London Borough of Ealing (202306717)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306717

London Borough of Ealing

30 September 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 response to the resident’s re-housing request.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. The landlord’s handling of reports of a silverfish infestation.
5. The communication from the resident’s housing officer and general treatment by the landlord.
6. The landlord’s handling of reports of discrimination by people in the local area.
7. The landlord’s handling of complaints.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives with their partner and young child.
On 24 May 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy about:
1. The flooring throughout the property.
2. Damp and mould in the bathroom, bedroom, and living room.
3. High humidity in the property.
4. The property was overcrowded.
5. There were silverfish coming through the floor and walls.
6. An unsecured door and window.
7. Racism from people around the area.
8. The communication from their housing officer and their treatment by the landlord.

We advised that, as an outcome, the resident wanted to be moved or to have their housing list banding changed to reflect the amount of people in the property.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 June 2023. It said:
1. Laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility. It advised that if the wooden floorboards were damaged the resident should let it know and it would arrange a repair.
2. It had carried out a damp and mould inspection on 6 June 2023. Its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment for treatment.
3. The surveyor’s report from the 6 June 2023 inspection would include information about humidity levels.
4. The resident could contact the council’s pest control service to arrange an appointment.
5. It had attended the property on 23 January 2023 to repair the door and window.
6. It had advised the resident that it did not consider they were subject to statutory overcrowding. It had further advised that if their young child required their own bedroom space then they could use the living room as a bedroom.
7. The resident had met with their housing officer on 28 July 2022 but had not mentioned concerns about people in the area. It advised the resident could report their concerns to its Safer Communities Team.
8. The resident’s housing officer had contacted the resident in August and September 2022, as well as May 2023 in relation to the resident’s requests to move home, damp and mould, and repairs.
On 14 June 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. They remained unhappy about:
1. The landlord’s response to the issues with the flooring.
2. Pest control had been unable to find the cause of the silverfish and had not resolved the issue.
3. Overcrowding in their property.
4. They felt they were being discriminated against and left without a duty of care.
5. They also felt the landlord had taken no accountability for the issues.
The landlord provided this service with a copy of its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It stated it had sent a copy to the resident on 19 October 2023. It said:
1. Its position on the flooring remained that it was the resident’s responsibility. It was unable to log a repair order.
2. Its pest control team had attended the resident’s property but had found no evidence of silverfish.
3. It had previously given the resident advice about housing transfer options. If they required further information they should contact their housing officer.
4. It was sorry if the resident felt discriminated against, but it could assure them this was not the case. Its policies and procedures were in place to ensure it treated everyone equally and fairly.
This service wrote to the landlord on 30 January 2024 to advise it did not appear its response of 20 October 2023 had addressed all the resident’s issues. We asked that it review its response and, if necessary, provide a further response.
The landlord issued a further response on 23 February 2024. This was broadly similar to its previous response. It added:
1. It had identified a report of damaged flooring on 10 February 2022. It had attended, but considered the flooring was discoloured rather than damaged. It repeated that laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility.
2. The resident should consider contacting a reputable pest control company to address any ongoing silverfish issues.
3. Before letting a property, its voids team would ensure its safe and in a lettable condition. When it has raised a repair, it takes full responsibility and ensures the repair is completed to a satisfactory standard.
We wrote to the landlord on 20 March 2024 to advise its response still did not address all of the resident’s complaint. We stated it should reissue its response by 27 March 2024.
On 28 March 2024 the Ombudsman issued a Type 1 Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO).
The landlord issued its final response on 11 April 2024. It repeated its response of 23 February 2024 and added:
1. It had advised the resident, in its stage 1 response, to report any discrimination or racial harassment to its Safer Communities Team.
2. Under its duty of care to the resident it had provided them with a 1-bedroom property.
3. It understood from speaking to the resident on 27 March 2024 that they were disappointed the landlord had not housed them in a different area.
4. The resident was not overcrowded under housing law and therefore not in a priority position on its transfer list.
5. It had arranged a damp and mould surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 23 April 2024. After it had received the surveyor’s report it would agree actions to address the issues.
6. It offered £965 in compensation for delays in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can consider is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 41.d of the Scheme the Ombudsman has no power to investigate complaints about councils unless they are acting as a social landlord or a landlord under a long lease.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. Since the resident’s request to be rehoused falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 because they have a reasonable preference, the Housing Ombudsman cannot review it. As a result, this element of the complaint is better suited to the LGSCO.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s contact with this service and the landlord includes matters dating back to the start of their tenancy (August 2019). Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly. This is 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. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2022 (a period of 12 months before the stage 1 complaint) onwards.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

The resident’s complaint raised concerns about the flooring in their property, as well as insecure doors and windows.
The landlord advised that laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility to repair. This is in line with its repair policy and the information included within its ‘Repair Handbook’. The landlord further advised that if the wooden floorboards were damaged then the resident should contact it to arrange a repair. This was an appropriate response.
The resident stated they should not be responsible for repairing the flooring as they did not install it, and it was already damaged when they moved into the property. The landlord advised that when letting a property it would not remove flooring if it was in good condition. It further advised that it had gifted the laminate flooring to the resident when they moved into the property. This was a reasonable explanation to provide and is in line with usual practice.
While we empathise with the resident’s position, the Ombudsman’s view is that the resident should have raised any concerns about the condition of the flooring when they began their tenancy.
The landlord has provided evidence that it raised work orders on 18 February 2022 to repair a bathroom window and the front door. Both orders had a target date of 11 March 2023. This was in line with its repair policy.
The repair records suggest the first appointment offered by the landlord for both repairs was 20 July 2022. This was approximately 19 weeks after the landlord’s target completion date. There has been no explanation provided for this delay.
The records show that the landlord rescheduled the appointments for each repair multiple times. However, other than a note of not being able to access the property on 9 September 2022 and 10 October 2022, there are no recorded reasons to explain why the landlord rescheduled appointments. The landlord should have kept clear records about why it was unable to attend appointments. This would have assisted it in demonstrating it had taken all reasonable steps to meet its repair obligations.
The repairs records indicate the landlord repaired the bathroom window on 9 January 2023 and the front door on 23 January 2023. This was approximately 11 months after the resident had reported the issues. The records show the repairs were for the window not latching shut and the front door being able to be easily pushed open. Both matters were potential health and safety issues. However, there is no evidence the landlord treated either repair as such or took any action to prioritise the matters once its target date had passed. This was not appropriate.
There is insufficient evidence available on which the Ombudsman could conclude the landlord took appropriate or reasonable actions in respect of the repairs to the window or door. On this basis, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.

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

The Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should deal with reports of damp and mould can be found on our website.
The landlord has provided a copy of an internal email sent to its neighbourhood team and the resident’s housing officer on 17 October 2022. This email advised the resident had reported damp and mould in their bathroom. The landlord has not provided any evidence to indicate it took any action in response to this. This was not appropriate.
On or around 23 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in their bathroom. The landlord raised a work order on 23 November 2022 to inspect and remedy the issue. The order had a target date of 14 December 2022 and the landlord had scheduled an appointment for 7 December 2022. The order shows the landlord later rescheduled the appointment to 10 January 2023, but did not record the reason. While it appears the landlord completed the repair on 10 January 2023 this was outside the timescales set out in its repair policy. This was not appropriate.
The resident made a further report of damp and mould on 3 March 2023. The landlord responded on 13 March 2023 to ask the resident for photos to allow the surveyor to assess the problems before visiting. This was a reasonable request to make. The resident provided the requested information on 20 March 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action until it raised work orders on 9 May 2023, 11 May 2023, and 7 June 2023 for an inspection. This was not in line with its policies and was not appropriate.
It is unclear why the landlord raised 3 work orders for an inspection. The information recorded for each order is as follows:
1. The first order was raised on 9 May 2023 and had a target date of 12 May 2023. The landlord had booked an appointment for 10 May 2023, but had not marked the order as completed. There is no recorded information to show whether the landlord attempted to visit the resident’s property on 10 May 2023 or took any other action to meet the target date.
2. The second order was raised on 11 May 2023 and had a target date of 16 May 2023, with an appointment booked for that date. The landlord recorded it had attended and completed the inspection on 21 May 2024. There is no recorded information about why it had taken over a year to complete the inspection.
3. The third order was raised on 7 June 2023 and states the initial appointments were not attended. The landlord had therefore rescheduled the appointment to 6 June 2023. The landlord recorded this order as completed on 21 May 2024.
The resident has confirmed that the landlord did attend their property on 6 June 2023 to inspect the damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord had attended during May 2023. This was not appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2023 to report they still had damp and mould issues. They said that, following the inspection on 6 June 2023, a mould and clean treatment had taken place on 22 August 2023. They advised the surveyor had told them that a further investigation and treatments would take place to completely resolve the issue, but this had not happened. While it appears the landlord chased this matter with its repairs team on 15 December 2023 there is no evidence it took any further action until around 27 March 2023. This was not appropriate.
The landlord has provided copies of emails between it and the resident from 28 March 2024 to 14 May 2024. These emails are about arranging an appointment for a damp and mould inspection. They show that the landlord’s contractor attended the wrong address on 23 April 2024, but that the landlord attended on 14 May 2024. The Ombudsman has noted that. following the missed appointment on 23 April 2024, the resident had requested the landlord reschedule appointments. However, given the length of time this matter had been ongoing, the Ombudsman considers it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the inspection. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could reasonably conclude the landlord did so.
The landlord has provided a copy of the inspection report which notes several issues within the resident’s property. These include issues in areas that the resident had previously reported. This would suggest previous actions by the landlord had not been sufficient to be a lasting and effective repair.
The landlord raised a work order on 21 May 2024 for the identified repairs. This order had a target date of 18 June 2024 but, as of 23 August 2024, the landlord had not marked it as completed. The landlord’s notes show that it had made an appointment for 19 August 2024. The landlord rescheduled this to 7 September 2024 and then 30 September 2024. The Ombudsman is aware the resident was not available during those dates so does not consider it would be reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for those delays. However, there has been no evidence provided to show why the landlord was not able to complete the works by its target date or book an appointment before 19 August 2024. This was not appropriate.
In summary, there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord took all appropriate and reasonable steps to deal with the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord before it took action. The landlord took no steps to prioritise repairs or to follow up to ensure that the repairs had been effective. This is particularly concerning as there was a young child living in the property.
While it is noted that an inspection has now taken place and there are planned works to resolve the damp and mould, the Ombudsman considers that the matters outlined above are sufficient to find there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a silverfish infestation.

The landlord’s pest control policy is clear that it does not deal with silverfish. It has provided evidence that it attended the resident’s property on 17 October 2022. It did not identify any evidence of public health related pests that it would deal with under its policy. It appears this visit was in response to contact from the resident’s MP who had said the resident had issues with insects. Arranging the visit was a reasonable action for the landlord to take.
Further information provided by both the resident and the landlord in respect of pest control appear to relate to the above visit. There is no evidence that pest control re-attended the resident’s property at any point.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have advised the resident that it did not deal with silverfish and that they contact a reputable pest control company. It was also reasonable for the landlord, in its stage 1 response, to have advised the resident they could contact its pest control team to request a visit. There is no evidence the resident made a request for another visit.
Based on the available evidence, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of silverfish.

The communication from the resident’s housing officer and general treatment by the landlord.

The resident has told this service that the landlord’s staff had made inappropriate comments to them when discussing their concerns. This is a situation where there is no documented evidence that would confirm what was said during interactions between the resident and the landlord. There is therefore no basis on which the Ombudsman could reasonably reach a decision on whether there was any maladministration by the landlord by what its staff may have said or implied. That is not to say the resident’s experience or account is not true, just that we cannot objectively verify it on the evidence we have seen.
Both the resident and the landlord have provided copies of emails exchanged between them. Having reviewed these, it is the Ombudsman’s view there is no evidence the landlord had treated the resident in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic, or inappropriate manner. The landlord’s responses to the resident appear to have taken note of the resident’s concerns and, where appropriate, provided advice in line with the landlord’s policies and/or relevant legislation.
While it is understandable why the resident may have viewed the landlord’s communications differently, there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude the landlord’s communications or general treatment of the resident was not appropriate or reasonable.
For the reasons set out above, there was no maladministration in respect of the communication from the resident’s housing officer and general treatment by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of discrimination by people in the local area

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of discrimination mainly focused on its interactions with them. However, it appears the resident’s concerns were in relation to members of the public in their local area, rather than other tenants of the landlord or the landlord itself.
The landlord has no power to take any action in relation to individuals who are not employed by it or who are not its tenants. There is therefore limited action it could take in relation to any reports about members of the public. It was reasonable for it to advise the resident that they should report any concerns to its Safer Communities Team. There is no evidence the resident did this or, if they had, that the landlord failed to consider whether there was any action it could take.
Based on the available evidence, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of discrimination by people in the local area.

The landlord’s handling of complaints.

The landlord took 12 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was in line with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’).
The landlord has advised it issued its first stage 2 response to the resident via its online portal on 28 June 2023. However, it has not provided any evidence to confirm this or demonstrate it had made the resident aware the response had been issued. The resident has provided evidence that the landlord emailed its response to them on 19 October 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the response was issued on 19 October 2023. This was 91 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code and was not appropriate.
While the landlord’s first stage 2 response did respond to the complaint points this service had advised it the resident wished to escalate, it should have contacted the resident directly to confirm its understanding of the resident’s concerns. This would have been in line with the Code. It was particularly relevant to do so when a third party had been involved in passing the resident’s complaint to it.
When agreeing it would re-issue its stage 2 response (following this service’s contact on 30 January 2024) it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to clarify what they expected it to investigate at stage 2. There is no evidence it did this and its revised response did not substantively add to its previous response. This was not appropriate.
Following this service’s further contact on 20 March 2024, it appears the landlord did contact the resident to discuss their concerns. However, the evidence indicates this did not take place until 27 March 2024. Given that this service had told the landlord it needed to re-issue its response by that date it should have prioritised making contact with the resident.
When issuing the CHFO this service notified the landlord it should reissue its response within 5 working days. This would have been 8 April 2024. The landlord failed to do this and took an additional 3 working days to issue its final response. This was not appropriate.
Despite having made contact with the resident, the landlord’s final response did not substantively add anything to its previous stage 2 responses. It did not address any of the complaint points that had been missing from the previous responses, nor did it indicate that the resident had advised it that they were happy for it to not address those matters. This was not appropriate.
The landlord did make an offer of compensation for its complaint handling failures. However, it stated this was for the 197-day delay in issuing its final response. It did not acknowledge or address its failure to respond to all the resident’s stated complaint points. Given the landlord had been issued a CHFO for this failure but still did not take appropriate steps to rectify it, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

The landlord’s record-keeping

The Ombudsman considers the matters within this report are evidence of inadequate record keeping by the landlord. The landlord’s record keeping has affected the Ombudsman’s ability to fully understand what action the landlord has taken to resolve the resident’s concerns.
Proper record keeping is vital for landlords to be able to show that they have complied with their legal and regulator obligations. Without proper records landlords can be in a vulnerable position where they can regularly be found responsible for fault.
Based on this, and the evidence in this case (as set out above), the Ombudsman finds the landlord responsible for maladministration in its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.d of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to their re-housing request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of silverfish.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the communication from the resident’s housing officer and general treatment by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of discrimination from people in the local area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,695 which is comprised of:
  1. £200 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failures to appropriately handle repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. £1,500 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to appropriately handle reports of damp and mould.
  3. £965 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Complete the repairs identified by its inspection of 14 May 2024. If the landlord has already completed the repairs, it must provide evidence of this to this service. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.

In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must, within 84 days of the date of this determination, undertake a senior management review of this case. The review should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. This review must include:
1. Why there was a lack of records in this case.
2. Whether its record-keeping systems and processes are adequate and meet the demand for the service.
3. What it could do to encourage positive behaviours and better record keeping with staff to prevent the same failures from occurring in future
4. Decide whether it needs to introduce written guidance for staff on the principles and importance of good record keeping.
5. Consider if more training is required for front-end staff in respect of good record keeping.