of faulty supply, waste, and flush pipes.
In her complaint, the resident stated she had received no contact from the landlord as expected. Due to this, she said she had been unable to move into the property until 18 September 2023 as she had to rectify the issues she had reported. She said she had to arrange repairs of the leaks and crumbling plaster around a plug socket she had reported, along with removing rotten skirting boards from the downstairs toilet. It was not reasonable of the landlord to fail to respond to her concerns, leaving her feeling unable to move into the property and having to complete repairs herself in order to do so.
The landlord has provided evidence of its complaint investigation to this Service. This included a series of internal emails sent between 19 and 24 October 2023. The original inspector of the property stated that “at no point before, during, or after the void was the property “uninhabitable” but that they had not been present during the second inspection. The second inspector stated that it had not seen the void specifications or what it needed to do in the property. The original inspector shared these specifications and stated that they thought the landlord had rushed the property handover. They then admitted that there had been no communication about what they needed to do. This demonstrated a clear breakdown in communication and information sharing, and likely contributed to it not completing the required works ahead of the tenancy beginning.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 25 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the property condition was not up to its usual standard and apologised for this too stating that there were lessons to be learnt from this. Its apologies and arranging of a surveyor inspection were appropriate, but it did not offer any form of redress for the works she had undertaken up to that date due to its lack of contact. It apologised for not removing all carpets as it should have done and for failing to contact her following her initial report on 5 September 2023. Its full response to each of the resident’s 14 points is outlined below:
1. She stated the property was not in an acceptable condition when the tenancy began. It acknowledged that there were outstanding snagging works but stated that it could have completed them with her in the property. It said there was no reason she would have been unable to move in.
2. She had reported rotten skirting boards in the downstairs toilet. It stated that it replaced the toilet during the void period after a leak, but it was unable to comment on the skirting boards. It had replaced other skirting boards, so it was surprised that it had not changed these if they were also rotten.
3. The manhole cover in the garden had a large crack in it. It said the garden was overgrown and this would not have been visible until it had completed cutting this back. It asked its surveyor to visit and raise any necessary works.
4. A plug socket in the kitchen was loose from the wall due to crumbling plaster. During its post-void inspection, no plugs were hanging off. It asked its surveyor to check this.
5. She reported that the damp proofing on the external walls had failed, allowing water to penetrate front and rear walls. It said it would ask its surveyor to inspect the walls.
6. She had decorated and the paint was already bubbling and peeling due to damp. It said the plaster was still drying at the void sign off, so would not have been entirely dry.
7. A kitchen wall was replastered by contractors, but it had left an adjacent one with damage. It stated that there was no fault with the adjacent wall and therefore, it would not have plastered it.
8. She reported that her garden waste bin was full of rubbish when she moved in, and she did not feel she should be responsible for paying to empty this. It said it had contacted its contractor and asked it to clear the bin.
9. She said there was damage to the lounge ceiling from a historic leak. It said it would ask its surveyor to look at this.
10. She reported damp stains coming through freshly painted walls. It responded that it had provided a decorating pack, however, before painting, stained walls would require an undercoat.
11. In response to not having a waste bin, it confirmed it ordered this on 24 August 2023. It advised her to log on to her online account to check the status of this.
12. Scaffolding remained at the property following a boiler replacement. It updated her that it had chased its heating contractor who would remove the scaffolding as soon as possible.
13. It had advised her that it would remove the key safe from the external wall, but it remained in place. It said it had asked its contractors to contact her to arrange removal of this.
The landlord sent further internal emails on 26 October 2023. Its repairs team said that once its surveyor had attended and raised required works, it could provide the resident with a further response that the property “just needed extra works” and a denial that the property was uninhabitable. Its complaint handler advised the surveyor that nobody had called her back and there had been a lot of issues, including incomplete void works. This evidence demonstrates that it was aware of significant issues in the property. While the complaint handler was appropriately focused on the resident’s issues and arranging a surveyor inspection, it is concerning that the repairs team were focusing on being able to deny her claims that the property was uninhabitable.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the resident’s property on 30 October 2023. It identified 11 separate required works, 5 of which it had identified during its previous inspections or her report on 5 September 2023. These included works to windows, a replacement door for the identified damaged door, replacement skirting boards in the downstairs toilet, a replacement manhole cover and boarding and replastering works to the living room arch and ceiling. It noted that it was unable to check some of the issues she had reported as she had already rectified these. Nonetheless, the scale of the remaining required works demonstrates a failing in both its void process and its adherence to its own repairs policy, as it had already exceeded its 28 working day target for routine repairs at this stage.
In escalating her complaint to the landlord on 16 November 2023, the resident stated that some matters remained outstanding. She did not feel it had satisfactorily addressed all her concerns or considered the impact on her and her son. She disagreed that the property was ready to move into on 4 September 2023, especially with a baby, when considering the required repairs at the time and those identified since. She noted that it had admitted that the property condition was not up to its usual void standard and said the property was extremely dirty, requiring a deep clean. She was pleased to hear it would be learning lessons from her complaint, but that this did not provide her with any redress for the inconvenience and financial impact she had experienced. She asked it to confirm that she would not be liable for redecoration works and costs once it completed the outstanding works.
No evidence has been provided to this Service to clarify whether the landlord took any action relating to any of the outstanding issues prior to issuing its stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. In its response, it repeated the answers given to the 14 points at stage 1 and reiterated its apology for failing to contact her after her report on 5 September 2023. It said it would raise this with its contractor and repairs team so it could improve future service. It then offered to credit her rent account with the value of 1 week of rent.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. While the landlord apologised for its lack of communication, it failed to acknowledge its failures in the voids process and did not adequately respond to the resident’s concerns at stage 2. At stage 1, it stated that it would learn from its handling of the voids process, but it offered no explanation of how it would do this. Its offer of compensation at stage 2 was low when considering the amount of work the resident had completed in light of its failure to respond to her concerns, which was not reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
In conclusion, the landlord clearly failed to communicate the required works internally during the voids process. While it apologised for not responding to the resident after her email on 5 September 2023, this had left her needing to complete repairs herself so that she could move into the property. It stated internally that the handover had been rushed and during its inspection on 1 September 2023, it noted that the works completed seemed to be the bare minimum. When its surveyor attended on 30 October 2023, it identified an extensive amount of necessary works, some of which included those it had previously identified. This was after the resident had already completed works herself. It did not respond appropriately to her complaint at stage 2 and did not offer remedies in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord appeared to give little consideration to the resident’s circumstances, especially as she had made it aware that she was a single mother with a baby. As such, a finding of severe maladministration is appropriate in the circumstances of this case in relation to its handling of her reports of cleanliness and repair issues in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The resident first mentioned damp and mould in her email to the landlord on 5 September 2023 when she said the damp patches that she had highlighted during her viewing remained. It had not identified any required damp and mould works on either of its inspections in July and September 2023, however, photographs taken by it as part of the 1 September 2023 inspection show mould on the downstairs toilet wall and behind the toilet cistern. It took no action to arrange a damp and mould survey in the property following her report, despite its repairs policy stating it will not arrange works before securing a diagnosis. This was not reasonable as the scale of issues reported by the resident should have triggered it to respond in line with this policy.
In her complaint to the landlord on 13 October 2023, the resident reported that the damp proofing on the exterior walls of the property had failed and was allowing water to penetrate the front and rear walls. She said that freshly painted walls were bubbling and peeling due to damp or water ingress and walls in the lounge had damp stains. It did not inspect the property before providing a complaint response on 25 October 2023, however, as part of its response it said it would arrange for its surveyor to do so. It said that the paint would have been bubbling and peeling because the plaster had not yet fully dried and that if she had not applied an undercoat to the lounge walls, damp stains would come through the paint. Although delayed, it was reasonable of the landlord to request an inspection of the property at this stage. However, it was not appropriate for it to assume that the issues with paint were due to wet plaster without inspection.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 30 October 2023. Following this, it raised 11 separate repairs, including works to an external downpipe, repairing a fracture on the front of the house, insertion of a silicone damp proof course under the kitchen window and repointing the brickwork under the front and rear windows. The nature of the works raised indicated that it had identified issues with damp. Its response was in line with its repairs and maintenance policy.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 November 2023 following a visit from its repairs contractor to replace skirting boards in the downstairs toilet. She stated that she noticed a lot of mould in the area and that it appeared to be rising damp. She said there were no active leaks. It queried this internally with the surveyor that inspected the property on 30 October 2023. The surveyor said there had been no mould during its inspection, but that she may have cleaned it off. It has provided no evidence to this Service demonstrating that it responded to her or took any further action other than its internal query ahead of her stage 2 escalation request on 16 November 2023.
In her escalation email to the landlord, the resident stated that it should consider damp and mould to be an important issue. She said it appeared to be emanating from ground level and that it required additional investigative work to address the underlying cause. She reported damage to the new kitchen skirting boards from ongoing damp issues. She also noted that a drain in front of one of the walls requiring damp proof works was not draining properly, causing ground saturation and that this may have been contributing to issues with damp.
The landlord did not address the resident’s ongoing concerns about damp and mould in its stage 2 complaint response, nor did it offer any reassurance that it would complete the previously agreed works. This was not acceptable in the circumstances of her complaint and did not demonstrate that it was taking her concerns seriously.
In conclusion, while the landlord acted in line with its policy by inspecting the resident’s property after her complaint in October 2023, it had unreasonably ignored her initial reports of damp and mould on 5 September 2023. It identified works during the inspection but did not provide her with any update on when it would complete these by the end of the complaints process on 15 December 2023. When she reported additional concerns about the issue, it did not respond. While raising repairs to prevent damp was a positive step, its lack of communication with her was not appropriate especially as she had expressed concerns about the health of her child. The evidence provided shows that she continued to chase it for updates in January 2024. As such, a finding of maladministration is appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

This Service has investigated the landlord’s complaint handling in relation to its stage 2 complaint response which it provided to the resident on 15 December 2023. Its stage 1 complaint response had broken her main complaints down to 14 points, as detailed previously in this report. She responded thoroughly to these points in her stage 2 escalation request, along with requesting a response to 3 other previously raised issues and asking whether the landlord would be liable for the cost of redecoration once it completed all works.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was poor. It did not respond to any of the resident’s concerns raised as part of her escalation request. It copied the 14 points from its stage 1 response and did not include any updated information or responses. It reiterated that it had found failing in its lack of communication with the resident between 5 September and 13 October 2023 but did not acknowledge anything further.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), current at the time of this complaint, states that a landlord must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 2 in clear, plain language:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decisions made.
5. The details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
The Code also states that where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. These can include:
1. Acknowledging where things have gone wrong.
2. Providing an explanation, assistance, or reasons.
3. Apologising.
4. Taking action if there has been a delay.
5. Reconsidering or changing a decision.
6. Amending a record.
7. Providing a financial remedy.
8. Changing policies, procedures, or practices.
Considering the identified failures in this case, this Service finds that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was not compliant with the Code. While it acknowledged a failure to communicate with the resident at both stage 1 and stage 2, it did not respond to several of her complaint points, and it did not provide details of any outstanding actions. It did not acknowledge any failings outside of its initial communication. Its response was impersonal and demonstrated little regard for her ongoing concerns. As such, a finding of maladministration is appropriate in this case and this Service will make orders relating to this in the orders and recommendations section below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repair and cleanliness issues in the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In addition to the 1 week of rent offered to the resident at stage 2, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation totalling £1500 directly to the resident and not her rent account, unless she specifies otherwise, broken down as follows:
1. £800 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her reports of repair and cleanliness issues in the property.
2. £500 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. £200 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.
A senior manager of the landlord must write to the resident, acknowledging and apologising for its failings in this case. It must also provide an explanation of what went wrong and how it intends to improve from this.
The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
The landlord must arrange with the resident a full and thorough survey of the property to identify and arrange any outstanding and additional required works. It should provide a timescale for the completion of the works and consider whether a temporary decant is required for the family.
It must provide proof of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this decision.