London Borough of Croydon (202232329)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232329

London Borough of Croydon

19 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. handling of outstanding repairs at the resident’s home, including leaks, damp, and mould.
2. handling of a pest infestation.
3. response to concerns about the level of service and support provided by its housing staff.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, having moved to her current home on 26 November 2012. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the sixth floor of a block of flats. The resident had previously lived with her parents in another flat within the same block.
The resident has indicated that she is vulnerable due to mental health issues and a physical disability. The landlord has confirmed that it has a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 7 November 2022, the resident spoke with the landlord and raised a formal complaint. Her complaint was about a lack of response by her tenancy officer. She said that she had been raising issues over several months and that despite promises to “come back to her” the officer had failed to do so. The written record of the call further noted that the landlord’s repairs team had been in contact with the resident. It had arranged for further works at her home to be carried out.
On 12 November 2022, the resident stopped paying her rent. In an internal email between the income officer and the tenancy officer on 17 November 2022, it recorded that the resident had stopped paying her rent as she had received no contact from her tenancy officer. The rent account shows that the resident recommenced her payments on 9 January 2023 and cleared the debt that had built up.
The tenancy officer met with the resident on 22 November 2022. At this meeting, the resident explained that:
1. she felt that she had been treated with “disrespect, negligence and discrimination” by the landlord.
2. following the death of her mother in 2011, she had been forced to move by the landlord and had been provided with no support, either with the move or in dealing with her bereavement.
3. although the landlord had met her request to remain within the same block of flats, the property she was offered had been unsuitable. She had also only been given 2 days to move.
4. there were a number of issues with the property around mould, condensation, and a mice infestation. She said that she had recently decided to stop paying her rent.
5. she wanted a rent reduction and to be compensated for what she described as years of mistreatment and lack of support, and for being placed into unsuitable and unsafe accommodation. She did not want to move.
6. she wanted the outstanding repairs and the mice infestation within her home to be dealt with. She was also seeking support around her bereavement, as she continued to grieve the loss of her parents. The tenancy officer recorded that he would follow up on the issues raised and the outcome sought by the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It offered an apology for the delay in its reply. This addressed the resident’s complaint about a lack of response from the tenancy officer. It noted that in raising her complaint she had highlighted ongoing and historical issues with her home. It explained the role of the tenancy officer and apologised if this had not been made clear to her. It said that as the issues she had raised were about repairs and pests, these would be followed up by these specific teams. It acknowledged that the tenancy officer was often the first point of contact. It said that the officer would forward on issues to other teams and follow up where these remained outstanding, but it was expected that its repairs or pest control teams would make direct contact with the resident. In conclusion it recorded that most of the repair issues had been completed and that the pest problem had been resolved.
The landlord has provided a document headed stage 2 complaint. This is undated but appears to be a record of a call between the resident and the landlord on 30 December 2022. It noted that the resident had not received the stage 1 response due to the postal strikes. The letter was read to the resident over the telephone, and she then requested that her complaint be escalated. She said that she had spoken with her tenancy officer on 22 November 2022, when she had raised a number of historical issues which had not been addressed in the stage 1 letter. She restated her request for compensation. She said that she had sent a number of letters and made a number of telephone calls, and none had been responded to. She said that she had reported that homeless people were accessing the communal areas of her block and fouling in the hallway. This had not been dealt with. She said that her landlord was aware of the pest infestation and mould and damp in her flat before she moved in. She asked how the property had been signed off as ready to let. The landlord acknowledged her escalated complaint on 3 January 2023.
On 3 February 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. This attached a timeline for repairs relating to mice and damp and mould that the resident had reported over the course of her tenancy. The landlord referred to this within its letter and said that it did not believe that these were excessive. Further to this it:
1. acknowledged her meeting with her tenancy officer on 22 November 2022 and apologised that he had not flagged the issues they discussed as part of her formal complaint. It partially upheld this element of her complaint.
2. said that its telephone system had been upgraded in summer 2022. It was therefore unable to investigate any earlier telephone contacts. It had spoken with her former tenancy officer, who confirmed that he met with her on 7 July 2022. She had told him that she had reported repairs directly to the repairs team, but she had received no response.
3. said that the tenancy officer had contacted the repairs team on 24 August 2022. He had raised her concerns about mice, holes in the floor and that the ceiling above her front door was “caving in”. He received a response from the repairs team on 15 September 2022, confirming that it had arranged an inspection. As the repairs team had been in direct contact with the resident the tenancy officer took no further action.
4. apologised that her calls had not been returned and referred to her most recent call on 14 December 2022.
5. considered her compensation request. It said that it did not believe “it was appropriate to refund 11 years of rent payments or for a reduction in rent to be considered as a means of compensation”. It offered her £50.00 compensation as an apology for the tenancy officer’s failure to provide an update following the meeting on 22 November 2022.
6. noted that her request to remain in the block following the death of her parents had been met. It recognised that she had been unhappy with the state of repair and décor of the flat, and the time allowed for her to move. It offered a sincere apology for this, and any impact caused.
7. set out the steps the resident could take if she remained dissatisfied, including referral to its housing complaint panel.
The housing complaints panel reviewed the resident’s complaint on 14 March 2023. This confirmed the compensation awarded and informed the resident that she could escalate her complaint to the Service. The tenancy officer sent a follow up to the stage 2 letter on 15 March 2023. This confirmed that at that time there were no outstanding repairs recorded for the resident’s home. He also provided links to bereavement support agencies and provided an update on the action he was taking to address the issue of homeless people accessing the block.
The resident brought her complaint to the Service on 5 April 2023. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses to her complaints and felt that it did not address the poor service that she had received. She wanted to be refunded rent or for her rent to be reduced.

Policy and procedures

The landlord’s complaint procedure was revised in October 2022. As the landlord is a local authority this procedure covers all areas of its service. It has a 2 stage procedure. It has a 20 working day target at each stage and says that all complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. The procedure sets out who should investigate the complaint at each stage to ensure that there is an independent review. Guidance is to be given to a complainant about escalation to the Ombudsman. The procedure says at point 3.6.8 that if the resident remains dissatisfied, that ahead of the involvement of the Ombudsman it may ask the housing complaints panel to review the complaint. The purpose of the panel is to work with both parties to find a resolution to a complaint. This does not prevent escalation to the Service.
The landlord has a separate complaint remedies guidance. This sets out the remedies that should be considered when it is dealing with a complaint. This includes guidance around compensation for poor service and consideration of time and trouble caused to residents by delays.
The landlord’s repairs guide for tenants explains how to report a repair and provides relevant contact numbers. This further sets out the landlord’s service pledge and what residents can expect from its contractors. It includes the following timescales and definition for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs have a target of within 2 hours. This may include severe flooding or a lack of water supply. The landlord will make the property safe and will them follow up to carry out the actual repair at a later date.
2. Urgent repairs are works that must be carried out quickly to remove a health and safety risk. These will be attended to within 24 hours with the actual repair carried out at a later date.
3. Less Urgent repairs are those needed to make sure the property is safe and put right anything that interferes with the resident’s comfort. These will be completed within 3 working days.
4. Non Urgent repairs are small simple repairs needed to prevent inconvenience to the resident and have a target of 15 working days.
5. Semi planned works are mostly larger, non urgent repairs. These have a target response time of 60 working days.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout her complaint, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the condition of her home when she moved in and the short amount of time she was allowed for the move. She has also complained about the level of support provided to her by the landlord. The resident’s concerns are noted. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from mid-2022 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. While we have not investigated historical matters, we have referred to them for context and to reflect the continued dissatisfaction the resident has experienced with the level of customer service, handling of repairs and pest issues.
As an outcome to her complaint the resident has requested a reduction in the level of rent the landlord charges her and a refund of rent over a period of 11 years. Residents have a contractual obligation to meet their rent liability set out within the terms of their tenancy agreement. Where relevant, the Ombudsman can consider whether compensation based on the level of rent would be appropriate. However, the Service cannot make orders varying the level of rent payable.

Handling of outstanding repairs including leaks, damp, and mould within the resident’s home.

The resident has said that she has experienced leaks and damp and mould within her home over an extended period. She further indicated that these problems existed prior to her moving in and that the landlord was aware of these issues. Given the time that has elapsed since she moved into her home the Service cannot consider the condition of the property at that time. The landlord has, as part of its stage 2 reply, provided a timeline of repairs related to this issue.
This covered the period 3 January 2013 to 2 November 2022. It listed a total of 14 repairs over this period. These identified individual leaks in the bathroom and the kitchen, alongside failures to the seals on the bedroom and living room windows which had caused condensation in between the panes and a water leak. The report indicates that all of these repairs were dealt with in a timely manner. It further identified a problem with the radiator in the bathroom not heating up, which reoccurred on 4 separate occasions and was attended to each time. The report does not provide any evidence of underlying damp issues within the property. It shows a series of unrelated repairs caused by the failure of plumbing and the windows over time. In the more recent past the landlord recorded that condensation was identified on the bedroom and kitchen windows in February and October 2020 and that following a leak in the kitchen, mould was identified and treated between December 2020 and February 2021. At the time of the resident’s complaint, between 20 October 2022 and 2 November 2022 the landlord located and repaired a leak close to the toilet.
The landlord has not provided the Service with any additional record of repairs to the resident’s home. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have maintained a record of each repair report it received, capturing the date of the report, what action was taken, the date on which repairs were completed and any follow up works required. This would ensure that it had a clear audit trail of repairs carried out and be able to provide a contemporaneous record for independent review.
It is noted that that the landlord’s records of contact with the resident lack detail. These do not contain specific details of the repair issues that she raised, or record follow up actions taken to ensure that these are addressed. These are either undated or do not capture the detail of the officer who made the record. It would be helpful for the landlord to ensure that it is accurately capturing its interaction with the resident so that it has a clear audit trail. It is noted that the resident has informed the landlord that she has no access to email, so her contacts are made either by telephone or letter. Within its stage 2 the landlord advised that it was unable to recall details of telephone calls made to it by the resident prior to an update on its telephone system. It is unclear why the upgrade has left the landlord without details of interactions that took place previously. It is also unclear why interactions with residents are not stored on a central system. It is unknown whether the landlord’s new system allows it to keep a clear, central record of telephone calls and contact from residents. However, a recommendation has been made so that the landlord reviews its current practices and ensues that it has a means of recording and saving contact with residents.
Through its correspondence and the evidence presented the landlord has shown that it has addressed reported repairs effectively. There is also no evidence of significant enduring issues with the property. It has recorded that there were no outstanding repair issues at the time of concluding the resident’s complaint. However, it has been recommended that the landlord reengage with the resident and carry out an inspection of her home. In doing so, the landlord should ensure that there are no current repairs required or a recurrence of the mould issues treated in February 2021.

Handling of a pest infestation

The resident has said that she has experienced ongoing issues with a mice infestation in her home. This has understandably been distressing for the resident. It is noted that this was first reported in January 2013, alongside reports of other repairs to her home, shortly after the tenancy commenced. The landlord has recorded that this was resolved at the time.
The repair timeline attached to the landlord’s stage 2 response records further reports of mice raised by the resident in September and December 2015. On these occasions steps were taken to fill holes in the kitchen and airing cupboard. This was appropriate given the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there is no disrepair leading to infestation within a resident’s home. Further reports were raised by the resident in late 2018 and gaps around service pipes were filled. Once again, this was an appropriate response in the circumstances. Pest control treatment was then carried out between 12 October and 9 November 2022. The landlord’s report does not capture the reports that the resident made to her tenancy officer in July 2022 and the follow up made then, as referred to in the stage 2 response. However, the evidence that is available demonstrates that the issues with mice have been intermittent in nature and that the landlord has taken appropriate steps following each report.
There is no evidence that the mice infestation into the resident’s home has persisted over an extended period of time, more that this has recurred on occasion throughout her tenancy. The landlord’s actions in dealing with the resident’s reports was in line with its policies and there is no evidence of maladministration.
In its stage 2 response the landlord set out that the resident had advised the tenancy officer at their meeting on 22 November 2022 that the pest issue had been resolved. The officer’s notes from the meeting set out that the resident had said that she wanted “all the disrepair within her flat fixed and the mice infestation dealt with”. It is unclear why the landlord regarded the issue as having been resolved given the tenancy officer’s notes. As such a recommendation has been made that the landlord engages with the resident to establish whether there are signs of an infestation present.

Response to concerns about the level of service and support provided by its housing staff.

The resident has said that her tenancy officer failed to return her calls and that she felt that the landlord treated her with “disrespect, negligence and discrimination”. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it appropriately acknowledged that there had been a failure to return the resident’s calls. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered how this would have made the resident feel. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged the impact of the poor service on the resident. Especially so considering her vulnerabilities. Indeed, the conversation the resident had with her tenancy officer on 22 November 2022 was not then passed on to be included within the detail of her complaint and there is no evidence of the actions taken to follow up on the issues she raised.
The landlord has provided no evidence of its contacts with the resident outside of those relating to her complaint, aside from the meeting with the tenancy officer on 22 November 2022. The two documents which record her complaints, raised through telephone conversations with the landlord are undated and do not contain the detail of who made these notes. It is not possible to establish if these present a contemporaneous record of the discussion held with the resident. The landlord should ensure that it has appropriate systems in place to capture contact with its residents and that staff are appropriately trained to record telephone calls and meetings. This is important to ensure that it has a clear audit trail for its engagement with residents and the actions it takes as an outcome of this.
Within its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a recent failure to return her call. It attributed this to the member of staff being on annual leave. While staff are entitled to leave, it is unclear why the resident was not contacted by another member of staff instead. It is also unclear why direct contact was not made with the resident as part of the complaints process to discuss this area of her concern further.
The landlord responded to each of the resident’s complaints in a fairly timely manner, although at both stages these responses were slightly outside of its target time. The landlord’s procedure allows for a review by its housing complaints panel, which is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code establishes a 2 stage complaint handling process, with specific timescales, ahead of referral to the Service. As the Code is set to become statutory framework from April 2024, the landlord should review its policy to ensure that it is in line with this.
The landlord made an offer of compensation of £50 having reviewed the contacts made with its tenancy team, and the lack of follow up. This was offered as an apology for this failure. Having considered the actions of the landlord and the impact on the resident an order for an additional amount of compensation has been made. The landlord is also encouraged to identify a single point of contact for resident who can support her in engaging with other departments within the landlord to ensure that issues dealt with promptly and in recognition of her vulnerability.
There is no evidence that its officer followed through on issues raised at its meeting with the resident. There was then a further delay in it writing to the resident on the outcomes of the stage 2 review. This was not completed until 15 March 2023, 25 working days after the final complaint response. The reasons for the delay are unknown. It is further noted that this letter was dated 6 December 2022, in error. The landlord should take steps to ensure its responses are properly checked prior to issuing them to avoid such errors.
In addition, there is evidence of delays in acting on discussions with the resident as set out within the stage 2 letter. Given the lack of clarity around actions taken by its officers when engaging with the resident and a lack of evidence of clear records and little indication of clear recorded interactions, this was a failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home, including leaks, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the level of service and support provided by its housing staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s failure to respond to her enquiries. This is in addition to the £50 previously offered by the landlord as part of its complaint response.
3. Ensure that its tenancy officer contacts the resident to rebuild trust.
4. Consider establishing a single point of contact for the resident, through the tenancy officer, to address all issues arising with her home.
Within 12 weeks the landlord should undertake a review of its record keeping, to ensure that it effectively captures all contact with its residents and its follow up actions. Such records must be contemporaneous.

Recommendations

The landlord should, within 4 weeks, make arrangements for an inspection of the resident’s home and arrange to undertake any necessary repair works or pest treatment that is found to be required.
The landlord should also engage with the resident to identify additional support that it may provide for her either directly or by referral to other agencies.