Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Croydon (202318405)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318405

London Borough of Croydon

21 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports about repairs at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the associated formal complaint.
    2. Record keeping with respect to the issues.

Background

  1. The resident lived at the property from 4 July 2022 to 4 April 2023. The property was a fifth floor 1 bed flat. The resident lived alone, and his 2 children stayed with him on weekends. The resident has said he has sickle cell disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and depression for which he takes medication, attends hospital regularly, and receives counselling. The evidence shows the landlord was made aware of the resident’s health conditions at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in a call and by email on 13 December 2022 about issues including the lift, damp and mould, and an upsurge in the bathroom. Further, on 14 December 2022, his MP added a heating loss issue and a request for compensation to his complaint.
  3. Following the intervention of this Service, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 September 2023 when it apologised for the response delay. It said it had tried to contact the resident unsuccessfully about his complaint and due to the lack of contact, it “was assuming” the repairs were completed. It stated on 6 December 2022 the drains were unblocked and its contractors had also unsuccessfully tried to contact him to arrange a visit to address the mould.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied, and his representative escalated his complaint on 14 September 2023. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 31 October 2023, which addressed the matters in the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged failings in responding to reported repairs; apologised for its response delay along with distress and inconvenience; offered £900 compensation; and said it was taking measures to prevent a recurrence.
  5. Following a request on 1 November 2023 by the resident’s representative for the compensation offer to be reviewed, the landlord on 21 February 2024 made a compensation offer of £4510. This Service has been provided with a suggested breakdown of and reasons for the enhanced offer, which included compensation for moving costs, damaged possessions, repair delays, and complaint response delay. The final breakdown has not been provided.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident is seeking additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. The scope of this investigation has been limited to considering matters raised in the 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme and therefore, from 12 June 2022 onwards. The investigation covers matters until 21 February 2024, which is when the landlord closed the complaint after it had reviewed its compensation offer. Relevant factors outside this period may however be referenced for contextual purposes.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, if a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or, award damages. The resident has stated the property condition has had an impact on his health. The Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, we have assessed the extent to which the landlord took the resident’s reports of the household vulnerabilities into consideration in handling the matter.

Landlord’s handling of reports about repairs at the property

  1. The landlord’s repair guide sets out 5 priorities for repairs including:
    1. Urgent repairs – 24 hours for repairs involving a health and safety risk.
    2. Less urgent repairs – 3 days for repairs interfering with a resident’s comfort.
    3. Non urgent repairs – 15 days for repairs causing inconvenience or to maintain a property in a reasonable condition.
  2. The guide gives examples of timescales for repairs such as 1 day for resolving heating and hot water loss, or a blocked drain.
  3. The conditions of tenancy says the landlord will maintain the resident’s home in a fit condition and keep it safe.
  4. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure of the property and installations provided, including walls, floors, basins, waste pipes, central heating, water heaters, and lifts.
  5. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards, which are a health and safety risk to residents. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category 1 hazards, which includes damp and mould. The possible health effects are identified as including breathing difficulties caused by mould, depression, and anxiety.
  6. The landlord’s housing allocations scheme sets out circumstance when a resident cannot remain in occupation and will be placed in an urgent priority band for allocation including residents living in conditions causing “an on-going and serious threat to their health”.

Drainage issues

  1. The evidence shows that during a tenancy visit on 19 July 2022 the landlord noted dirty water was backing up into the sink when the resident showered. It is unclear what prompted the tenancy visit. The repair log shows the first visit to address the drainage issue took place on 17 August 2022, which was approximately a month after the tenancy visit. The resident’s further reports following these works evidence that the landlord failed to resolve this issue at this stage. For example, the resident experienced sewage back surges on 2 separate occasions in February 2023.
  2. It is clear from the evidence the drainage issue was not properly resolved from July 2022 to March 2023. There was a delay from the first recorded report to a repair visit. The landlord’s repairs guide sets out a 1 day timeframe for dealing with blocked drains and repairs involving a health and safety risk. The initial visit significantly exceeded the 1 day timescale. While the landlord may have needed more time to fix the issue in the long term, it should have taken proactive steps to limit the immediate impact of the back surge. This failing had a potentially adverse effect on the resident’s health which he said required a sanitary environment. In a call with the landlord on 12 February 2023 the resident said he was bleaching and cleaning his bathroom daily and he was “at a loss and wishes to give up”. 
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the drains had been unblocked on 6 December 2022 but failed to mention further reports or works after this date. For example, in an email it sent on 9 February 2023 it said drainage works took place on the same day. The response unsatisfactorily failed to acknowledge the unresolved drainage issue had contributed to the decision to move the resident. The stage 2 response however acknowledged failures and “extensive delays” and offered compensation which will be considered in the final assessment below. It also said it had only limited information from the contractor, who no longer worked with it. By not taking more proactive action, the landlord exposed the resident to an avoidably extended period of detriment. The significant delays with addressing this issue was not in line with its policy timescales or its section 11 duty. This was unacceptable.

Heating and hot water loss

  1. The wider email evidence shows the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water on 26 November 2022. On 30 November 2022, which was 5 days later, the resident reported the matter again. There is a lack of contemporaneous records evidencing how the landlord reacted to this issue. This has hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. This Service has relied on an email sent by the landlord on 15 December 2022 to the resident’s councillor stating the issue was resolved on 1 December 2022. The repairs guide sets out a 1 day timeframe for loss of the heating and hot water. The landlord’s failure to resolve the heating and hot water issue within 1 day in line with its repairs guide and its section 11 duty was inappropriate.
  2. The evidence does not indicate what alternative measures were considered by the landlord while the issue was being resolved especially given the resident’s stated vulnerabilities. It had been informed by the resident’s representative that his “compromised immune system” meant he was at risk of infection from the cold. The supplied evidence shows the landlord was informed in mid December 2022 that the resident had incurred the costs of “temporary and expensive heating alternatives”.
  3. The landlord’s repairs guide states if heating and hot water loss was not repaired on the first visit, it would provide residents with heaters on a temporary basis. By not proactively providing alternative sources of heating, the landlord missed an opportunity to show it took the resident’s concerns seriously and that it complied with its policy. The resident was left to make his own arrangements, which was unacceptable. However, both complaint responses failed to address this issue with the stage 2 response stating it had limited information about repairs from its old contractors. It did however acknowledge failures and delay, and offered compensation, which will be considered in the final assessment below. By not taking more timely action, the resident was exposed to an avoidable detriment. This was unsatisfactory.

Damp and mould

  1. The supplied evidence fails to set out the dates of the resident’s reports or the inspection visits and recommendations. An internal landlord email dated 13 December 2022 refers to the resident’s call with it on the same day when he reported mould was damaging his clothes. Despite the report on 13 December 2022, a lack of progress by its repairs team resulted in the landlord referring the matter to its damp and mould team on 13 January 2023. The evidence shows 2 damp and mould inspections took place on 27 January and 10 February 2023, but the inspection reports and recommendations have not been provided to this Service. There is no evidence damp and mould remedial works were undertaken while the resident remained in the property. This was unacceptable and not in keeping with its stated tenancy conditions to keep homes in a safe condition.
  2. The failure to take substantive remedial action to address the damp and mould issue caused the resident distress and frustration. The evidence indicates the landlord was aware the resident’s sickle cell disease required a reasonable sanitary condition. His representative had informed it that the damp triggered his sickle cell leading to “excruciating painful episodes”. The resident also said that the damp had damaged his belongings including his clothing. The landlord’s failure to proactively address the damp and mould issue in line with its policy and HHSRS duty was unreasonable especially given the resident’s stated health conditions and the potential health impact.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that its contractors tried to contact the resident to deal with the mould but fails to set out the specific dates. Further, the response was limited as it did not set out the steps it had or had not taken. For example, it failed to set out the reasons why the repairs team did not address the issue in December 2022, and the details of the 2 inspections in early 2023. While the stage 2 response acknowledged failures and repair delays generally, it was unable to set out specific remedial actions due to limited information from its old contractors. This was unsatisfactory. The stage 2 response compensation offer has been considered in the final assessment below.

 

Lift

  1. The landlord has not provided this Service with repair reports or lift repair records, but an internal landlord email sets out 4 dates between 28 July and 30 November 2022 when lift repairs were undertaken and the lift was left in service. The resident’s flat was located on the fifth floor and given his stated health conditions, he said both he and emergency services were reliant on a working lift. The wider evidence indicates the resident had previously been carried down the stairs by emergency services in December 2022 and it also shows this may have been because his hospital bed did not fit in the lift.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident reported that the lift was not working on 7 February 2023, but the supplied evidence does not show when it was repaired, which is unacceptable. The absence of information around the lift repairs is concerning as this means this Service is unable to confirm if and when the landlord took appropriate action, if it undertook repairs within its policy timescales and whether it was in line with its policy and section 11 duty. This is unsatisfactory.
  3. While the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address the lift issue, its stage 2 response acknowledged there were repair failures and delays. The stage 2 response states missing information from its old contractor meant it was unable to set out actions taken to respond to the resident’s report. The stage 2 response offered compensation which has been considered in the final assessment below.

Conclusion regarding repairs issues, including the landlord’s offer of compensation

  1. The stage 1 response and email evidence indicate that calls to the resident were unsuccessful. The resident’s phone blocked private numbers. The landlord and its contractors gave this as a reason for the repairs not being progressed. For example, the stage 1 response states its contractors had unsuccessfully made contact “multiple times” to arrange mould appointments. The evidence from the landlord clearly shows it was aware of the resident’s phone issue from December 2022, that he was responsive to emails and finally, that it could confirm appointments with his representative. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord opted to close the case without ensuring the reported issues had been resolved.
  2. The evidence shows the resident was first considered for a decant in February 2023 and initially for a 6 week period to allow works to be done. The evidence does not show that the landlord considered rehousing the resident earlier in view of its housing allocations statement of moving residents when living conditions cause “an on-going and serious threat to their health”. It missed opportunities to do so, for example, from July 2022 when the resident repeatedly reported back surges of dirty water and sewage. This was unreasonable.
  3. The evidence also shows repeated requests for repair timescales. For example, the resident’s MP made such a request on 14 December 2022 and the resident also did so on 7 February 2023. The evidence does not show that the resident, or his representative was provided with an action plan or timescales. This was unsatisfactory and not in keeping with its stated values of providing the “best possible service to our customers”.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately apologised for failings, offered £900 compensation, and stated it had learned lessons including putting in place measures to monitor repairs to resolution. By not taking more proportionate and timely action the landlord exposed the resident to an avoidably extended period of detriment including back surges of water and sewage, and unaddressed damp and mould. While living at the property, the supplied evidence shows the resident attended the hospital on an emergency basis 6 times with 2 separate inpatient hospital stays.
  5. The landlord did not breakdown the £900 compensation offer against the different repairs. It stated the compensation was for repair delays, any impact on the resident’s health and safety, damage to his belongings, and inconvenience and distress.
  6. An email on 21 February 2024 from the landlord to the resident shows it offered him increased compensation of £4510. This Service requested the stage 2 follow on letter confirming the final compensation breakdown, but it has not been provided. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 9 February 2024 advising it would combine his new complaint about his experiences at his next property with a review of the £900 offer in a follow on stage 2 response. The £4510 offer was made after its original complaints process concluded indicating it failed to meaningfully engage with its own processes to provide an accurate response at the time.
  7. The landlord has provided this Service with a document setting out its provisional response to the resident’s request for additional compensation. The request is based on the resident’s costs which he said he had incurred due to the cost of moving 3 times, damaged belongings, loss of heating and hot water, cleaning, vets bills, effect on health, and repair and complaint response delays. The request covers the resident’s experiences in his previous and next property. It is noted that as elements of the £4510 offer related to issues under investigation here, then this occurred some time after the completion of the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s view is that a member landlord’s complaints process is the appropriate place for resolution action to take place.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states our compensation is always based on what we consider fair in the circumstances of the case. The additional compensation of £4510 appropriately tried to put things right for the resident with, for example, payments in consideration of a loss of heating and hot water. This Service is only concerned with the resident’s experience at the property subject to this investigation, which is about the landlord’s repairs handling. While we have not been provided with the final breakdown the proportion of the suggested compensation related to this investigation is:
    1.        £200 for loss of heating and hot water.
    2.        £250 for delays with repairs.
  9. The Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues at the property. The compensation amounts offered by the landlord did not reflect the extent of its failures nor the detriment experienced by the resident due to these failures. The landlord has provided evidence that the offers of £900 and £4510 were paid to the resident on 1 and 22 February 2024, respectively. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay compensation of £3000 to reflect distress, inconvenience and, time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation offers linked to this investigation of £900 and £450 are to be deducted from this sum.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it operated a two-stage complaint process with responses being issued within 20 working days at stage 1 and stage 2 of receipt of the complaint and/or escalation.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time stated that complaints must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 within 5 days of receipt of the complaint with the stage 1 response being issued within 10 working days from receipt of complaint.
  3. The supplied evidence does not show the resident’s complaint was acknowledged, which was unsatisfactory and not in line with its policy or the Code.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were issued after 186 working days and 35 working days at stage 1 and 2, respectively. Both responses were in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales. In its stage 1 response, it said it had tried to contact the resident about the complaint. The supplied evidence does not set out any such attempts. The landlord failed to set out the precise reasons for the significant delay of approximately 8 months and even if there had been unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident, it was still required to follow its policy timescales and issue its response accordingly.
  5. The resident complaint of 13 December 2022 was summarised by the landlord internally on the same day to include the lift breaking down and damage to clothing. The stage 1 response failed to address both issues while the stage 2 response only addressed the damage to the extent that the resident was compensated for his belongings. This failure was unacceptable. The Code states a landlord must address all points raised in a complaint. By not addressing these issues, the landlord breached the Code.
  6. While the resident was initially informed that he would receive his stage 2 response by 11 October 2023, the landlord advised him on 10 October 2023 that he would receive it by 17 October 2023. The supplied evidence does not show the resident was asked to agree a varied timeframe for the stage 2 response. This was not in line with its policy which states it will agree a revised deadline. This was unsatisfactory.
  7. The landlord appropriately apologised for its failings in the stage 2 response issued in 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with the follow on to its stage 2 response, but it has provided a suggested compensation breakdown leading to the £4510 offer. The lack of the evidence for the final breakdown of £4510 has impacted on this Service’s ability to assess the case. The proportion of the suggested compensation for its complaint response delays is £250. It is acknowledged that the landlord acted positively by reviewing the compensation offered to reflect the stress and inconvenience to the resident. The offer of £250 was not proportionate to the distress caused to the resident and its failure identified by this investigation. Further, had the landlord proactively offered the compensation as part of its stage 1 and/or stage 2 responses, it would have shown a willingness to make things right and helped to restore trust with the resident.
  8. Taking all factors into account, such as the delays in issuing complaint responses and its failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made that it pays compensation of £500 to reflect distress, inconvenience and, time and trouble caused to the resident. The landlord’s suggested compensation offer for the complaint response delay of £250 is to be deducted from this sum.

Record keeping

  1. The landlord’s record keeping indicates considerable failings. The landlord has stated it has “no access to any contractors’ info/reports prior to 1 August 2023”; and the departure of a surveyor and head of service meant it could not provide a report and correspondence respectively for each. We asked it to provide evidence in the form of, for example, the resident’s reports, all correspondence and contact notes, repair logs, visit records and inspection reports. The evidence provided contains gaps including, but not limited to:
    1. Documentation concerning the transfer to the property including the health assessment and offer letter of 20 March 2023.
    2. Repair completion records (e.g. lift on 28 and 29 July 2022, and drainage works on 9 September 2022).
    3. Resident’s reports (e.g. heating and hot water issue reported on 26 November 2022).
    4. Contractor visits records (e.g. heating repair on 1 December 2022 and drainage repair on 6 December 2022) including the call records between the resident and its contractors.
    5. Visit records for its meeting with the resident (e.g. tenancy visit on 19 July 2022, and damp and mould inspection visits on 13 January and 10 February 2023).
    6. The surveyor’s inspection notes and report for the visit on 6 February 2023.
    7. Call records with the resident (e.g. 13 December 2022 and 13 February 2023).
    8. Follow on stage 2 response issued in or around 21 February 2024.
  2. Due to gaps in its supplied evidence, this investigation has used information provided by the resident and references to events within the landlord’s wider correspondence.
  3. This Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information finds poor record keeping is a “key contributing factor” for failures with landlord “repairs service and in complaints”. It states “records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why” with records being clear and timely, accurately recording decisions and the reasons for them.
  4. However, the omissions in the supplied evidence indicates poor record keeping by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds maladministration by the landlord for poor record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs at the property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £1900. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any debts owed to the landlord. The compensation comprises:
      1. £1650 for its handling of reports of repairs at the property. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
      2. £250 for its handling of the associated formal complaint. This reflects the detriment to the resident in the form of distress, time and trouble, and inconvenience.
    2. A senior officer, director level or above, must meet with the resident for the failures identified in this report and the resultant adverse impacts on the resident. The landlord’s apology should:
      1. Acknowledge the failings identified.
      2. Accept responsibility for it.
      3. Where appropriate, set out what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should undertake a senior management review of the case and present the findings to its senior leadership team and this Service within 12 weeks. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders. The review should consider:
    1. Reviewing its repairs operational practices/policy to include consideration of:
      1. Notifying residents of repair timescales.
      2. Agreeing a communication method with residents when telephone contact is unavailable.
      3. Exploring urgent provision of alternative heat and hot water options for residents when a same day repair is not possible.
      4. Rehousing, when remedial works are required, in similar cases of unsanitary living conditions or when there is a risk to health due to pre-existing health conditions.
    2. Consider additional training on complaint handling to prevent:
      1. Complaints not being acknowledged.
      2. Complaint response delays.
      3. Partial or incomplete responses to complaints raised.
      4. Agreeing response timescale variations with residents.
    3. Undertaking and completing a review of its services and practices on this case against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management in view of the missing evidence highlighted in this investigation, including its contractor’s records and reports and correspondence held by former employees. The report has recommendations, which if it has not done so already, it should consider incorporating into its policies for accurate record keeping.