London Borough of Enfield (202230860)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230860

London Borough of Enfield

29 April 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 resident’s complaint is about:

a. the landlord’s response to a roof leak and the associated damp and mould

b. the handling of the complaint and offer of compensation

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. She lives in a 2 bedroom flat. The resident and her husband have health conditions which the landlord was aware of (COPD and cancer respectively).
On 16 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from the roof and she said that water was coming down her bedroom walls. The landlord attended the property and it advised the resident that the issue would be progressed. On 25 December 2022 the landlord’s out of hours team attended and the resident was offered hotel accommodation for that night which she declined. She advised this Service that she wanted to stay in the property and to try and contain the leak, to prevent it from affecting the downstairs part of her home.
On 28 December 2022 the landlord referenced that the leak had got worse and that access to the roof was required via the property block’s caretaker. The resident followed up with the landlord on 29 December 2022. The landlord recorded the following on its system, “Major leak – water is pouring into the bathroom – uncontainable.” On 30 December 2022 the landlord noted that the resident had reported mould throughout the property.
The landlord visited the property on 4 January 2023. It inspected the roof and it noted a “massive amount of pouring water.” It identified that the issue related to an outlet pipe which it suspected had been sealed following a previous issue with water ingress into a different flat. The landlord noted that further works were required, a surveyor visit was needed, and that the whole roof needed resealing.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with the time that it was taking to resolve the leak. She reported that personal belongings and furnishings had been destroyed, and she referred to a detrimental impact on her and her husband’s health. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint which, in summary, said that:
1. she reported the leak into her bedroom on 16 December 2022 yet no action was taken
2. on 25 December 2022 water had poured through her bathroom ceiling. Repair operatives had attended, and she was offered a hotel room which she declined
3. on 4 January 2023 an operative had visited but was unable to resolve matters due to the sealed downpipe. She said that she was told that works would be done within a week
4. on 11 January 2023 a mould wash had taken place but she had heard nothing since
5. she asked the landlord to investigate immediately.
The resident subsequently advised the landlord that it had failed to mention that the leak wouldn’t have happened if it, and its contractors, had not capped the pipe that drained water from the roof.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it said that roof repairs had taken place to the property block on 23 November 2022. However, heavy rains had subsequently caused leaks in several areas. It said that it had identified the source of the leak and that it would replace the roof as soon as possible. The landlord acknowledged that the matter had taken longer to progress than it would have liked, and it offered the resident £250 compensation for the delays, and for its failure to communicate effectively. It said that it would monitor the progress of the works and that it would keep the resident updated.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and with the amount of compensation that she had been offered. On 6 February 2023 she escalated her complaint. She advised that the mould had returned and she referenced a detrimental impact on her and her husband’s mental and physical health which, she said, the landlord had not considered. The resident subsequently followed up with the landlord and with this Service for a response. On 26 June 2023 the landlord queried internally why the roof works had not yet started.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary, it acknowledged a lack of contact with the resident, and it referenced the health concerns that she had reported. The landlord said that it had attended the property on 4 July 2023, and that work had now started which would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete. It referenced another mould wash, the associated damage to the resident’s home, and its failure to keep her updated. The landlord advised the resident that it would review its offer of compensation once the roof works had been completed.

Events post completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The roof works were completed in August 2023, and in March 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £600 in recognition of the delays. In addition, it offered to decorate both of the resident’s bedrooms as a gesture of goodwill, and it sent her the relevant public liability form to make a claim for any damages, should she wish to do so.
The resident approached this Service for assistance. She said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. In addition, she said that there was an ongoing issue with mould in her home and she reiterated the impact on her and her husband’s health.
More recently, the landlord advised this Service that it had scheduled a mould wash for 18 March 2024. It acknowledged that, due to an administrative error, an 8 week check following a mould wash in August 2023 had not been picked up. It confirmed that it had arranged tiling works and repairs to the kitchen fanlight which this Service understands is in relation to the damp issue. It said that there had been no further reports of leaks since the roof repairs were completed.
In recent contact with this Service the resident advised that the issue with mould has improved since the roof works were completed but that there is still damp and mould throughout the property. She confirmed that the landlord had recently plastered the main bedroom but she referenced outstanding works to both of the bedrooms and the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident complained to the landlord that her and her husband’s health was affected by the damp and mould in the property. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments, and it is accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and the health issues that the resident has reported. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to court or a liability insurance claim to determine. This Service can, however, consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns, and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to a roof leak and the associated damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and this includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman is guided by its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right; and learn from outcomes.’
Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and outside of the property. This includes the roof, drainpipes, and gutters.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it, “Supports our customers especially those that are vulnerable.” It says that the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days, and routine repairs within 30 days. The policy says that mould growth, as a consequence of an issue within a block, is a routine repair. Leaks that are not containable by the resident, pose a health and safety risk, or where the resident is vulnerable, are an emergency repair. If the landlord is aware that a resident has special needs or is vulnerable, the policy says that it may schedule the repair faster than normal.
The resident reported a leak into her bedroom on 16 December 2022. The roof was replaced in August 2023. It is accepted that such issues can take time to resolve and that it can be difficult to identify the cause of a leak at the outset. In addition, it is acknowledged that a roof replacement is major work and the landlord had to obtain quotes which can be a lengthy process. Some delay therefore would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, in the resident’s case the cause of the leak into her home appears to have been the result of a previous attendance whereby an outlet pipe was sealed. This issue was identified by the landlord in January 2023, 7 months before works took place. Events were clearly protracted and the resident experienced distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble pursuing her concerns with the landlord.
In addition, no evidence has been provided to this Service to show that the landlord tried, post November 2022, to find a temporary solution to the leak. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response in July 2023 this Service understands that the leak still occurred during periods of bad weather. This is supported by both the landlord and the resident’s more recent updates whereby there have been no further leaks since the repairs were carried out.
The delays that occurred to fully resolve matters were unreasonable, especially when considering the household’s vulnerabilities. The landlord’s 26 June 2023 internal query as to why the roof works had not yet started is a strong indication that there was a failure to raise the works in a timely manner and to monitor the job through to completion. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delays that occurred, its approach led to the resident feeling ignored. This exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
Part of a landlord’s handling of extended repairs should be a consideration of possible interim actions to mitigate the impact. The landlord has not provided any evidence to this Service to show that it considered a temporary decant, and no risk assessment was carried out. Had it done so, it would have better understood the resident’s needs and any risks to the household’s wellbeing. Neither is there any evidence that the landlord offered any practical help, such as dehumidifiers, to assist with drying out the walls. The resident advised this Service that she arranged for dehumidifiers herself and that her husband cleaned the walls of mould. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it took ownership of the substantive issue, and that it recognised the detrimental impact on the household, which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Despite the resident reporting damp and mould on several occasions, and raising concerns about health issues, no inspection of the condition of the property was undertaken until 29 June 2023. While it was appropriate that the landlord arranged an inspection this should have happened sooner. As no details of the inspection report have been provided to this Service, the outcome is unclear. Nevertheless, it is evident that the resident made multiple attempts to progress matters over several months and that she raised significant concerns during this time. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted in accordance with its repairs policy in cases where a resident has special needs or is vulnerable.
This Service understands that works were raised in August 2023 to strip paper from the bedroom walls and bathroom ceiling, and to mould wash and stain block the bathroom and airing cupboard. However, there is no record of any post inspection to check that damp and mould had been alleviated. The resident recently advised this Service that, although the mould has reduced since the roof was repaired, it is still present and her home feels damp. As such, an order is made below to ensure that matters are progressed which includes the outstanding works that the resident has reported.
In summary, the landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”. While the landlord apologised for the delays, it failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failures and the impact on the resident.
An order is therefore made below to increase the compensation offer to an amount that better reflects the detriment to the resident. The amount ordered is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for cases where a finding of maladministration has been made and where there has been a failure which has had a significant impact on the resident.

The handling of the complaint and offer of compensation

The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. The policy states that the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 3 working days and will then send a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and then send a response within 30 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate residents if they have suffered distress, frustration, or anxiety regarding a service failure over a considerable period. In addition, the landlord will pay compensation up to £75 where there is evidence of significant service failure with regards to its complaint handling which has resulted in a significant impact on the resident.
The policy highlights that when assessing a claim for compensation the landlord will consider the severity of the time, trouble, and inconvenience suffered and whether this was reasonably foreseeable by the landlord. It will assess whether any loss or inconvenience could be reconciled in any other manner by the resident (for example buildings insurance) and it will consider any known costs that a resident has reasonably incurred. It will also consider the household’s vulnerabilities. The policy states that, with regards to damage to property, residents may claim compensation for accidental damage to their property caused by the landlord’s contractors up to the value of £500. Any claims over this amount will be assessed by an independent insurance assessor. In extreme cases, the policy says that if the resident does not have contents insurance and the landlord is found to have been negligent in the upkeep of the property then it will pay compensation to replace furniture at second hand value rates.
On 6 February 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and the landlord issued its response on 5 July 2023. During this time the resident followed up with both the landlord and this Service. The delay in responding was significantly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy. It was also outside of this Service’s complaints handling code which states that landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of it being escalated and any extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The purpose of the complaints process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. The delay in this case caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, and inconvenience pursuing a response.
In addition, the landlord failed to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns about the impact on the household’s health, or to offer any additional support in this respect. It failed to monitor the works and to keep the resident updated as it had said it would do in its stage 1 complaint response. Overall, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations, take ownership of the case, and to use its complaints process as an effective dispute resolution tool.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to learn from complaints. Where there are opportunities for learning and making improvements as a result of a complaint, the landlord should actively encourage its staff to work together in order to do so. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays and communication failings. Therefore, this Service would have expected to see that it had explained in its complaint response how it would improve its service delivery going forward. This would have offered reassurance that the resident’s concerns had been taken seriously. An order is made below to address this.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in its stage 1 response for the delays that had occurred and for its failure to communicate effectively. In its stage 2 response dated 5 July 2023 it said that it would review its compensation offer once the roof works were completed. Roof works were completed in August 2023 yet it was not until March 2024 that the landlord contacted the resident to offer her an increased compensation amount of £600. This was an unreasonable delay and a further failure to communicate effectively on the landlord’s part. In addition, this Service understands that the £600 offered was for the delays undertaking works that occurred between December 2022 and August 2023. There is no suggestion that the landlord appropriately considered the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced when determining its compensation offer and this was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord advised the resident that she may wish to consider making a claim for damaged possessions via its public liability insurance, and it provided her with the relevant forms and contact details. While this was a reasonable response, when considering that the resident first referenced damage to her possessions on 24 January 2023 the time taken to provide this information was unacceptable.
In addition, the landlord ought to have considered whether the damage that had been caused was due to it having capped the pipe and the subsequent flood. If so, then it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord should have considered acting in line with its compensation policy, as set out above. The policy references that if the landlord has been negligent in the upkeep of the property, then it will pay compensation to replace furniture at second hand value rates. In addition, a resident may be able to claim compensation for accidental damage caused by the landlord’s contractors up to the value of £500. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its policy in this respect, or explained why the resident was not eligible for this support if that was the case. The failure to do so has led to time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter. An order is made below to address this.
In addition, while interior décor is usually the resident’s responsibility, the landlord offered to redecorate both bedrooms following the leak as a gesture of goodwill. However, this Service considers that as the evidence indicated that the damage was caused by the landlord’s contractors during its previous visit, the landlord had an obligation to put right any damage that had been caused for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. Where maladministration has been identified which has had a significant impact on the resident, up to £1000 compensation should be considered. In the opinion of this Service, the landlord’s offer of redress for the delays undertaking works does not appropriately acknowledge the adverse effect that its failings had, especially when considering the household’s vulnerabilities. An order is made below to increase the compensation to an amount which better reflects the detriment to the resident in line with this Service’s guidance.
In addition, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and its offer of compensation and an order is made below to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the “Scheme”), there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the roof leak and the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint and its offer of compensation.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident a total amount of £1,300 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £600 as already offered to the resident if this has not already been paid
  2. an additional £400 for its failures in its response to the roof leak and damp and mould
  3. £300 for its failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint and offer of compensation
2. arrange an independent property inspection/survey to determine whether damp and mould is still present, and whether any outstanding repairs and remedial actions remain in relation to the December 2022 leak. A record of this inspection and its findings should be made along with a repairs schedule for any works and remedial actions that are identified (and this schedule should then be adhered to). The inspection record and repairs schedule should be shared with the Ombudsman and the resident
3. undertake a case review at senior management level to identify the learnings from this complaint, to include an assessment of the reasons for the delay in completing the roof repair and assessing the condition of the property, failure to take into account the household vulnerabilities, and the poor handling of the compensation claim and complaint handling delays. Evidence should be provided to this Service with regards to how the landlord will/or has already improved its service
4. a joint visit between a housing manager and a repairs manager should be arranged to assess the household’s needs and to offer practical support with completing the claim form for damages, should the resident so wish. In addition, the landlord should signpost the resident to support organisations who can help her to progress a claim if any further support is needed. A written update should be provided to the resident and this Service of any actions that have been agreed following the visit
5. review the resident’s request for compensation for damage that has been caused to her carpets, furnishings, and possessions as a result of the leak and the damp. Update the resident and this Service in writing with its decision and the reasons for its decision having considered both its own policy and this Service’s guidance on insurance issues: Guidance on complaints involving insurance issues (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
6. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.