North West Leicestershire District Council (202231410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231410

North West Leicestershire District Council

25 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom bungalow and was supported accommodation. The resident has multiple mental and physical health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
The resident’s bathroom was replaced in 2021. On 11 May 2022 an inspection was raised for the bathroom, hall, and kitchen. The records stated, “mould in the bathroom – wall now bubbling in the hall and kitchen.” On 17 May 2022 the landlord attended the property regarding a leak under the bathroom floor. The notes stated “repair to leak. Water leaking under vinyl floor to bathroom. Unsure where water is coming from.” The repair follow–on notes stated that the bath needed re-sealing and the damp problem needed to be looked at.
The local councillor attended a site visit to the resident’s property in June 2022. He said the landlord staff were present and were assessing various problems in the property, mainly associated with the bathroom. The councillor said it was concluded that there was a damp problem on the wall beneath the sink, and mould on the wall beside the bathroom door. He reported that landlord staff were unable to identify the source and needed to remove the panel to investigate. The councillor said the extractor fan needed to be replaced and outer walls repointed. He said there was a problem with the drainpipe and the hot water system, which had resulted in the resident having cold showers, and it was a longstanding problem.
On 29 November 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint for the issues he had been experiencing since 2019 in relation to his bathroom, antisocial behaviour (ASB), and in trying to move properties. He said he felt neglected and there was a significant lack of duty of care in relation to his mental health and physical disability. He requested a meeting with his housing officers and the local councillor to go through the issues in person.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 December 2022 and said:
1. It visited the resident at his property on 9 December 2022 and discussed the complaint and historic issues raised.
2. It was aware that since the visit the resident had been successful in bidding for a new property. It said a new property would provide the resident with a resolution to the events at the current property.
3. It had been responsive in terms of attempts to resolve issues to the outstanding repairs but had failed to communicate with the resident at key stages, which was a failing.
4. Works identified at the visit would be programmed in to ensure the repairs were rectified.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 January 2023. He said he wanted to escalate his original complaint about poor communication between repairs managers and to be awarded compensation for the failings he had experienced. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 February 2023. It stated that there were shortcomings in the standard of its obligations and apologised for the resident’s experience. It offered £250 for the resident’s time and inconvenience in having to contact the landlord for updates. It said the complaint highlighted the need for tenants to be kept updated with the progress of their repairs and this would be reinforced across the team.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said that he had since moved properties but remained concerned about the service he was provided, especially given his medical issues. He said he had no bath panel, an intermittent boiler which needed to be replaced and resulted in cold showers, and that there was damp and mould everywhere. He said people would come out and take photos, but nothing was done. He said he would like further compensation for the decline of his mental health and the loss of his fish tank and food.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to his health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.
The resident has referred to issues and events which took place from 2019 and following the landlord’s stage 2 response. This investigation focuses on events from 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint in November 2022 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response in February 2023. The Ombudsman has considered this to be a reasonable period to evaluate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. Separate issues, and events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have not been investigated and are referenced for contextual purposes only.
As the ASB and moving properties elements of the resident’s formal complaint were not escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, they have not been investigated. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s repairs policy has 3 categories for repairs:
1. High priority which is 1 working day or 3 working days. This can include total or partial loss of gas supply or hot water between 1 May – 31 October and leaking water from a heating pipe, tank, or cistern.
2. Tenant’s choice which is not a high priority and allows tenants to choose dates to suit their own circumstances. It states that Tenants choice repairs include follow on works from an emergency, minor plumbing leaks, defects and roof leaks which can be contained easily by the tenant.
3. Scheduled works which do not fall into any of the above categories and can be between 20 and 60 working days. It states that these are larger scale repairs or replacements which are sometimes grouped together to create more economic programmes of work.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time provides for a 2 stage complaints procedure in which it will respond to the complaint within 10 working days at both stages.
The landlord’s compensation policy describes when there has been a failure which has resulted in inconvenience to a tenant, or when a proven complaint is serious enough to require compensation. It states that compensation relating to the repairs service includes not completing a repair within the specified timescale and loss of heating and hot water that continues after 24 hours.
The landlord has confirmed that under the remit of supported accommodation, the needs of a tenant are identified through a support plan which is completed within 6 weeks of the tenant moving in. A support officer can assist with welfare checks, emotional support, reporting and following up repairs, dealing with correspondence, contacting the GP, and signposting and referring to specialist support.

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

On 11 May 2022 the landlord’s records stated that an inspection was required for the bathroom, hall, and kitchen. Following a leak on 17 May 2022, follow on works were identified for the bath to be resealed and the damp problem to be looked at. There was a further job raised on 19 July 2022 which stated, “bathroom works to investigate leak from stop tap – remove all bathroom and fittings and panels”. Other than a further repair for a leak raised on 21 December 2022, these are the only repair records in relation to the resident’s complaint until the resident left the property in February 2023.
In its stage 1 response on 22 December 2022, the landlord stated that it was clear it had been responsive in terms of attempts to resolve issues relating to the resident’s outstanding repairs. Due to the lack of records provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that this is correct. The Ombudsman has seen little primary evidence relating to the resident’s case and as such, much of the timeline is based on correspondence from the local councillor. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. As such, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord pro-actively engaged with the resident’s reports of repairs up to the date of the stage 2 response.
While the resident stated that he was told the boiler needed to be replaced, there is no contemporaneous evidence to substantiate this. However, the local councillor reported that in June 2022 there was a problem with the hot water system, which had resulted in the resident having intermittent cold showers. Landlord staff were present at the meeting; therefore, it should have been recorded and dealt with as a high priority, in line with its repairs policy. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out any work to rectify the issue with the boiler and loss of hot water prior to the resident moving out of the property 8 months later, which is not acceptable.
It is evidenced from May 2022 onwards that there was an issue with damp and mould in the property which required follow up action. Again, there is no record from the landlord that the damp and mould was addressed until the resident left the property. The landlord should have assessed the risks and extent of the damp and mould in the property to determine what action it needed to take next. While inspections took place, it is not appropriate that we do not have a record of the outcomes of the inspections or an action plan and timeframe to show how the landlord intended to remedy the issue. The source of the leak could not be determined, and the councillor referred to issues regarding the extractor fan and outer walls, therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a specialist damp survey. In doing so, this would have shown the landlord was taking its obligations seriously and acting in line with the HHSRS.
In his formal complaint the resident stated that he felt neglected and there was a significant lack of duty of care. Given the minimal action taken by the landlord in relation to the repairs required in the property, the Ombudsman can empathise with the resident. The local councillor contacted the landlord on numerous occasions and raised concerns about the lack of action in relation to the repairs from the landlord. The resident’s GP contacted the landlord in July 2022 and October 2022 regarding the resident’s support needs and the deterioration in his mental and physical health. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord sufficiently considered and responded to these concerns.
The landlord has stated that the resident had a history of changing his mind about whether he wanted to access the “Support Officer service” and the resident has confirmed this. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the support plan and completed an ongoing risk assessment for the concerns raised, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. There is no evidence that the landlord responded appropriately to any welfare concerns raised by the resident, the local councillor, or the GP, nor does it appear to have worked collaboratively with any relevant third parties. It is a failing that the landlord did not do more to support the resident while the repairs were ongoing, especially under its remit of a ‘supported housing’ provider.
The landlord has highlighted that it appeared from the local councillor’s correspondence that at some point between May 2022 and the resident’s formal complaint, the resident requested the works were placed on hold due to his mental health and his planned move. While this may provide some mitigation to the landlord’s delay in carrying out the repairs, it is not clear when this happened as it is not included within the landlord’s records. The landlord would still have a responsibility to assess whether the works could have been postponed or if they required more immediate attention.
The local councillor stated that in communication with the landlord on 8 August 2022 the bathroom work was scheduled, and a support plan was discussed for the resident. The councillor also stated that in a visit to the resident on 8 September 2022, the resident said he wanted the works to be scheduled and the landlord confirmed it had requested “a rush” on the bathroom following this. While the landlord’s records do not reflect this, it is reasonable to assume that the bathroom work was no longer postponed by the resident and was raised again with the landlord from at least September 2022 onwards.
Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that the prolonged disrepair impacted the resident’s enjoyment of the property and caused distress. Throughout the case, there was a lack of communication and urgency on behalf of the landlord, resulting in an apparent disregard to its own policies and health and safety obligations. Nine months had passed since the reports were made in May 2022 and there is no evidence that any of the issues were resolved prior to the resident moving out. Even when considering the approximate 2 months in which the resident may have postponed the works, this is still not an acceptable delay. As such, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered

In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised, acknowledged there were shortcomings in its obligations, and offered £250 for time and inconvenience. It said the need for tenants to be kept updated with the progress of their repairs would be reinforced across the team. While it is positive that the landlord has made some efforts to put things right, this was not enough. Its response was vague in relation to its shortcomings and it did not explain why further steps had not been taken to address the repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline what works were required and a timeframe for completion. The resident escalated his complaint based on poor communication between the repairs team and to be awarded compensation. Further explanation regarding this may have helped to reach a satisfactory resolution for the resident.
As highlighted above, there were multiple failings by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer of £250 to be proportionate given the length of time the repairs remained outstanding since the resident’s initial reports. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay a total of £600 to the resident for its poor handling of his reports of repairs. This sum is in line with the suggested compensation figure in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and made an attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
Overall, the landlord did not put right its failures in handling the outstanding repairs to the property as it did not do enough to reassure the resident that the repairs would be completed in a timely manner. While it was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation for the resident’s time and inconvenience, it was not proportionate as it did not fully recognise the impact on the resident and the loss of use and enjoyment of the property. In light of the above findings, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, including the level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case. The resident should be given the choice as to whether he wishes to receive the apology verbally or in writing.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 compensation. This is inclusive of the £250 already offered to the resident and is comprised of:
1. £600 for the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. £50 for the failures in handling the complaint.
The landlord is to provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so, it should conduct an updated support plan with the resident to establish if further support is required to help him sustain his tenancy. The landlord should provide clarification to the resident of what support he is entitled to and if the landlord cannot provide any of the support required, it should signpost the resident accordingly.
The landlord should reflect on the failings identified in this case. Particularly:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record repair information accurately.
2. Consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action. This should be in line with its repairs policy and its obligations as a supported accommodation provider.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording any communication.