North West Leicestershire District Council (202334437)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334437

North West Leicestershire District Council

28 June 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. A leak into the bathroom.
2. Damp and mould in the bathroom and kitchen.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a house. The tenancy began in March 2023.
The landlord became aware of a leak into the resident’s bathroom in April 2023. At that time, the resident’s neighbouring property was undergoing a roof repair. The landlord noted that this could be the cause of water ingress into the resident’s bathroom.
On 22 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said the leak had still not been resolved and the landlord was meant to attend that day to fix the roof, but this had now been moved to 10 July 2023. She said she had already been waiting 10 weeks for the leak to be fixed. The landlord responded the same day to say the complaint would be best resolved as a “request for service” and it would reply within 10 working days.
The landlord responded on 29 June 2023. It apologised for the delay and said the leak was repaired on 23 June 2023, with ceiling plastering booked in for 12 July 2023.
In October and November 2023, the resident reported another leak into the bathroom. On 22 November 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. She had contacted the landlord on 20 October 2023 about the leak but it did not attend to fix it, leading to part of the ceiling falling down in November 2023.
2. She felt the repair in June 2023 was not done correctly which led to the leak reoccurring.
3. There was also mould at the back of the kitchen cupboards which meant she had had to throw food, lunch boxes and bags away.
4. Her daughter had developed asthma as a result of the mould and her son had chronic lung disease, made worse by the mould.
5. She wanted the roof to be removed and the landlord to check the repair had been made properly, the bathroom ceiling replaced, the kitchen (including plaster) removed to sort out the damp issue, and the kitchen replaced.
6. If this could not be done she wanted to be moved as her and her children could not live in the conditions.
On 5 December 2023 the landlord issued the stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. The ceiling repair had been made on 23 June 2023.
2. On 1 November 2023 it placed a tarpaulin over the affected roof area following the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. On 27 November 2023 an order was placed to the landlord’s contractor to replace the resident’s roof and address mould in the kitchen and bathroom.
4. The contractor had attended on 29 November 2023 and explained a roof covering could not be installed in wet conditions or temperatures below 6 degrees.
5. It assured the resident works were actively in progress and scheduling would be aligned with weather conditions to ensure effectiveness and longevity of the repairs.
6. The initial work was unfortunately insufficient, but this could not be foreseen.
7. It remained committed to conclude the matter.
The resident responded the same day. She said she could not wait any longer as there was dirty rain water leaking into the bath and her children were unable to bathe. On 7 December 2023 she requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2, saying the landlord did not attend when she reported the leak in October 2023, only attending on 1 November 2023 after part of the ceiling had collapsed. She also said the landlord had not attended to look at the mould in the kitchen or behind the bathroom toilet. She said more items had to be thrown away because they had gone mouldy due to the damp.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord issued the stage 2 response. In summary, it said:
1. It understood the urgency of the situation and would provide an appointment for the repair as soon as the weather conditions allowed.
2. It had adjusted the tarpaulin on 29 November 2023 to enhance effectiveness, but the resident should make contact if water was still getting in.
On 21 December 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident had raised the new leak several times since 17 October 2023, but the order was only raised on 1 November 2023. It said it had forwarded this information to the head of housing to consider compensation for the failing, and contractors would attend the property on 28 December 2023.
On 4 January 2024 the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said:
1. The initial repair in June/July 2023 was not done correctly, leading to the leak reoccurring and getting worse.
2. The landlord had delayed in fixing the second reported leak.
3. The landlord had still not made the roof repair despite scaffolding being erected on 23 November 2023.
4. Rain water continued to come into the bathroom and bath.
5. The mould in the bathroom and kitchen had still not been addressed, leading to her children’s items going mouldy and thrown away.
The roof repair was made, according to the resident and the landlord, in the first week in January 2024. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that all outstanding repairs and redecorations had been completed in April 2024 and there were no ongoing issues. However, she said the landlord had not replaced the backs of the kitchen cupboards, and she remained unhappy with the overall delay. She said she was seeking compensation for this.

Assessment and findings

Scope

We understand that the damp and mould issues are distressing for residents. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on her family’s health and wellbeing, particularly that of her children. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible in this case for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and any specific damage to health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her and her children’s health

Reports of a leak into the bathroom

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says:
1. It will keep in good repair the roof of the property.
2. When there is a roof leak, as a minimum it will aim to contain or minimise a leak as far as possible within 3 working days.
3. When a repair is not high priority but needs to be completed relatively quickly, the resident may choose from a range of available dates to suit their own circumstances. These repairs include follow-on works from an emergency and roof leaks (where they are contained easily).
There are a lack of repair records in this case that show when repair reports were made, what works were carried out to the property, and when. However, both the landlord and the resident have referred to various events and attendances and there does not appear to be a dispute from either party of these details.
Following the resident’s initial complaint about a roof leak in April 2023, there was a delay of 3 months in completing the repair. The landlord’s policy does not specify a timeframe for this type of repair and it did not provide an explanation for the delay. The Ombudsman would usually expect a roof repair to be made within 1 month, but in this case it took 3 months. This was an unreasonable delay, especially given the resident had 2 children in the property. This was a service failure.
It is noted that the resident felt the landlord had not carried out the first repair to a good enough standard and this led to the roof leaking again in October 2023. The landlord said in the stage 1 complaint response that this could not be foreseen, and it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to determine if this was the case. We can only look at the landlord’s handling of the reports of the leaks when they were made. Given that a leak reoccurred in the same location, the landlord should have repaired it as priority.
Following the resident’s reports of the leak reoccurring in October 2023, the landlord reports that it attended to put a tarpaulin down to stop the leak the same day. This was within the timescales outlined in its policy. It attended to readjust the tarpaulin and weigh it down on 29 November 2023. However, the resident complained on 5 December 2023 that water was still leaking through the hole in the roof into the bath.
It is noted that the landlord explained to the resident it could not complete the roof repair in wet weather conditions and low temperatures. Unfortunately this is a known issue when repairing a roof and so some delay was unavoidable and the landlord was not at fault for this. The landlord repaired the roof in the first week of January 2024, so there was around a 10 week delay from when the resident first reported the issue in October 2023, to when the repair was made.
Further, the landlord later acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s reports of a leak on 17 October 2023. It did not respond until 1 November 2023, after which the resident reports part of the ceiling had collapsed (albeit a small part of the ceiling). The landlord did not dispute the resident’s comments about the ceiling collapse.
Had the landlord attended within the timescale of 3 days set out in its policy, the leak would have been contained and it is likely the hole in the ceiling would have been prevented. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in the stage 2 response. More consideration is given to this in the complaint handling section below.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says compensation will be considered where:
1. There has been a failure in standards of service delivery.
2. It failed in its repairing obligation or failed to meet a repairs deadline.
3. It has not completed a repair within the specified timescales.
Overall it took two months for the landlord to make the first repair, and three months for the second. These timeframes were in excess of what would be considered reasonable. The landlord also failed to attend to the second leak until it had become worse. This was not in line with its repairs policy and amounts to maladministration. The landlord did not acknowledge these delays and the detriment to the resident in the complaint responses.
In conclusion, there was a failure which adversely affected the resident causing her additional distress and inconvenience, and the landlord made no attempt to put things right. In cases such as these, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on the website) suggests amounts of up to £600 to be reasonable. An order has been made in line with this.

Damp and mould

The landlord does not have a damp and mould policy in place, however, as outlined in its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould in January 2024, it is in the process of developing a policy. The self-assessment says “a stringent zero-tolerance stance for [damp and mould] has been adopted. This entails subjecting even minor instances of mould to thorough inspection”.
The resident first reported mould in the kitchen in her complaint to the landlord of 22 November 2023. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would address the resident’s concerns of mould. On 7 December 2023, the resident raised concerns about mould in the bathroom. On 8 December 2023, the landlord noted a leaking toilet was causing mould in the bathroom and that there was also surface mould inside kitchen units.
There is a landlord record that refers to mould treatment having been carried out in early January 2024, but that further treatment was needed under the stairs. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2024 stating that the back of the kitchen cupboards had recently been treated for mould, but she felt that these needed to be replaced. She also referenced damp and mould under the stairs.
The records indicate that further mould treatment was carried out in February 2024, with a plan to conduct an inspection into the issue. The evidence indicates an inspection took place soon after, which noted that the roof leaking, toilet leaking, and an issue with lack of extraction had increased the level of moisture in the property. Works were raised following this.
Damp and mould treatments were completed in the resident’s property in April 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord did not change the back of the kitchen units, as it said it would do. The repair records show a job was raised to ‘replace backboards and shelves as required’. It is therefore unclear why this did not go ahead.
Overall, the evidence available shows that it took around six weeks for the from the resident reporting the mould to the in initial treatment being carried out. it is understandable the landlord would want to make sure the leak had been fully resolved and allow the property to dry out before assessing any damp and mould in the property however, given the resident’s children’s health issues, and as best practice, the landlord should have inspected to decide if the mould presented a hazard. It appears to have done so, but not until five months after the initial report. It then took a further two months for follow on work to be carried out. This represents a failing on the part of the landlord, which caused the resident frustration and meant it took longer than it should have to address the issue, so impacting her home.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not address the resident’s concerns about mould in the bathroom or kitchen and this will be addressed in the complaint handling section below. Given the delay in resolving the problems, and the adverse effect on the resident and her children, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in recognition of this. As above, The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation for maladministration causing distress and inconvenience. In light of the impact of the failings on the resident, an order for £200 has been made. The Ombudsman has also made an order for the landlord to ensure the works carried out are sufficient.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s customer feedback policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation […] affecting a resident”. It also says it will encourage residents to resolve problems directly with the relevant service area before making a complaint.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 June 2023. Although the landlord was being proactive by treating the complaint as a “request for service”, it missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns by dealing with it as a complaint and acknowledging the delay. This was poor complaint handling by the landlord.
The landlord apologised for the delay in the first repair on 29 June 2023 but in the stage 1 and 2 responses, did not acknowledge this delay or make an attempt to put things right.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint that she had been reporting the leak since October 2023. On 21 December 2023, following completion of the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged by email that it had failed to respond to this issue. In this email it said it would consider compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, however the resident confirmed she was not offered compensation. This would have added to her frustration.
The landlord’s compensation guidance says compensation will be considered where there has been a loss or damage to persons, or personal property where liability is not in dispute. The resident had mentioned several times to the landlord that she had lost items due to the leaks, damp and mould. This included food, her children’s school shoes and bags.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it was actively seeking advice from insurers to assess extent of damages attributed to works performed by neighbour. However, there is no indication that it provided any further response or information. During the February 2024 inspection it was noted that the resident was unhappy with damage to her personal possessions from damp and mould. The landlord took some pictures of items, and noted that it already had information relating to this mater. However, there is no indication that it followed up on this.
The Ombudsman is unable to conclude that damage was caused directly by the landlord (meaning we cannot determine liability). This is because it is not possible for the Ombudsman to assess how much damage would have been caused by the damp and mould if there were no avoidable delays to repairs. However, the evidence clearly indicates that in order to ‘be fair’, the landlord should have considered the resident’s claim and provided a full written response, as well as providing details on how she could make a claim under its liability insurance policy (if it has one). There is no evidence that it took either of these actions, which was unreasonable.
Overall, the landlord missed opportunities to put things right for the resident in its handling of the complaint. This meant the resident was left without a resolution and faced distress and inconvenience as a result. Again the Ombudsman has considered its remedies guidance in determining that £150 should also be paid for maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak into the bathroom.
2. Damp and mould in the bathroom and kitchen.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
1. Pay the resident £950, which is made up of:
  1. £600 for delays in repairing the leak.
  2. £200 for the impact of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould concerns.
  3. £150 for impact of the complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to update her on the outcome of the advice it sought from insurers to assess extent of damages attributed to works performed by neighbour. It should confirm what options are available to the resident to seek compensation for the claimed damages, and facilitate a claim to its own liability insurers should she wish to pursue this.