Kirklees Council (202408595)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408595

Kirklees Council

12 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. roof repairs.
2. window repairs.
3. damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy that started on 16 November 2020. The property is a one-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord noted during the complaints procedure that the resident has vulnerabilities including anxiety, depression and ADHD.
On 12 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that his roof was leaking. The landlord attended on 9 January 2023. It found there was water dripping from the ceiling, but the roof tiles were in “good condition”. It concluded the water was condensation related. The resident reported again that his roof was leaking on 5 July 2023.
The resident raised a complaint on 3 August 2023. He said:
1. the landlord had not resolved his concerns about the roof. It had not provided any information about how it intended to fix the roof.
2. as the landlord had not acted, there was damp and mould affecting the kitchen wall and most of the ceilings had damp patches.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023. It said:
1. it would conduct a further inspection of the property because the resident had said:
  1. there were no repairs to the roof on 9 January 2023.
  2. he had concerns that the fascia and soffits needed repairing.
  3. he did not believe condensation was the cause of the damp and mould.
The landlord re-assessed the roof and carried out temporary repairs to the facias and soffits on 4 September 2023.
The resident reported his windows were leaking on or around 2 January 2023. The landlord attended and said it did not find any leaks but condensation. It referred the property for damp and mould treatment. However, it was unclear when this was scheduled or if it was carried out. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 15 September 2023 and recommended:
1. mould treatment for the lounge, bathroom, and bedroom.
2. replacement of the windows in the bathroom and bedroom.
3. installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
4. repairs to the soffits.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 1 November 2023. This was after he explained that:
1. no action was taken by the landlord to carry out repairs or to treat the damp and mould which had been ongoing since December 2022.
2. he was diagnosed with pneumonia and breathing issues. He felt this was because of the damp and mould at the property.
3. he was considering taking legal advice.
On or around 11 November 2023 the landlord re-assessed the windows and found they needed seals. The landlord said it could not gain access to the property when it tried to conduct mould treatments on 9 November 2023 and 15 November 2023. Separately, it replaced a cracked tile on 15 November 2023 as part of its investigations into the roof.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023. It said:
1. it apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the repairs experience.
2. it still had an active case for damp and mould open for the property. However, it could not gain access to carry out treatment because the resident had declined this on various occasions. It intended to treat the damp and mould with a chemical agent and asked for access to the property to do this.
3. a roofer attended on 15 November 2023 and found the felt was dry and intact. However, they replaced a cracked tile.
4. it had asked its energy team to investigate issues with the windows and cold spots on the walls and ceiling. It requested access to conduct a survey as part of its investigations.

Post complaint procedure

The resident reported concerns with his roof and damp and mould again in April 2024. The landlord’s surveyor attended in August 2024 and recommended chemical treatments for the lounge and bedroom walls. Another surveyor attended in September 2024 and found high humidity levels at the property. They raised the same treatment for the damp and mould again and said some of the windows needed to be replaced. They also referred the resident for financial support and provided information about managing condensation.
The landlord offered to carry out damp and mould treatment on 30 September 2024. The resident declined this. Further repairs were completed as follows:
1. on 4 November 2024, the landlord’s roofer replaced a 1-metre length of tiling and felt. An eaves guard was also fitted to the gutter line.
2. on 7 November 2024 it cleared the gutters.
3. on 29 November 2024 the windows were replaced at the property.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 September 2024. He said he felt the landlord had ignored his reports and failed to take timely action to resolve the repairs.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is legally and contractually obliged to make repairs to the structure and exterior of a property. This includes making repairs to the roof and windows. This is set out in section 11 of the Housing Act 1985 and the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs policy commits to dealing with emergency repairs in up to 2 working days and responsive repairs within 25 days.

Repairs to the resident’s roof

On 12 December 2022 the resident reported his roof was leaking. He said the landlord had previously said it was condensation, but he did not believe this was the case. The landlord attended the property on 9 January 2023. This was 28 days later. It found there were no holes, and the roof tiles were in good condition. However, it also found there was water dripping from the ceiling. It noted that this was condensation.
Although the landlord attended slightly outside of its policy timescales, there is no evidence that this minor delay was the cause of detriment to the resident. However, based on the evidence provided, it is unclear how the landlord came to an evidenced based conclusion that the cause of the water at the property was condensation related. The records do not show that the landlord took steps to investigate the matter further, for example, by taking humidity readings. Nor do they show what factors the landlord considered when reaching its conclusion. Therefore, the landlord missed an opportunity to document its investigations about the cause of the water and manage his expectations around the proportionality of its actions.
The made a further report that his roof had holes which were allowing water and birds into the loft space on 5 July 2023. He said the landlord had not acted when he previously reported this. The landlord acted reasonably and attended the property the next day. It found 4 sections of soffits and 1 section of the fascia board that needed to be repaired. It noted the location of the required repair was “around the block of flats”.
The previous repair record contained no detail about which part of the roof it had investigated in January 2023. Therefore, it is unclear if the landlord ought to have reasonably known about the repairs it identified in July 2023 at its earlier appointment. Had a clear audit trail been maintained by the landlord, it may have been possible for it to have determined whether this was previously missed, or if it was a new issue altogether. That the landlord’s records do not contain a sufficient level of detail is a failing.
To carry out the work the contractor needed ladders, so the job was rebooked for 10 August 2023. The need for a follow-up appointment was reasonable because the contractor had to attend with the proper tools to carry out the work. However, there is no evidence this was communicated to the resident. It would have been for the landlord to keep the resident updated. The failure to do so caused distress to the resident because he felt the landlord was not actioning the repairs.
The landlord cancelled the appointment in August due to operative unavailability. It is noted that this was owing to ill health, and this was therefore unavoidable. However, there is no evidence the landlord communicated its delay to the resident, which was a failure. This caused further distress and compounded the resident’s feelings that the repairs were not being actioned appropriately.
The resident called the landlord on 1 September 2023. He said there were holes in the soffits and fascias and believed this to be the cause of the water ingress. The landlord attended on 5 and 7 September 2023 and completed “temporary repairs” to the roof by patching the holes.
The landlord responded within 4 days which was within the timeframes set in its repairs policy. Although we recognise the landlord making temporary repairs was a reasonable action to take in the short term, the landlord ought to have demonstrated it was proactively arranging for permanent repairs simultaneously. This would have provided the resident reassurance that it would find a permanent solution.
When a surveyor attended on 15 September 2023 to assess separate repairs, they produced a schedule of work which included repairing the broken soffits. The resident called the landlord to discuss an insurance claim on 20 September 2023. During the call, the landlord said it had booked a job to repair the soffits in “mid-October 2023”. There is no corroborating evidence of this job being raised in the landlord’s repair records or contemporaneous notes. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord provided this advice or whether its update was indeed correct.
The resident made a further report of a leak to his roof on 9 November 2023. The landlord attended 6 working days later. This landlord’s response time was reasonable because it was in line with its repair policy. It found there was a cracked tile, which it replaced. It also noted the felt was intact and dry. The landlord re-iterated this to the resident in its stage 2 response on 23 November 2023.
The repair records show the landlord was reasonably aware from 6 July 2023 that it needed to repair the soffits and the fascia to the property. It also told the resident it would complete further work to the soffits from September 2023. Although it carried out temporary repairs during September 2023 and replaced a cracked tile in November 2023, there is no evidence the landlord progressed any permanent repairs to the soffits. This position is supported by its stage 2 response which confirmed no further work to the roof was required.

Conclusion

Given the failures we have identified there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof. This is because:
1. the landlord missed opportunities to explain its delays and consider how it could mitigate these.
2. the overall communication with the resident about the repairs was poor. This was directly impacted by the poor working practices when using repair data to inform its repair approach and the advice it gave to the resident.
3. the landlord’s failures caused frustration, time, and trouble to the resident who reported the same issues over 11 months. This is from the time he made his initial report (December 2022) to the time the landlord completed its complaint procedure (November 2023).
The landlord’s complaint responses said it “apologise[d] for the delay in communication and any stress caused as a result” and “apologised for the stress and inconvenience this repair experience has caused”. While an apology was reasonable, we do not consider this proportionate to put things right for the resident. The landlord ought to have considered any wider learning it could identify from the complaint. It would also have been fair to have considered offering financial compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident because of the detriment he experienced as a result of its failings.
We have considered our ‘Remedies Guidance’ to assess how the landlord can put things right. The landlord must pay the resident £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its failures. This is in line with the type of redress that can be awarded for the level of finding. Further, given the poor record keeping found in this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its record keeping practices. The landlord should consider the recommendations set out in our ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ report to align its working practices with best practices. This is to ensure it captures all relevant information to co-ordinate and progress repairs and prevent future delays.
Further, the evidence shows that after the complaint procedure was exhausted, the resident made further reports that the roof was leaking. The landlord raised further work to the roof as follows:
1. 24 June 2024 the landlord raised a job to assess flashing, tiles, slates, ridges or coping stones. There is no evidence this was completed.
2. 4 November 2024:
  1. removed the bottom meter of tiles, re-lathed the areas, re-fitted tiles and replaced missing corners.
  2. fitted the eaves guard to the gutter line.
  3. re-assessed the condition of the fascia and soffits. It found these did not need to be replaced. This was 16 months after the landlord’s initial inspection and 14 months after the landlord’s temporary fix to this area.
We have been unable to verify with the resident if the outstanding work resolved his reports. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to confirm whether the repairs have been effective. It must also assess and compensate for any detriment to the resident after the complaint procedure was completed to the time it made a lasting and effective repair to the roof.

Repairs to the resident’s windows

The resident reported all his windows were leaking on 2 January 2023. The landlord attended the property on 23 January 2023. This was 21 days later and within the landlord’s response timeframes set out in its repairs policy.
The landlord found the windows were not leaking and concluded there was an issue with condensation. As a result, it raised work to treat the damp and mould at the property. For clarity, the landlord’s response to the damp and mould has been assessed separately as part of this report. Given it had not found concerns with the structural integrity of the windows, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to assess the property on 15 September 2023. It is unclear what led to it carrying out a further survey of the windows. This should reasonably have been recorded and that it was not is evidence of poor record keeping. The Ombudsman expects the landlord’s records to tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. This is in line with our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.
At the appointment, the surveyor found the UPVC glass units in the lounge, bathroom and bedroom were wet inside the glass and that they did not have any seals. They recommended these windows be replaced. It is unclear why this was not identified during a previous survey of the windows.
There is no evidence the landlord took further action to resolve the repairs recommended in September 2023 until the resident raised further concerns in his escalation request dated 1 November 2023. This was 47 days later. This was a failure because the landlord should reasonably have either actioned the surveyor’s recommendations or confirmed if it was not going to act on the recommendations, together with an explanation as to why, and confirmed as to what it was going to do instead.
The landlord fitted new window units on 23 November 2023, which was 69 days after the landlord was put on notice by its surveyor. This was outside of the timeframes in its repairs policy and an avoidable delay. It would have been reasonable for it to have considered prioritising the repair given its delays, and that it did not was a missed opportunity.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord delayed in acting following the surveyor’s inspection. This caused the resident frustration as well as unnecessary time and trouble trying to progress the repairs over a 2-month period. The landlord’s record keeping was also poor when it documented the extent of its investigations in January 2023. This meant it was unclear if the landlord ought to have reasonably been aware of the condition of the windows prior to its surveyor’s visit in September 2023. For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord.
As previously mentioned, the landlord offered a general apology to the resident for delays and inconvenience. While it was appropriate that the landlord apologised, it should reasonably have acknowledged its delay in taking action, and the effect of this on the resident. As the landlord did not do so, its offer of redress was not proportionate to put things right for the resident.
With reference to our ‘Remedies Guidance’, we order the landlord to pay £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay, as well as the time and trouble of the resident pursuing the repairs. The landlord must also review its working practices in relation to its record keeping. This is to identify any wider learning that can promote the capture of accurate data in its repair records to prevent future delays in carrying out repairs.
After the complaint procedure was exhausted, the landlord visited the property on 29 October 2024. It found the living room window seals required replacing and completed the work on 4 November 2024. This was concerning to note given the landlord’s surveyor had identified and recommended this work to the landlord 11 months prior. Given that this work was carried out in November 2024, it is unclear why the associated job raised in 2023 had been marked as completed.
However, it indicates that the landlord did not complete the work in November 2023. Given the landlord’s poor record keeping, it has not been possible for us to establish whether the previous job was closed in error or if the work was only partially completed. Nevertheless, there was a delay in completing the necessary repair and the evidence suggests that this could reasonably have been avoided. Had the record keeping been adequate, this would have enabled it to identify the outstanding repair and continue to progress it promptly. As this may have caused a further avoidable delay in fixing the seals to the living room window, we recommend the landlord investigates this issue to assess any detriment this may have caused to the resident.

Repairs to the damp and mould

Where there is damp and mould, and leaks cause this, the landlord will be responsible for offering a full and effective repair to prevent the damp from returning. Where damp and mould are condensation-related, the landlord’s obligation will be to ensure the property is free from hazards (under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) and that it is fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord did not operate a damp, mould, and condensation policy. It is positive to note that since April 2024, the landlord has a policy in place to deal with this type of repair issue.
The resident made the following reports:
1. 2 January 2023 – there was damp and mould throughout the property.
2. 4 July 2023 – as part of a home visit reported there was still outstanding damp and mould throughout the property. He felt this would have been resolved if the landlord had repaired the roof.
3. 23 August 2023 – as part of his formal complaint, he said there were damp patches affecting the kitchen wall, and most ceilings showed signs of mould.
4. 31 August 2023 – there were cold spots on the kitchen wall.
5. 15 September 2023 – his clothes has been damaged because of an outstanding problem with damp since December 2022.
6. 1 November 2023 – mould remained in the property, and he had been diagnosed with pneumonia. He felt this could have been resolved had the landlord replaced the windows.
The landlord took the following actions:
1. on 2 January 2023 it referred the damp and mould case to another department to arrange to treat the “damp and mould throughout the property”. The repair logs noted this job was completed on 2 November 2023. The contemporaneous evidence suggests the landlord told the resident on 23 January 2023 that there was an issue with condensation after visiting the property. It is unclear how the landlord came to an evidence-based conclusion about the cause of the damp and mould at this appointment. This is because we have not been provided with any evidence of the investigations that were undertaken. Given the resident had expressed concerns with the landlord’s position, this was a missed opportunity to document the investigations it carried out. This would have helped it to explain its position to the resident and manage his expectations about what it could do to help resolve the issue. This was a missed opportunity as well as evidence of poor record keeping.
2. on 18 March 2023 it provided the resident with a claim form for his damaged belongings. This was a reasonable action given the concerns raised by the resident about damage to his belongings. However, there is no evidence it took any further action in relation to the damp and mould at this time. This was a missed opportunity to use this information to investigate the property conditions and assess any action it needed to take.
3. on 15 September 2023 it arranged for a surveyor to assess the property. They recommended mould treatment to the lounge, bedroom, bathroom, and hallway. This included the walls, ceilings, reveals and around the bath. They also recommended the installation of a “constant running” extractor fan. It contacted the resident on 20 September 2023 and left a voicemail to explain it had raised work for damp and mould. While this was reasonable, we have seen no evidence that a corresponding job was raised. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the landlord missed an opportunity to take action to resolve the work at an earlier stage.
4. on 9 November 2023 it raised a job for mould treatment. It called the resident the same day to arrange the appointment. The landlord said the resident declined further treatment during the call. The repair logs and contemporaneous notes show the landlord attended on 15 November 2023 but was unable to gain access to the property. This was because the resident said he wanted the roof to be fixed first. The resident is obliged by his tenancy agreement to provide access to the landlord so it can investigate and complete repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s assertion that until the repairs to the roof and windows were complete further action to the damp and mould would not be lasting. However, the landlord is also obligated to mitigate the impact of the conditions on the resident while it resolved the remaining repairs. As it could not gain access to the property to complete treatment, that it did not was out of its control.
5. on 29 November 2023 it wrote to the resident to explain a damp and mould case was active on its systems. It said it had tried on “various occasions” to resolve this, but it was unable to gain access. It also offered the resident a referral for energy advice for 7 December 2023. Given the evidence shows the landlord had only attended once to complete treatment and had been declined access, it was inaccurate for it to say it had tried on “various occasions” to do this. This was also a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the reasons for carrying out treatment to the damp and mould prior to the other repairs being completed.

Post complaint procedure

After the complaints procedure concluded the resident continued to report damp and mould at his property. The landlord completed 2 surveys during August and September 2024. Again, the evidence we have shows that the landlord confirmed with the resident that it would take certain action, but this is not reflected in its repair records.
On 1 November 2024 the landlord offered the resident an appointment to support him to fill in an insurance claim for mould damage to his belongings. It also confirmed with the resident that the damp and mould had been treated. This was 1 year and 9 months after the resident’s initial report in January 2023.

Conclusion

The landlord completed the remaining work on the windows and roof by the end of 2024. We acknowledge that the landlord’s delay in completing these repairs would have directly impacted the resident’s ability to manage condensation levels at his property. Therefore, the outstanding repairs would likely have impacted the overall delay in making a lasting and effective resolution to the damp and mould at the property.
Nonetheless, the landlord was responsible for clearly setting out its position and explaining how it had concluded there was condensation in the property. Further, the landlord ought to have been reasonably aware of its delays with the other repairs and identified how this would impact the conditions within the property. It should have responded to this by conducting regular reviews of the case and ensuring it was taking reasonable action to mitigate these. It should also have used the information it had about the impact of the conditions on the resident to consider prioritising the work on the roof and windows.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord now operates a policy and procedure for damp and mould. Therefore, the landlord has more robust procedures in place for handling these types of cases in the future. However, at the time of the complaint, the evidence shows the landlord’s record keeping was poor at key points. This resulted in:
1. missed opportunities to explain its position and respond to the resident’s reports in a meaningful way.
2. missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about the action it could take.
3. a failure to demonstrate it acted on the initial recommendations of its surveyor.
4. unreasonable delays in completing the required work to resolve the issue.
The Ombudsman recognises there was a delay in completing some of the treatment that the landlord was not responsible for. However, the evidence we have received shows that the landlord failed to take accountability for the delays on its part that were reasonably avoidable.
The resident repeatedly explained during the repair process that he felt the landlord was ignoring him. He told the Ombudsman that the landlord used “condensation” to make him feel responsible for the property conditions. Our spotlight report on ‘Damp and mould. It’s not a lifestyle’ found that where landlords do not take responsibility, their response is unlikely to be effective or timely. The report noted that “effective response begins when the resident first contacts the landlord. Landlords must avoid paternalistic attitudes, automatically apportioning blame or using language inferring blame on the resident”. Some of the best practices in this area were to assess the property as a whole and the pattern of mould, installing humidity and temperature sensors, and supporting behavioural change where necessary. These visits enabled relationships to be built with residents and any factors that may lead to mould being identified rather than just cleaning the mould.
Given the culmination of failings we have identified and the length of delay in resolving the damp and mould, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this part of the complaint. The resident explained that the landlord failed to act, and this caused him frustration and time re-reporting the same issues over a prolonged period. To recognise this, the landlord must compensate him £600 for the distress and inconvenience of its failures.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident raised his complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 September 2023, this was 7 working days later. This was appropriate and within the timeframes set out in the Code.
The resident escalated his complaint on 1 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 November 2023, this was 20 working days later. This was also in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
The landlord is obliged by the Code to answer all elements of a resident’s complaint. However, it failed to respond to concerns the resident had raised about it concluding that the cause of the damp and mould was condensation. As a result, the landlord left this concern unanswered.
Further, the Code requires landlords to put things right when things go wrong. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for “the stress and inconvenience this repairs experience [has] caused”. It went on to say it “tried to contact [the resident] on various occasions to try and arrange access to treat the mould in [the] property … [but had] been unable to get access to [the] property”. The resident said this caused him to lose faith in the landlord’s ability to be fair because it was blaming him for the delays.
We consider the landlord undermined its apology by placing too much weight on the resident declining one appointment on 15 November 2023. Particularly given the delays the resident experienced mainly resulted from its failure to act and progress repairs. As such, the landlord failed to be fully accountable or to fairly set out the full extent of what it got wrong. This detracted from the impact of the apology. It also failed to demonstrate it had identified any wider learning to improve its repair service. This meant it also missed an opportunity to learn from the complaint and strengthen its repair response.
Overall, while the landlord responded within the expected timescales, its complaint handling was not effective in answering all elements of the complaint or putting things right. This was maladministration because the landlord’s approach did not align with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles ‘To be fair, Put things right, Learn from outcomes’.
The landlord must arrange for complaint handling training to address its failures. Further, the landlord must put things right by apologising to the resident to account for the full failures found in this report. It must also pay the resident £75 compensation to recognise the distress of the resident because of its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £1,275 compensation to recognise:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of his reports of the windows.
  3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
  4. £75 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.
3. the landlord must write to the resident to confirm whether the window and roof repairs have resolved his concerns. The landlord must assess its handling of any further repairs to these areas following the completion of the complaint procedure (November 2023 onwards). In doing so, it must consider whether further offering redress is appropriate. It must write to the resident and the Ombudsman explaining its findings and decision.
4. arrange for relevant staff to undertake complaint handling training to strengthen its working practices to ensure it responds to all elements of complaints and puts things right.
Within 56 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must review its record keeping practices, focusing on the failures identified by this investigation. The outcome of the review should be shared with the Ombudsman.