London Borough of Ealing (202411060)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411060

London Borough of Ealing

18 December 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the windows.
2. A leak and subsequent damp and mould and fly infestation.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a purpose-built block. The landlord is a local authority. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident lives in the property with her 2 young children, one of whom has ADHD.
In early March 2023 the resident reported a leak from the pipework. The repair log evidences that a repair was completed the same day. The resident reported a further leak coming into the property from outside the front door in August 2023. The operative noted they had resolved the leak, which was coming from the flat above.
At the end of October 2023, the resident reported that 3 windows in the property were “swinging open” and she could not lock or close them within their frame. The landlord said it would attend within 3 hours. The repair log noted that the landlord completed the repair the same day. In early December 2023 the resident again reported the faulty windows to the landlord.
The repair log notes that in early January 2024, the resident reported broken windows; mould in the bathroom; a leak from the flat above and a fly infestation. The resident made a formal complaint about these matters at that time.
The landlord noted that it should investigate and repair the faulty windows as soon as possible. At the end of January 2024, it noted that this matter should be referred to a specialist as the required window parts were not available.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident under its formal complaint procedure. It said that it would attend the property on 19 January 2024 to resolve the window issues. It also said it had contacted its damp and mould contractor and they would arrange an appointment with the resident to survey and assess the mould.
In early April 2024 the landlord noted its window contractor should supply and fit 3 new windows and a door. It noted that scaffolding would be required.
Towards the end of April 2024, the landlord’s damp contractor completed a “healthy homes report”. They noted that there were indications of excessive moisture in the property which was caused by a leak coming from the roof of the block and this was an ongoing problem that required repair. They noted the leak had caused moisture damage; that the tiles on the bathroom’s front wall and the plaster on the bathroom and hallway’s ceilings had “bubbled and blown”. They noted this was contributing to high moisture and mould growth in the area. The damp contractor made a note of the extent of the mould in the bathroom which covered approximately 6.3 square metres. They recommended that the landlord should fix the leak; repair the ceiling and tiles; and carry out a clean and shield.
The damp contractor subsequently carried out a clean and shield noting that, following this work, the bathroom ceiling was damp and mouldy with water marks; the ceiling and tiles were “very weak”; and there were still water marks showing on the hallway and bathroom ceilings after the clean and shield.
We understand that in early May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said that the living room window had swung out and hit her in the face in windy weather. She said she wanted the landlord to carry out the window repairs urgently and wanted compensation for her injury.
On 7 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response under its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. It had agreed to replace some windows and was waiting to hear from the window contractor about the best way of accessing the property, which it considered would likely be by erecting scaffolding.
2. Its contractor had been unable to trace the leak that was coming into the building accurately and noted there might be multiple points of entry. It said it had instructed a specialist leak detection firm to carry out a survey on the block and the affected properties. It said, once the leak(s) had been resolved, its surveyor would assess the work required to the property to remedy the damage caused by the leak.
3. Its pest control policy did not include assistance in the removal of flies, but noted this problem would likely stop when the water ingress had been resolved. It said it had asked its surveyor to visit the property to assess if it could take action to stop the flies entering the kitchen in such large numbers. It apologised for the time it had taken to resolve this issue.
The landlord offered compensation of £210 made up of £10 a week for the 21 weeks (8 January to 3 June 2024) which it had taken to resolve the repairs issues.
We understand that in late November 2024 the landlord replaced 3 windows and a door at the property.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she described not being able to sleep as she was worried one of her children might fall out of a faulty window. She said the windows had recently been replaced but the scaffolding was still up which was a security issue. She also said the window contractors had smashed the glass of the original windows when carrying out the replacement work and had left broken glass in the property which she had had to clear up herself.
The resident also said the issue of the leak had not yet been resolved. She understood many residents in the block were affected. She said sometimes water came through the light fittings and smoke alarm in the property. The damp affected the bathroom where there were mushrooms growing out of the walls. She described the mould as “thick” and black” with 4cm of “fur” growing from it. She said it was “bubbling and frothing” and was “disgusting”. She advised the drain flies were everywhere in the property including in the fridge and it was “unbearable” to cook in the kitchen. The resident added that she had 2 young children who were experiencing runny noses and sore throats. In terms of outcome, the resident wanted the infestation and mould resolved. She also wanted appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Scheme explains at paragraph 42.a that the Ombudsman may only look at matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Therefore, concerns about the scaffolding and smashed glass left in the property will not be included in this report. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to find out if she wishes to make a fresh complaint about these matters. If the resident does wish to complain, the landlord should respond to this in accordance with its complaints process.
The resident mentions that her health and that of her children has been affected by the mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her and her family’s health. We understand this has been a difficult time for the family. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to her concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows

The landlord’s repair handbook says it will keep in repair the structure, exterior of the building, common parts, and all installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
In relation to windows, the repair handbook says that the landlord is responsible for window frames and well as their catches and handles and it will carry out such repairs within 15 days. It also says that it will make safe insecure windows within 4 hours (an emergency repair).
The evidence suggests that the resident started reporting the windows as faulty in October 2023. The repair log evidences that the landlord attended the same day which was appropriate as it was in line with the timescales set out in its repairs handbook. The repairs log does not give details of the action it took.
In December 2023 and January 2024, the resident again reported issues with the windows including that one of them would not close. The landlord should have treated this again as an emergency repair; however, there is no evidence it did so. That was not appropriate and, especially given the flat’s location on the seventh floor and the presence of 2 young children, was a significant failing. There is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s individual circumstances which meant it missed an opportunity to carry out a risk assessment which could have identified statutory hazards and potential safeguarding concerns.
The evidence suggests that the landlord only acted after the resident had made a formal complaint. However, the time taken to investigate and reach a decision that replacement windows were required took almost 3 months. Following the decision to replace the windows, the landlord took another 7 months to do so. This was despite the resident reporting an injury to it as a result of a faulty window.
When the resident informed the landlord of that injury, it would have been appropriate for it to have signposted her to its personal liability insurer. That is because the insurer can decide whether the landlord had acted negligently and, if appropriate, the amount that should be paid to the resident in compensation. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage the cost of such claims, and it was not obliged to consider a claim outside the insurance process. An order has been made for the landlord to give the resident information on how to make such a claim to its personal liability insurer. We cannot guarantee any success in any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit and we cannot comment on the insurance process as this is outside our remit.
While we acknowledge that additional time was required to arrange and put up scaffolding, the time taken was not reasonable. There was a lack of urgency by the landlord to resolve this matter. The resident continued to regularly chase the landlord throughout this time and also involved her MP to try to speed matters up. The landlord did not appear to grasp the potentially serious safety implications for the resident and her family.
In July 2024, the Ombudsman wrote an open letter to landlord because our investigations had shown that landlords had not always responded in a timely way to reports of problems with windows, and sometimes important repairs had been deferred. In this letter, the Ombudsman encouraged landlords to review their own complaints relating to windows to identify any actions they should be taking. An order has been made for the landlord to do so now if it has not done so already.
In its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £210. We understand that was for both delay in its handling of both the leak and windows issues.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies. Consideration of any aggravating factors may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
In this case, the compensation offered was not appropriate as it did not reflect the full impact on the resident. It is evident she experienced great distress as a result of the landlord’s delay in replacing the windows as well as time and trouble in trying to resolve matters including the involvement of her MP.
The landlord should have expedited the window replacements given the potential risk to the family by living in a property where some windows did not close properly. Had it done so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have replaced the windows (including putting up scaffolding) within a maximum of 3 months from when the resident re-reported problems in early December 2023, that is, by the start of March 2024.
Financial compensation of £675 is appropriate for the impact on the resident. This sum takes into account the fact that were young children in the household which meant the delay in replacing the windows would have had a more severe effect on the resident compared to other residents in the same position without young children.
The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows amounts to severe maladministration. This is because it should have treated this as an emergency repair but was not resolved for over a year.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould and fly infestation

In relation to leaks, the repairs handbook says the landlord will carry out repairs as a result of major leaks and burst pipes within 4 hours (emergency repair). It says it will carry out repairs for minor leaks within 15 days.
The resident reported leaks in March and August 2023, which the evidence suggests the landlord attended the same day. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs handbook. It is not clear what work was undertaken in March 2023 as the repair log did not give details. In August 2023 the operative noted the leak was coming from above and resolved. As the resident did not report further leaks for several months after each of those appointments, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have presumed that the work completed resolved those leaks in the absence of any other reports.
In January 2024 the resident reported a further leak as well as mould in the bathroom. There is no evidence of any action by the landlord at that time. That was not appropriate, the landlord should have investigated this fresh report within a maximum of 15 days in line with its repairs handbook.
The formal complaint from the resident appeared to have prompted the landlord to agree to a damp and mould survey. This meant that the landlord did not take any substantial action on the resident’s reports of that leak until the end of April 2024 when that survey took place. The time taken by the landlord to complete the survey was not reasonable.
The landlord acted reasonably in carrying out a clean and shield of the bathroom. However, as the contractor noted this was only partially successful, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what further action it might take in the short-term to remedy the problems identified until the substantive leak could be resolved.
In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged a leak into the block noting that its contractor had been unable to trace it accurately as there were possibly multiple points of entry. It said it had instructed a specialist leak detection firm to carry out a survey on the block and the properties affected by the leak. That was a reasonable response to try to remedy the leak into the building.
The evidence suggests that this exercise took place some 3 months later, in September 2024. We have not seen the outcome of that. We note, however, that a site inspection in October 2024 identified that further work was required to trace and remedy the water leak into the communal hallway on the seventh floor and also to check if the roof leak had abated. This, along with the resident’s account, suggests that the landlord has not yet resolved matters.
We acknowledge that it can take multiple attempts to resolve complex repair issues such as this one where there were potentially multiple entries of the leak into the block. As such, the landlord might have to try different approaches to find the cause of the problem. This in itself does not indicate a failure by the landlord provided it attends promptly and takes reasonable steps to investigate the reports made, keeping residents regularly updated with progress. In this case, however, the time taken by the landlord was not reasonable and the records provided in this case indicate approximately 6 months of inaction. Aside from the complaint responses, we have seen no communication with the resident to keep her up to date on the work being undertaken to try to resolve matters. That was a failing which meant the resident had to regularly chase the landlord.
We have made an order for the landlord to write to the resident with an update on the leak(s) into the block; whether its contractor has managed to trace and remedy the source of the leaks and, if so, what work is has, and/or will, undertake to resolve them. If it has not been possible to trace the source of the leaks, the landlord should set out what steps it is now taking to do so, including estimated timescales for any works.
Further, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered whether a temporary move (a decant) would be appropriate for the resident in line with its decant policy. This says such a move might be appropriate to enable work to be carried out and where it is not safe or possible for residents and their household to remain in the property. Given the resident’s recent reports to us of water coming through electrical light fittings and the smoke alarm as well as her description of the current extent of the mould in the bathroom, the landlord should have considered a decant and we have made an order for the landlord to consider such a temporary move now. In doing so the landlord should consider if the property is fit for habitation, taking into account the resident’s individual circumstances. The landlord should also consider a temporary move for other residents in the block similarly affected by the leaks if it has not done so already.
The landlord told us that its pest control policy did not include treatment of fly infestations. However, given that it acknowledged in its final complaint response that this infestation was a result of the leak, it was reasonable for it to agree to take action to see what steps it might take to minimise the flies in the flat. We have not seen details of the outcome of that visit by the surveyor. However, it is clear from the resident’s recent account to us that this infestation is continuing. When considering a temporary move for the resident, the landlord should take into account this ongoing infestation along with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. This says the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including pest infestation where poor design or layout is providing access and breeding places for pests, which are a source of infections. The landlord should include details of the next steps to resolve the fly infestation in its update to the resident.
Financial compensation of £350 is appropriate for the impact on the resident of the landlord’s delays in taking action to resolve the leak(s) and the mould in the property and for its failure to consider a temporary move for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould and fly infestation.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 5 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £1,025, minus any sums previously paid, made up of:
  1. £675 for the impact on the resident by the delays in replacing the windows.
  2. £350 for the impact on the resident by the delays in resolving the leak(s) and the mould in the property and for its failure to consider a temporary move for her.
3. These sums should be paid direct to the resident and not credited to her rent or service charge account.
4. Give the resident information on how to make a claim to its personal liability insurer.
5. Write to the resident with an update on the leak(s) into the block; whether its contractor has managed to trace and remedy the source of the leaks and, if so, what work is has, and/or will, undertake to resolve them. If it has not been possible to trace the source of the leaks, the landlord should set out what steps it is now taking to do so. The update should also include the next steps for resolving the fly infestation.
6. Consider a temporary move for the resident. In doing so, the landlord should take into account the ongoing pest infestation along with the HHSRS which is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord should write to the resident confirming its decision regarding whether to offer a temporary move and it should send a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman.
7. Within 9 weeks, the landlord should review its own complaints relating to windows to identify any actions it should be taking as set out in the Ombudsman’s open letter to landlords dated 10 July 2024. This letter can be found on our website. The landlord should report back to the Ombudsman confirming the actions it will take as set out in our letter to landlords.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Consider a temporary move for other residents in the block similarly affected by the leaks if it has not done so already.
2. Contacts the resident to find out if she wishes to make a fresh complaint about the scaffolding and smashed glass left in the property. If the resident wishes to complain about this, the landlord should respond to the complaint in line with its complaints process.