London Borough of Barnet (202327140)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327140

London Borough of Barnet

31 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for hotel costs, expenses and damaged possessions.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a purpose-built, 3-storey block of flats. The resident holds a secure tenancy, which began on 5 June 2017. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord has confirmed that it updated its records on 19 June 2023 to show the resident was vulnerable due to various medical conditions.
During the period investigated by the Ombudsman, the resident was represented by his daughter who was the main point of contact with the landlord.

Summary of events

On 9 February 2023, the resident reported that the cold tap in the kitchen was continuously leaking and the tap handle had come away from the tap. An appointment was booked for 28 March 2023.
On 22 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak coming from under the floorboards in the hallway. The resident stated that the leak had been found by his carpet fitters. In response, an operative attended on 28 March 2023 and carried out repairs to address both the kitchen tap and the leak under the hallway floorboard.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 28 March 2023 to repair wooden flooring in the hallway/bedroom and shelving in the cupboard due to a leak. (The job notes stated that an appointment was originally booked for 19 May 2023 but was rescheduled. The landlord’s records show that the job was completed on 4 July 2023 and involved replacing the affected floorboards and joists while the resident was in occupation).
The landlord’s repairs log shows that a job was raised on 25 May 2023 to inspect the property for damp on the walls in the bathroom, living room and hallway. However, the job is shown as having been cancelled. The landlord’s records stated that the job had been cancelled so the matter could be referred to its Healthy Homes Team. The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023 to request an appointment date for the inspection and was told she would be contacted.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the wet room vinyl flooring was “sinking down and almost coming off”. The records stated that the resident was disabled. The landlord raised an order but this was subsequently cancelled. The notes stated that it was a duplicate order (as an order had already been raised on 28 March 2023 to repair the flooring in the property).
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised on 2 June 2023 to undertake a damp and mould survey. The order stated that there was a leak from the flat above which had to be addressed and then the landlord needed to allow the area to dry out before further action could be taken. The landlord’s records indicate that a surveyor visited the property to inspect the damp and mould between 2 and 5 June 2023 (the exact date is unclear).
The resident’s daughter phoned the landlord on 5 June 2023 to report an ongoing leak from the flat above the resident’s property. She said she had been expecting to be told the next steps during the previous week but had not received any information from the landlord. She advised the landlord that her father’s health was being affected. An order was raised on 5 June 2023 to address the leak. An operative attended on the same day and found there was a slow leak from the flat above which had caused dampness. An order was therefore raised to trace and remedy the leak from the flat above.
The resident’s daughter contacted the landlord on 7 June 2023 and asked it to log a formal complaint regarding outstanding repairs. The resident’s daughter sent a follow-up email on the same day and stated that her father was vulnerable due to his medical history.
An operative attended the flat above the resident’s property on 10 June 2023 and repaired the leak.
The landlord raised an order on 15 June 2023 for its contractor to expose various areas in the property following a leak and to carry out various works to the flooring, the partition wall, shelving, plastering, mould removal, decorating and repairs to the extractor fan. (The work is shown as having been completed on 24 August 2023).
On 20 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident’s daughter in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the service the resident had received.
2. The landlord confirmed it had raised an order on 9 February 2023 to repair a leaking tap in the kitchen. The landlord had added a repair to this order on 22 March 2023 when the resident had reported a leak under the hallway floorboards.
3. An operative attended on 28 March 2023 and replaced the tap head. The operative found that the leak affecting the hallway was from an uncapped overflow pipe from an old tank. In addition, the operative found a blocked waste pipe, which was causing a leak when the shower was used.
4. A follow-on order was raised on 28 March 2023 after the leak had been stopped to repair the wooden flooring in the hallway and bedroom and shelving in the storage cupboard, which had all been damaged by the leaks. Appointments were made to carry out the work but were cancelled due to a shortage of operatives. The landlord advised the resident’s daughter that a new appointment had been made for 4 July 2023.
5. A further repair was raised for an operative to attend on 5 June 2023. The operative attended and, after removing all hidden panelling in the cupboard and bathroom, found a long-term slow leak which had caused dampness. The operative left the uncovered areas exposed for further damp and mould investigation.
6. The operative believed the leak was from the flat above and therefore an order was raised for an operative to visit this flat. The operative attended the flat on 10 June 2023 and stopped the leak.
7. An operative had attended the resident’s property on 7 June 2023 to clear away the old bath panel and other materials that had previously been taken off to expose the leak.
8. The landlord stated that it would carry out a survey but the property would need to dry out for 3 weeks before the survey could be undertaken. An appointment had been made to carry out the survey on 23 June 2023.
9. The landlord had initially believed that the resident could remain in the property pending the reinstatement work. However, it had received medical forms on 19 June 2023 and had therefore sent them to its in-house medical team to decide whether the resident could remain in occupation during the works.
10. The landlord apologised that the slow leak from the flat above had not been detected until 5 June 2023. The landlord had raised this delay with its Repairs Supervisor so that the matter could be raised with the operative who had attended on 28 March 2023.
On 5 July 2023, the landlord’s contractor removed the floorboards in the hallway to expose the pipework and its surveyor inspected the property on 11 July 2023. (The landlord has not been able to provide details of the surveyor’s findings).
The landlord’s records show that it held a conference call on 17 July 2023 with the resident, his daughter and the contractor to discuss the work that would be carried out.
On 19th July 2023, the resident was decanted by the landlord to a local hotel.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on 10 August 2023 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The reasons given were:
1. The dampness issues had not yet been resolved and the resident was unable to return home until they had been addressed. She stated that her father’s furnishings had been damaged by damp and mould and his health had been affected.
2. The resident’s daughter stated that her father’s respiratory and sinus symptoms/infections had been caused by damp and mould.
3. The resident’s daughter said her father would not return to the property until it had been deep cleaned and his insurance claim had been dealt with.
The landlord’s hotel booking for the resident ceased on 18 August 2023. However, the landlord then extended the hotel booking until 4 September 2023 to allow decorations.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 25 August 2023 to confirm that it had visited the property the day before and taken damp meter readings. The landlord stated that the readings were in the normal range. It also provided a photo of the wet room before the works were undertaken, which it said showed that the area was dry. The landlord stated that the property was ready for the resident to move back into. The resident’s daughter replied on the same day and suggested there were still high levels of moisture behind the plasterboard in the wet room. She also referred to high moisture readings her husband had found in the hallway cupboard.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 29 August 2023 and referred to her previous request for a dehumidifier to be installed. The landlord stated that it did not consider a dehumidifier was required in the property.
On 30 August 2023, the resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord to express her dissatisfaction regarding the time it was taking the landlord to submit information to its insurers in relation to the resident’s claim. The resident’s daughter stated that it had been 2 weeks since she had submitted the claim and the landlord had not yet supplied information to the insurers.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 31 August 2023 and explained that it had taken damp meter readings and these had not given any cause for concern. The landlord was satisfied that the cupboard was drying out and it stated that it could not see any reason why the resident could not move back into the property. The resident’s daughter replied on the same day and attached photos and video footage which she stated showed elevated moisture readings in some parts of the property. She also mentioned there were outstanding snagging issues and redecorations, however, she stated that the immediate concern was to reinstate the dehumidifier to help dry out the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 4 September 2023 to confirm it had sent the information relating to the resident’s insurance claim to its insurers on 1 September 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 5 September 2023 and acknowledged that there had been a difference between its own damp meter readings and those recently submitted by the resident’s daughter. It suggested a joint site meeting to consider the different readings.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2023 and requested the landlord to replace the floorboards so that a deep clean of the property could be carried out. She pointed out that one of the floorboards was a trip hazard. The resident’s daughter confirmed that the living room walls had been scrubbed to remove mould and the outstanding snagging issues were the floorboards, some missing cornice in the bathroom and the redecoration of the hall and bathroom.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 7 September 2023 and confirmed that her father’s insurance claim was being processed and that it would shortly undertake snagging and decorating work in the property. The landlord stated that in its view the property was fit for the resident to return to and therefore it would not cover any additional hotel costs. The resident’s daughter replied on the same day and asked the landlord to remove and dispose of some of the belongings in the property so she could arrange for the property to be deep cleaned before her father returned to the property. The resident’s daughter disputed that the property was dry and stated that her father could not return to the property until it was completely dry.
From 8 to 19 September 2023, the resident’s daughter sent various emails to the landlord requesting updates on various matters relating to her complaint, including whether the landlord would cover the hotel costs and whether some of the furniture would be removed and disposed of. She also requested the landlord to reconsider its decision not to decant her father. She explained that the decision was taken prior to exposing the pipework. The landlord advised the resident’s daughter during this period that its contractor would attend on 18 September 2023 to replace 2 floorboards (one in the hallway and one in the entrance to the bedroom) and replace some beading in the bathroom. The landlord also advised her that the redecorations would start on 20 September 2023.
The resident’s daughter advised the landlord on 19 September 2023 that the property had been deep cleaned on that day and that the dehumidifier she had provided was still filling up with water. However, she stated that the contractor had not attended the appointment to reinstate the floorboards on 18 September 2023. The landlord replied on the same day and apologised for the slight delay. The landlord confirmed that the contractor was on site carrying out the work to the floorboards. It also confirmed that the painting would commence on 20 September 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 22 September 2023 and confirmed that all the scoped works had been completed, including redecorating with anti-fungicidal paint. However, the landlord visited the property on the same day and confirmed to the resident’s daughter that it was not happy with the quality of some of the paintwork carried out by its contractor.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on 22, 23 and 28 September 2023 to request a dehumidifier and for the hotel booking to be extended. She also questioned the landlord’s statement that a further leak had been found as she stated that the property had not been dry since the original leak had been reported. During this period, the resident’s daughter also wrote to the landlord regarding the type of paint to be used and other details regarding the work.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 25 September 2023 and stated that it would investigate the high moisture reading in the cupboard which she had sent on 23 September 2023. The landlord also stated that it had inspected the decorating carried out on 22 September 2023 and was now satisfied with the quality of the work.
On 29 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident’s daughter in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in replying to the stage 2 complaint but said it had sent a holding reply on 15 September 2023.
2. The landlord stated that the time taken to repair the leaks were within its target timescales.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 to report damp walls in the bathroom, hallway and living room. An order had been raised but had been cancelled so the matter could be referred to its Healthy Homes Team. This team raised an order and attended on 2 June 2023 to undertake a damp and mould survey. The surveyor found there was a “major leak” from the flat above and this would need to be stopped before it could undertake the survey. An order was raised on 5 June 2023 to address the leak and a plumber attended on the same day to expose the pipework by removing the panelling. An operative attended the flat above on 10 June 2023 and carried out the repairs to stop the leak.
4. The landlord carried out the survey and produced a schedule of repairs. The orders resulting from the survey were raised on 15 June 2023.
5. The landlord’s view was that it had repaired the leaks as quickly as possible after they had been identified. The landlord had inspected the property and accepted that it had differing views on the extent of the damp and mould compared to the views of the resident’s daughter.
6. The landlord’s medical assessor had completed a medical assessment and concluded that there was no justification for the resident to be decanted. However, the landlord reviewed the matter and decided that the resident would be booked into a hotel for 3 weeks to minimise the disruption to him.
7. The landlord had emailed the resident’s daughter on 7 September 2023 to advise that there was no further need for the resident to remain in the hotel as the landlord had received assurances from the relevant team that the property was fit for him to return to.
8. The landlord confirmed that its insurers were actively considering the resident’s claim for damage to his possessions due to the damp.
9. The landlord stated that at the time of writing the stage 2 reply, it was still investigating a further reported leak. The landlord said it would write to the resident’s daughter the following week to advise her of the outcome of its investigations.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

On 3 October 2023, one of the landlord’s plumbers attended the property and reported that he had carried out extensive camera surveys and could not find any leaks until he removed the WC pan. He stated that all the seals had been breached and water was leaking every time the toilet was flushed. The plumber repaired the defective seals to the WC pan.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 4 October 2023 and stated that it had been investigating the source of water ingress into the property. It had attended during the previous week and carried out intrusive inspections, however, it was not yet satisfied that it had identified the source of the leak as there was a significant amount of water under the bathroom floor. It would therefore be arranging a dye test and CCTV survey. The landlord stated that it would wait for its insurers to determine liability for the ongoing hotel costs.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on 4 and 5 October 2023 and requested the landlord to take steps to dry out the property as she was concerned that any excess moisture would affect his health. She felt that the landlord had not carried out sufficient investigation of the leaks before replacing the joists. She asked the landlord to take over the hotel costs as the costs were causing a financial strain on her and other members of the resident’s family. She also raised various questions regarding the drying process for the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 9 October 2023 to advise it had carried out a CCTV camera survey of the soil stack and the results had come back clear. It stated that it would monitor whether there was water ingress during the next rainfall. The resident’s daughter replied on the same day to ask why a dye test had not been carried out. She also stated that further opening up work was needed. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that a water test had been carried out, the shower pump was working as it should and the landlord suspected that rainwater was entering the property somewhere. It would therefore carry out further investigations.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 18 October 2023 and advised that it had carried out further investigations into the pooling of water that had been found under the wet room floor. The investigations had included a visit to the upstairs flat to check for leaks, regular monitoring visits to the property to take damp meter readings and various other tests to check for leaks. In addition, the subfloor in the wet room had been examined by removing the WC pan and using a borescope. The landlord believed that the water may have been from a leak to the toilet and this had been repaired during the previous week when a plumber had fitted a new collar to the WC pan.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 19 October 2023 and informed her that it had resolved the original cause of water ingress “a while ago” and that based on moisture readings reported by the resident’s daughter, the landlord had carried out further investigations and found the pooling under the wet room floor.
On 23 October 2023, the property was inspected by a specialist dampness surveyor, which had been commissioned by the landlord. The surveyor carried out a ‘non-destructive’ inspection of the hallway cupboard, hallway and the wet room as directed by the landlord.
During the period 1-31 October and 1–16 November 2023, there were further exchanges of emails between the resident’s daughter and the landlord regarding the investigations into the cause of the reported water ingress. The following are some of the points that were included:
1. The landlord stated that it had been investigating the cause of the pooling of water which it found under the wet room on 3 October 2023. The investigations had included attendance by a plumber, regular visits to monitor damp meter readings, testing the integrity of the soil stack, CCTV camera surveys and checking the WC pan and shower for leaks.
2. The resident’s daughter was dissatisfied that the landlord had carried out adequate investigations to identify the source of any water ingress/damp. The resident’s daughter advised the landlord that she had received her own results showing high levels of moisture in the property. She also disputed that the original leaks had been resolved and stated that, in her view, there had been an ongoing leak from the flat above, which had only been rectified at the beginning of October 2023.
3. The landlord confirmed that the resident had submitted an insurance claim form on 17 August 2023 and it had forwarded this to the insurers on the same day.
4. The resident’s daughter requested that the landlord take responsibility for covering the hotel costs. However, the landlord repeated that it would not cover the costs.
5. The resident’s daughter emphasised that her father was clinically vulnerable and continued to suffer from respiratory and sinus issues, which she said had been “as a direct result of prolonged exposure to damp and mould”.
6. The resident’s daughter requested the landlord to provide dehumidifiers to help dry out the property. The resident’s daughter stated that her father’s doctor had advised that he should not return to the property until it was completely dry. The landlord stated that, in its view, dehumidifiers were unnecessary.
7. The landlord had monitored the areas within the property and they had continued to show lowering moisture levels, apart from a small lower section of the hallway cupboard and the lower part of the wall behind the WC pan. Therefore, it had arranged for a specialist dampness contractor to investigate.
8. The resident’s daughter continued to request the landlord to expose the subfloor in the wet room so it could be inspected to check it was dry.
9. Due to the complexity of the insurance claim, the insurers had appointed an independent insurance assessor to investigate the claim.
The landlord received the report from the specialist dampness surveyor on 9 November 2023. The surveyor’s recommendations included hacking off existing damaged plaster from the walls, replastering, applying preservative to skirting boards, neutralising the salt content in the brickwork and applying a liquid damp proof membrane to the walls in the wet room and hallway cupboard. The surveyor noted that the landlord would need to ensure that the leaks had been repaired before carrying out the recommended works.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 17 November 2023 and stated that her father had not been decanted on medical grounds; the landlord said it had placed him in a hotel to allow works to proceed. The landlord stated that the property now had some very limited areas showing higher than normal damp readings. Therefore, taking into account the letter from the resident’s doctor, the landlord would be offering the resident a temporary decant for 8 weeks. Should the work take longer than this to complete, he would be able to remain in the alternative property.
On 28 November 2023, the resident’s daughter advised the landlord that the insurers had advised her that they would not cover the continuing hotel costs. The resident’s daughter sent a further email to the landlord declining the offer of temporary accommodation. The resident’s daughter stated that this would be too disruptive and therefore her father would remain in the hotel. The resident’s daughter confirmed she had received a copy of the damp specialist’s report from the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 6 December 2023 and stated that the property was, in its view, continuing to dry out. However, it said it would install a damp proof membrane in the cupboard so that any moisture would not cause an issue while the cupboard dried out over time. It also stated that some commercial blow heaters would be installed in the following 2 weeks. The landlord repeated its offer of temporary accommodation.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 12 December 2023 and attached a photo of the subfloor when it had been exposed. The landlord confirmed that no dampness readings had been taken as the floor had been “completely dry”. The landlord said that it was not proposing to carry out any further works to the wet room as the moisture readings were continuing to fall. However, it would use a blow heater to speed up the drying process.
On 13 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter with a timeline for the remedial works. It also wrote to her on 18 December 2023 and advised her that the shelving in the cupboard had been removed and the heating restored on 14 December 2023, the pipework was removed on 18 December 2023 and the works to the cupboard would be completed on 19 December 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 21 December 2023 and advised that it had visited the property that day and found the moisture levels to be low based on its damp meter readings. It also wrote to her on 29 December 2023 and advised that the property was continuing to dry out and it had booked a contractor to attend on 5 January 2024 to replace all shelving and apply mist coats to the wall.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on 2 January 2024 and stated that there was still dampness in the wet room as the landlord had not provided the proposed blow heaters.
The landlord’s records show that the works to the wet room and hallway cupboard were completed on 5 January 2024. The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on the same day and requested reimbursement for the hotel costs and daily expenses as the insurer had confirmed these were not covered.
The resident’s daughter advised this Service on 9 January 2024 that her father had moved back into the property on 8 January 2024.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 17 January 2024 and offered to cover the hotel costs and daily expense costs up until time it had offered a decant (17 November 2023). The landlord also agreed to cover the additional electricity and heating costs. The landlord confirmed that blow heaters were used for periods during some of the works and removed when operatives were not on site. The landlord explained why it had only treated the walls halfway up in the cupboard. The landlord agreed to inspect the hardboard flooring in the bedroom to understand any further issues.
The resident’s daughter responded to the landlord on 30 January 2024 and requested reimbursement of the hotel costs for the full period her father had been in the hotel. She requested details of the landlord’s insurer should the landlord refuse her request.
On 19 February 2024, the resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord to report that her father had fallen on the hardboard in his bedroom and was taken to hospital with a head injury. She advised that there had also been a defective light-fitting. The landlord replied on the same day and said the light fitting had now been repaired and it was available to inspect the hardboard on the following day.
On 27 February 2024, the resident’s daughter advised this Service that the landlord had agreed to reimburse her father for the full hotel costs. The landlord had inspected the property and confirmed that the floor was now dry and ready for carpet to be laid.
There was various correspondence between the landlord and the resident’s daughter during February 2024 regarding reported delays in the landlord sending its insurers information in order to process her father’s claim.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 16 February 2024 and 6 March 2024 and agreed to pay her father £12,627 (£10,802 for hotel costs and £1,625 for daily expenses) and to pay the insurers an excess payment of £2,500. There was further correspondence during March 2024 regarding the arrangements for these payments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s daughter advised the landlord on various occasions that she had received information from her father’s doctors stating that his health had been impacted by the damp and mould. For example, in her stage 2 complaint of 10 August 2023 she stated that her father’s respiratory and sinus symptoms/infections had been caused by damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the comments regarding her father’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident’s daughter may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident’s daughter was unhappy with the settlement offered by the landlord’s insurers in relation to her father’s claim for damage to his possessions. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer. The role of this Service is to consider the actions of social landlords and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, this Service cannot comment on the outcome or handling of the resident’s insurance claim. However, the Ombudsman can comment on the way a landlord has communicated with the resident around the matter of an insurance claim or managed the progress of that claim.
The resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord on various occasions and stated that its insurers had admitted liability due to “a breach of duty” by the landlord. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine liability or negligence in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision in relation to such matters. Similarly, this Service does not look at liability claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance.
The Ombudsman has received information regarding various events that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 29 September 2023. For example, the resident’s daughter supplied information between December 2023 and February 2024 which she stated showed further signs of water ingress in the property. She also sent details of a fall sustained by her father in February 2024. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman has considered it fair and reasonable to investigate matters up until the resident moved back to the property on 8 January 2024 but not beyond this date. The Ombudsman has, however, referred to some of the later events for contextual purposes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy identifies 5 categories of repairs as follows:
1. P1 – out of hours emergency jobs – these are made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
2. P2 – daytime emergency jobs – these are made safe within 4 hours and completed within 24 hours.
3. P3 – responsive repairs by appointment – these are to be completed within 15 working days.
4. P4 – programmed works – these jobs require pre-inspection and are completed within 25 working days inclusive of the inspection.
5. P5 – planned works – these are for larger and complex works and are completed within 60 working days.
The policy goes on to say the landlord “may, wherever practicable, carry out repairs with special consideration for tenants who may be considered vulnerable and in need of additional support. This may include completing some routine repairs within a faster timescale for some tenants if a failure to do so may put them at risk…”
The landlord introduced a Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy on 5 June 2023, which states: “Following a report of dampness within a property, [the landlord] will attempt to diagnose the cause of the dampness…In most instances, reports of dampness will result in an inspection order being placed. Following the inspection, the residents will be advised by the surveyor whether, in their opinion, this is being caused by penetrative damp, rising damp, or condensation damp”.
The landlord’s Essential Repair Decants Procedure states: “Essential repair decants apply in the following circumstances…major repair works are necessary and the work cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ due to health and safety risks…[or]… When any works that are being carried out would exacerbate the tenant’s or a member of their household’s medical condition”.
The policy states that the decisions on whether to decant a resident are made by its operational inspectors in conjunction with the Neighbourhood Officer. The policy goes on to say: “If the tenant cites medical reasons for not remaining in the property, the tenant will need to supply supporting evidence. Following receipt of this, the Neighbourhood Officer should make a referral to [the landlord’s] medical advisor, to carry out an assessment and recommend whether a decant is medically necessary”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 to report a leak under the floorboards in the hallway. An operative attended to repair the leak on 28 March 2023. The landlord and its contractor therefore responded within a reasonable timescale. However, in its stage one reply dated 20 June 2023, the landlord accepted that the operative had failed to detect the correct source of the leak, which it identified on 5 June 2023 as a slow leak coming from the flat above.
The operative’s failure to detect the correct source of the leak caused the resident additional inconvenience and meant that the leak was ongoing for longer than should have been the case. The landlord apologised in its stage one reply for the error and confirmed that it had raised the matter with the operative’s supervisor.
The Ombudsman accepts that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the leak at the outset. Furthermore, in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. In this case, the landlord accepted that the plumber had made an error in diagnosing the source of the leak. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its contractor who had reported the leak as having been repaired. The landlord took appropriate action after it discovered the error by apologising and raising the matter with the contractor for it to take any necessary follow-up action by speaking to the operative.
The landlord raised a follow-on order on 28 March 2023 to repair the wooden flooring in the hallway and bedroom and the shelving in the cupboard. This was reasonable as the plumber had attended on 28 March 2023 and identified the need for follow-on repairs. It is also worth emphasising that at this point the landlord thought the source of the leak had been found and addressed.
An appointment had originally been made for the work to the floorboards to be carried out on 19 May 2023. However, the appointment was cancelled, as was a subsequent appointment in June 2023. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that the cancellations were due to a shortage of operatives. The work was completed on 4 July 2023, which was over 3 months after the order had been raised. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware that the flooring in the property was defective and should have considered the hazards associated with defective flooring. Furthermore, the resident had contacted the landlord on 2 June 2023 to report that the flooring in the wet room was sinking. He advised the landlord that he was disabled and therefore it was unreasonable that the landlord had not prioritised the repair due to the resident’s disability.
The landlord raised an order on 25 May 2023 to inspect the property for damp and mould and a surveyor inspected the property between 2 and 5 June 2023 (the exact date is unclear from the evidence seen). The landlord’s notes stated that there was a leak from the above flat which had to be addressed before any damp and mould work could be carried out. The notes also stated that the area would need to be allowed to dry out once the leak had been rectified. The landlord had therefore inspected the property within a reasonable time after it had raised the order on 25 May 2023. It was also reasonable that the landlord had decided that the leak had to be addressed before any follow-up damp and mould remedial works could be undertaken. This was because the dampness issues would continue unless the source of the water ingress was addressed.
An order was raised on 5 June 2023 to address the leak. A plumber attended on the same day, which was appropriate, and confirmed that the leak was coming from the flat above. A plumber attended the flat above the resident’s property on 10 June 2023 and carried out repairs to stop the leak. The landlord had therefore acted within a reasonable timescale to address the leak once it had identified the source.
The landlord’s contractor removed the floorboards in the hallway on 5 July 2023 to expose the pipework and a surveyor inspected the property on 11 July 2023. As the landlord was aware that the resident was disabled, it was inappropriate that it had not arranged to inspect the property on the same day as the floorboards were removed. This would have provided the surveyor with an opportunity to assess any risks posed to the resident by the missing floorboards and to take appropriate steps to mitigate the risks.
The landlord had initially believed that the resident could remain in the property while works to deal with the leak and the associated repairs were being carried out. However, it received completed medical forms from the resident on 19 June 2023 and had therefore sent them to its in-house medical team to assess whether the resident could remain in the property. This was appropriate as the information had to be assessed by a medically qualified person in line with its decant policy.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply of 29 September 2023 that its medical assessor had concluded there was no justification for the resident to be decanted. However, following a conference call with the resident and his daughter on 17 July 2023, the landlord had decided that the resident should be booked into a hotel for 3 weeks from 19 July 2023 to minimise disruption to him. It was reasonable that the landlord had discussed the works with the resident beforehand and then taken action to minimise disruption to him by offering a temporary decant.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it had produced a detailed schedule of repairs from the inspection in June 2023 and had raised the required orders on 15 June 2023. The orders are shown as having been completed on 24 August 2023. The repairs therefore took just over a month to complete after the resident was decanted on 19 July 2023. The time taken to carry out the repairs was appropriate as the landlord’s policy is to carry out programmed works within 25 working days.
The landlord advised the resident’s daughter on 25 August 2023 that its damp meter readings taken the day before were in the normal range. It also provided a photo of the wet room taken before the works were carried, which it said showed the area was dry. The landlord therefore advised the resident’s daughter that her father could move back to the property. The resident disputed the meter reading and said that she and her husband had taken their own readings which still showed high levels of moisture.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 5 September 2023 and accepted that her readings had been different to those taken by the landlord. The landlord therefore suggested a joint site visit to consider the different readings. This was a reasonable suggestion as it showed a willingness to investigate the different readings to establish the reasons for the differences. It is not clear from the evidence whether the joint visit took place.
The landlord confirmed to the resident’s daughter on 7 September 2023 that it would shortly be carrying out some final snagging issues and decorating but that its view was the property was fit for the resident to return to. The landlord said it would therefore not cover any additional hotel costs. The landlord advised the resident’s daughter on 22 September 2023 that all the scoped works had been completed, including reinstating the floorboards and decorating.
Despite the completion of the works, the resident’s daughter continued to advise the landlord that she and her husband had taken meter readings showing high moisture contents. She advised the landlord that the property had not been dry since the original leak from the flat above. In its stage 2 reply dated 29 September 2023, the landlord stated that it was investigating a further leak affecting the property.
A plumber attended the property on 3 October 2023 and concluded that there had been a further leak caused by a defective collar on the WC pan. He believed that this had caused the pooling of water under the wet room. The plumber had therefore replaced the collar. The landlord advised the resident of these findings on 4 October 2023 but said it would carry out further tests. The evidence shows that the landlord had arranged for the plumber to investigate the leak within a reasonable timescale. It was also reasonable for the landlord to arrange further tests because although it was entitled to rely on the plumber’s findings, it wanted to be certain that this was the source of the leak.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 18 October 2023 and advised her that it believed the water may have been from a leak to the WC pan. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident’s daughter has disputed the landlord’s views that the leak was from the toilet. Her view is that the original leak had been continuous.
The Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise to determine whether the source of the water pooling was from a new leak from the toilet or whether it had been from the original leak. However, the evidence shows that the landlord’s plumber had spent several hours investigating the source of the water and the landlord had carried out further tests, such as the borescope test, CCTV camera surveys and taking damp meter readings. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to determine the source of the water and was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its qualified staff and contractors.
The landlord commissioned a specialist dampness surveyor who inspected the property on 23 October 2023 and recommended various works. The resident’s daughter has questioned why the survey had been limited to certain parts of the property and had not been more intrusive, for example by checking under the floorboards. Given the problems that had occurred with water leaks affecting the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a specialist to inspect the property. As the client, the landlord was responsible for agreeing the scope of the inspection. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord was entitled to rely on the experience and expertise of the staff responsible for commissioning the survey to decide on its scope.
The resident’s daughter expressed concerns about her father returning to the property before the works recommended by the dampness specialist had been completed. She had sent the landlord a letter from her father’s doctor regarding his medical conditions. The landlord wrote to her on 17 November 2023 and said that it was prepared to offer a temporary decant for 8 weeks to allow the work to proceed. The landlord stated that it was making the offer because the property was showing higher than normal damp readings in some limited areas and it had considered the information from the resident’s doctor.
Given that the landlord had found higher than normal damp readings and had received relevant information from the resident’s doctor, it was reasonable that the landlord had revisited the question of whether to decant the resident. It was also reasonable that it had offered a temporary decant into one of its properties (as opposed to paying for hotel accommodation) as this was in line with its decant policy. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have considered a temporary decant sooner given that it was carrying out further investigations into a water leak from 29 September 2023 and it was aware that the ongoing cost of the hotel was placing a financial strain on the resident’s daughter. She had advised the landlord of this financial strain on different occasions, for example on 5 October 2023. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not offered a temporary decant earlier.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it may agree a decant where major repair works are necessary and the work cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ due to health and safety risks. Given the medical information submitted by the resident’s daughter, it was reasonable that the landlord had taken a precautionary approach and offered a temporary decant. The offer of the temporary decant was refused by the resident’s daughter due to concerns about the level of disruption that it would mean for her father.
One of the other concerns expressed by the resident’s daughter is that the work carried out by the landlord because of the dampness specialist’s report differed from the recommendations in the report. For example, she stated that the landlord had only partially ‘tanked’ the main area of water ingress. Again, the Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise to determine the adequacy of the works carried out by the landlord but the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its staff and the contractor overseeing the work.
The resident’s daughter also questioned why the landlord had not done more to help the property dry out. The landlord responded by saying that in its view dehumidifiers had not been necessary. It also confirmed that blow heaters had been used while the works were in progress to help dry out the property. The landlord continued to take damp meter readings and advised the resident’s daughter on various occasions, such as on 21 December 2023, that the moisture levels were low. It was reasonable that the landlord had considered the action it should take to help the property dry out and it was also reasonable that it had continued to monitor the moisture levels in the property.
In summary, the resident was away from the property for almost 6 months, which caused him inconvenience and distress, particularly given his medical conditions. However, during this time the landlord had carried out various tests to determine the source of water ingress, carried out reinstatement works following the leaks, had arranged for a dampness specialist to inspect the property and had arranged for work such as tanking and redecorations. The evidence shows that the landlord had taken several damp meter readings during the period and was monitoring the level of moisture in the property. The need to monitor the moisture levels added to the overall time taken by the landlord to complete the works because understandably it wanted to ensure there was no further water ingress.
Therefore, given the circumstances, the Ombudsman has not found the period taken by the landlord to resolve the issues and carry out the necessary repairs to have been excessive. The Ombudsman has, however, found there was maladministration by the landlord because:
1. It took over 3 months from 28 March 2023 to 4 July 2023 to repair the wooden flooring in the hallway and bedroom despite the increased risks to the resident due to his disabilities.
2. The landlord did not inspect the property until nearly a week after the floorboards in the hallway had been removed to expose the pipework in July 2023. Therefore, the landlord had not immediately assessed the risk of leaving the pipework exposed with the resident in occupation.
3. The landlord should have offered a temporary decant earlier than 17 November 2023 as it was aware that there were higher than normal damp readings, it was aware of the resident’s medical conditions and it was aware that the hotel costs were placing a financial burden on the resident’s family.
The Ombudsman has ordered compensation of £400, which is within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for hotel costs, expenses and damaged possessions

The resident was decanted to a local hotel on 19 July 2023 and the landlord’s initial booking ended on 18 August 2023. However, the landlord extended the booking until 4 September 2023 to allow parts of the property to be decorated. The landlord advised the resident’s daughter on 7 September 2023 that the property was fit for the resident to occupy. It was reasonable that the landlord had extended the hotel booking to allow the works to be completed. It was also reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident’s daughter that her father could move back to the property as it believed all the work had been completed.
The resident’s daughter disputed that the property was dry enough for her father to move into and submitted damp meter readings which she said showed high moisture content. During the remainder of September and October 2023, the resident’s daughter therefore continued to request the landlord to cover the costs of the hotel. She believed her father could not return to the property as it was not dry enough given his medical conditions. The landlord continued to advise the resident’s daughter that it would not cover the hotel costs. However, it advised the resident’s daughter on 4 October 2023 that it would wait for its insurers to determine liability for the ongoing hotel costs. As the landlord’s insurers were considering the resident’s claim, including for the hotel costs, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the insurers’ decision regarding liability for the hotel costs.
The landlord agreed on 17 November 2023 that it would offer the resident a temporary decant for 8 weeks to allow the works to take place. Therefore, having made this offer to the resident (and the resident having refused it), the landlord was, in the Ombudsman’s view, entitled to refuse to cover the ongoing hotel costs. The landlord had followed its decant policy by offering the resident a temporary decant to one of its properties.
The resident advised the landlord on 28 November 2023 and 5 January 2024 that the insurers had refused to cover the hotel costs. The landlord wrote to the resident’s daughter on 16 February 2024 and 6 March 2024 and agreed to reimburse her father the full cost of the hotel and to pay daily expenses for the full period he was in the hotel. Notwithstanding that the landlord had offered a temporary decant on 17 November 2023, the Ombudsman welcomes the steps taken by the landlord to settle this element of the dispute by agreeing to pay the resident’s full hotel costs and expenses.
In terms of the reported damage to the resident’s possessions, the resident’s daughter submitted an insurance claim form on 17 August 2023 and the landlord had forwarded this to its insurers on the same day. The landlord had therefore acted promptly to forward the claim to the insurers. The landlord advised the resident on 4 September that it had then sent the necessary additional information to the insurers on 1 September 2023. The landlord had therefore submitted the necessary information within 2 weeks, which was reasonable as the landlord would need to have collated all the relevant information from its systems and the teams involved. Although the resident’s daughter stated that the landlord had delayed sending information to the insurers, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this.
In summary, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request for reimbursement for the hotel costs, expenses and damaged goods because:
1. The landlord initially booked the resident into a hotel to minimise disruption to him while works were being undertaken and then ended the booking when it believed the property was fit to occupy.
2. The landlord advised the resident that it was waiting for its insurers to determine liability for the hotel costs.
3. The landlord offered the resident a temporary decant into one of its properties on 17 November 2023.
4. The landlord forwarded the resident’s claim to its insurers and provided supporting information in a timely manner.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for hotel costs, expenses and damaged possessions.

Reasons

It took over 3 months for the landlord to repair the wooden flooring in the hallway and bedroom despite the increased risks to the resident due to his disabilities. The landlord did not inspect the property until nearly a week after the floorboards in the hallway had been removed to expose the pipework in July 2023. The landlord should have offered a temporary decant earlier than 17 November 2023 as it was aware that there were higher than normal damp readings, it was aware of the resident’s medical conditions and it was aware that the hotel costs were placing a financial burden on the resident’s family.
The landlord had initially booked the resident into a hotel to minimise disruption to him while works were being undertaken and then ended the booking when it believed the property was fit to occupy. The landlord offered the resident a temporary decant into one of its properties on 17 November 2023. The landlord forwarded the resident’s claim to its insurers and provided supporting information in a timely manner.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £400 for its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.