Southend-on-Sea City Council (202310117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310117

Southend-on-Sea City Council

28 August 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 reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of requested improvements.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is the sole tenant of a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. She has a secure tenancy with the local authority landlord that began in July 2001. The landlord uses an arm’s length management organisation to manage the property, including the handling of repairs and complaints, on its behalf.
The resident lives with her adult son. The resident was born with one arm. She has experienced ill health in recent years, having suffered renal failure that impacted her mobility and wellbeing. The landlord noted this in 2023.
On 27 August 2022 the resident raised to the landlord that she had no heating in the kitchen and was awaiting a new boiler. The landlord noted a request for a survey or repair job.
On 21 November 2022 the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord. She raised concern at the landlord’s failure to complete a stock condition survey, provide heating in the kitchen and respond to her reports, including about defective windows and broken radiators. She described cold and mouldy living conditions causing her stress and highlighted her disability and ill health.
The landlord provided a written response, describing the resident’s concerns as an ‘informal complaint’, by letter of 25 November 2022. It apologised that she did not receive an update about a stock condition survey, explaining this was not handled by its repairs service. It assured the resident it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect and raise any repairs required.
On 27 April 2023 the resident called the landlord seeking an update on her complaint. The landlord logged multiple works items on its system on 4 and 8 May 2023. The resident said its surveyor inspected her home in early May 2023. The works noted by the landlord included a new bedroom window, a function and seal check/ repair of all doors and windows, additional ventilation, mould washes and external works to support the damp proof course.
The resident sent complaints to the landlord between 28 to 29 June 2023 that said it had:
1. Failed to address her complaint or take promised remedial steps.
2. Left external works incomplete and her gardens in a poor condition.
3. Communicated poorly, including a failure to provide notice it was not attending a pre-arranged appointment.
4. Failed to co-ordinate works, leading to unnecessary re-attendance.
5. Caused her detriment; time off work for non-attendance and difficulty clearing the external ‘mess’ due to the impacts of her disability.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 July 2023 and advised it would return to her in 10 working days. On 11 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord seeking a response.
The landlord prepared a complaint response letter dated 14 July 2023. There is no record the letter was issued to the resident. Its letter set out acknowledgement of and apology for non-attendance and lack of prior notice. It offered £40 compensation ‘on behalf of’ its contractors. It said its surveyor post-inspected and considered the external works complete and the area clean.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 31 July 2023. She said that the landlord:
1. Did not send its letter of 14 July 2023; she became aware of the response when she called its complaint service and they read its contents by phone.
2. Provided an inaccurate description of its external works.
3. Failed to return her multiple calls chasing progress or confirm its findings and keep her updated following inspections.
4. Delayed progressing her November 2022 complaint.
5. Failed to address the condition survey and offer appropriate compensation.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of her request on 8 August 2023. It apologised for delay. It promised its final response in 20 working days.
The resident sought an update from the landlord to her complaint on 30 August 2023. It replied, advising its response was required on 5 September 2023. She chased further update by emails on 11, 19 and 27 September 2023.
The landlord issued a final complaint response on 27 September 2023. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delay to its response and a failure to keep records of previous inspections.
2. It apologised for its handling of the resident’s case, ‘unsatisfactory’ actions to address ‘matters’ and delays, acknowledging handling ‘well below’ expected standards. It apologised for the distress and anxiety caused.
3. An inspection had been requested and its findings were to be logged.
It made an offer of ‘discretionary payments’: £100 for failure to issue its final response to service standards, £500 for failure to adhere to service quality standards and complete its complaint process and £500 for inconvenience, time, trouble, disappointment and delays getting matters resolved. The landlord completed a stock condition survey on 29 September 2023. It required works and further investigation to resolve damp and mould that had spread to the resident’s decoration. It noted defective windows and doors, incomplete external works posing a hazard and repairs to ventilation. It also found a lack of kitchen heating and the kitchen to be of poor standard.
The findings were shared with the resident following her request in November 2023. The resident chased the landlord about its identified works across November and December 2023 and January 2024. The landlord completed a mould wash on 24 January 2024. It carried out external drainage works in January 2024 and installed new windows and doors in May 2024.
The resident described to this Service that her living conditions caused her distress, upset and embarrassment. She said she experienced discomfort living with black mould on her walls and a damp smell and felt unable to have family visit or care for her at a time when she was housebound due to illness. She said she lived with anxiety that the mould could cause infection and that it was challenging cleaning recurring mould at the rate of growth due to her health. She incurred costs from belongings and decorations damaged by mould and cleaning supplies.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. In line with the version of the Scheme in operation at the time of the complaint the reasonable period is ordinarily considered as within 6 months of the matters arising. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in November 2022. While the resident referred this Service to matters arising in the earlier stages of her tenancy, as no complaint was raised at this time, in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme these events have not formed part of this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord is responsible, by operation of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure the property is fit for human habitation across the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include the presence of damp and mould growth and excess cold. The landlord was also required to ensure the property met the Decent Homes Standard including the absence of serious hazard/s.
The resident reported mouldy living conditions in November 2022. As at the landlord’s final response, actions to resolve the issue were outstanding. There is no evidence the landlord took steps to inspect the property as promised in November 2022 until the resident was put to time and trouble chasing progress in April 2023. The landlord confirmed the presence of damp and mould in early May 2023 and logged the need for associated works. While some external works were completed, the landlord failed to do other works identified to treat mould or linked to damp conditions such as mould wash, ventilation, defective windows causing excess cold. The resident lived in mouldy conditions across the period under review.
The landlord accordingly failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the habitability of the resident’s living conditions in line with its legal obligations. It subjected the resident to unreasonable delay with the resident still living with internal mould and damp 10 months after her November 2022 report.
The landlord’s response was largely reactive and driven by the resident’s reports and complaint. Although the landlord logged the need for inspections and latterly a list of works, these only progressed after the resident chased it. The landlord’s lack of proactive management or effective monitoring placed an unfair burden on the resident and contributed to its unreasonable delay.
This Service sought, but was not been provided with, any repairs or specific damp and mould policy/ procedure in operation by the landlord at the relevant time. A lack of an effective damp and mould framework to support a zero tolerance response likely contributed to the issues noted in this report. This Service has had sight of a policy now in operation.
In November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that her living conditions were having an adverse impact on her health and described mould and excess cold. She reminded the landlord of her disability and health conditions. As noted within this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould, such living conditions can lead to adverse health. There is no record showing that the landlord had regard to the particular potential heightened risks presenting to the resident considering her ill health. The landlord undertook no evident proactive assessment of risks/ habitability. There is no evidence the landlord had processes in place to support a risk-based approach to the resident’s reports.
The landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s particular needs also represented a failure to have regard to its potential duties under the Equality Act 2010. It did not take any evidenced steps to actively understand the resident’s conditions and their effects and accordingly consider if it was required to make relevant reasonable adjustments.
The landlord’s communications with the resident were reactive to her contact. She made multiple requests for an update that the landlord left unanswered. It had no apparent proactive strategy for ensuring she was aware and updated about any plans it had to conduct works or timescales. In response to the resident’s chasers across September 2023, the landlord internally noted its contact was outstanding. Despite this, it failed to even acknowledge her contact. The resident described feeling upset and ignored in the process, adding to her distress and time and trouble.
The landlord’s failure to make reasonable records of its inspections, considered separately in this report, prevented this Service assessing with appropriate detail the findings. While a list of works raised was indicative, these alone did not evidence that the landlord employed appropriate expertise and that any inspections were conducted reasonably. The recurrence of damp, confirmed at the landlord’s inspection within 2 days of its final response and reported as ongoing by the resident, raise concern as to whether the landlord appropriately identified and treated the root cause of the damp as part of its external remedial works.
It is noted that the landlord’s remedial inspection of 29 September 2023 recommended works and investigations linked to damp/ mould such as heating installation to kitchen, external works. Some of these were completed in May 2024 and others are outstanding. This Service has seen no record of a specialist post-inspection to determine the efficacy of the works to prevent ongoing damp/mould. From the available records, the landlord has failed to complete actions directly connected to its promised remedial action within a reasonable period of time or at all. The resident has supplied photographs showing ongoing damp and mould. This further failing has exacerbated the detriment caused to the resident. It unnecessarily lengthened the period of time she has spent living with uncertainty, chasing progress and the outstanding issues.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it accepted service failing for non-attendance, however suggested responsibility for an apology lay with the contractor acting on its behalf. This was a failure by the landlord to show accountability and directly apologise. The landlord’s final response failed to reasonably explore and directly address its prior response concerning damp. While it acknowledged failings in service, its admissions were vague and brief.. It failed to specifically address key elements of the resident’s related concerns such as incomplete works, conduct. This failed to reflect back to the resident her experience or provide reasons to put matters right.
Although the landlord offered compensation, its wording did not make it reasonably clear exactly how much related to impact from its damp and mould response. Overall review of the response indicates £500 of the offered figure was intended. This amount was disproportionately low considering the level of personal detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings as described above.
The landlord did not show consideration of the particular impact on the resident in view of her personal circumstances and the health related issues raised. There is no evidence the landlord considered, when offering redress, the exacerbating detrimental impact of her living conditions.
The landlord’s response did not show an appropriate degree of reflection upon why the damp and mould issue was left outstanding for so long and how it would prevent recurrence. Further, the landlord’s promised remedial action did not occur until after the resident chased progress for further months or at all. The landlord failed to ensure appropriate monitoring and tracking of the progress to ensure matters were put right as promised or implement available learning. This exacerbated the detriment caused.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This Service orders that the landlord repeat its previous offer and pay further compensation reflective of the serious distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
This Service is informed that the resident was directed to the landlord’s liability insurance to claim for the costs she said she incurred arising from damp and mouldy living conditions such as damaged furniture, decorations and cleaning costs. In these circumstances, no further order is made regarding those items. The landlord is ordered to offer support to the resident to make this claim.

The landlord’s handling of requested improvements

The resident raised a complaint about overdue improvements works in November 2022. The landlord’s reply failed to provide any substantive response to her concerns. It simply stated that a different department had responsibility. It took no ownership for ensuring that the resident received a response from any service of the landlord. Instead, the resident’s concerns went unanswered.
The landlord’s asset management strategy detailed how the landlord would undertake stock condition surveys to support decisions about improvements or planned works. In line with regulatory guidance, such survey was to include consideration of health hazards under HHSRS. This included risks from excess cold and required a reasonable state of repair.
This Service sought from the landlord copies of any survey or inspection reports or other feedback regarding replacement/ refurbishment. The landlord provided no record of any stock condition survey or other assessment of property condition. The landlord was under no obligation to complete a survey to the resident’s home as a matter of course. However, as noted above, the landlord held a duty to ensure the resident’s home met decent standards and was fit for human habitation, regardless of the terms of its asset management strategy or the schedule of any planned programme.
There is no evidence that in response to the resident’s concerns, or at any stage during the period under review, the landlord had particular regard to whether the resident’s home met decent home standards or was fit for human habitation. Although the resident raised concerns about her living standards, there is no evidence the landlord interrogated its records to identify the current status of any works planned or consider an assessment that was not focused on repairs. The resident’s complaint as to a lack of heating in a key room of the house, for example, should reasonably have alerted the landlord of a potential presenting hazard to consider if its duties required improvement.
The improvements raised by the resident indicated the presence of potential hazards and risks, for example from excessively cold living conditions from lack of heating and defective windows. The landlord’s response, including at inspection visits, showed no regard to or assessment of any risks presenting, including any particular impacts that could arise linked to the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
When the landlord assessed repairs required in May 2023, it noted the need for a new window in one of the bedrooms. No further detail was recorded on this issue and at the point of the landlord’s final response 4 months later, no update or timescale for completion had been identified or conveyed to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint response failed to address its handling of the resident’s requests for improvements. Its admission of service failing with apology was vague. Considering the lack of any specific address within the response letter, it is unclear if its redress was intended to cover failings linked to this matter. For an apology to be effective towards putting matters right, it needs to be reasonably clear and specific. There was no self-reflection or other admission suggesting the landlord had identified any particular failing.
However, only 2 days after its complaint response, the landlord completed a stock condition survey. This suggests it was linked to the remedial action (inspection) promised. Its report noted multiple items of concern including inoperative windows and doors, a poor standard of kitchen and lack of heating. While this Service notes the windows and doors have since been upgraded, all other works including heating provision to the kitchen are outstanding.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request for improvements to her home.
The landlord’s failings, particularly its failure to respond directly to the resident’s requests, left her distressed and without answers about living conditions she experienced daily. She was put to time and trouble raising the issue repeatedly at a time of ill health and at personal difficulty. As evidenced by the survey completed in response, multiple elements of the property were found to require renewal or improvement; the resident lived with these conditions across the period of investigation. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation for the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble it caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

There were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling as:
1. At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a ‘stage zero’, ‘informal complaints’ stage with the stated aim of resolving an issue without the matter becoming ‘a formal complaint’. However, this Service’s then Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was clear that handling a complaint outside of a 2 stage process, for example by using a ‘stage 0’ was inappropriate. The onus was placed on the resident to further log a stage 1 ‘formal’ complaint if dissatisfied with its informal response. By treating her complaint at ‘stage 0’, the landlord created unnecessary delay to the progression and response to her complaint that she was put to time and trouble trying to progress across 2023.
2. The landlord failed to issue a stage 1 response in writing to the resident as required by its complaints policy and the Code. While it prepared a stage 1 response, albeit delayed, it failed to send the resident a copy. The resident acknowledged in her escalation request that the contents were read to her belatedly by phone. However, there is no subsequent evidence that it sought to put matters right by forwarding a copy once aware of its oversight. The resident required a written copy to enable her the chance to fully understand, refer back to and consider her response to its findings.
3. The landlord’s acknowledgment of the resident’s escalation request was issued 8 days after it received her contact.
4. The landlord subsequently missed its own calculated date for its final response. While extension was permitted by the Code and its policy, this required prior explanation and notice to the resident. The landlord failed to engage with the resident to advise her of expected delay or seek her agreement, despite her chasing it for an update across September 2023
The landlord’s final complaint response provided acknowledgment and apology for its delay. It also acknowledged it had failed to ‘complete’ the complaints process and accepted unspecified service failures. It offered £100 specific to its response delay which was proportionate to the impact of the delay.
The landlord also offered £500 for failing to meet service standards relating to its failure to issue a complaint response. There was significant detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling, particularly the distress at which she was placed repeatedly seeking access to the process, exacerbated by her personal circumstances.
The total amount of compensation £600, is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases, such as this, where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The compensation offered was therefore proportionate to the distress and inconvenient caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

There was maladministration by the landlord in its knowledge and information management because of:
1. The lack of recorded detailed findings of its inspections. Its failure to appropriately record these key developments was repeated by multiple surveyors, as acknowledged to the resident.
2. The failure to keep record of key conversations. The resident raised issue with statements made by an attending surveyor, his conduct and the advised specification of works. The landlord failed to produce any record of its contact. This Service cannot be satisfied in this absence of any contrary record that such conduct did not occur.
3. Other contact with the resident had no contemporaneous record. Visits to consider or complete works for example external works in June 2023 and the ‘post-inspection’ have no associated record. Records of works were inadequate, providing only a list of works with dates jobs were raised and targets.
4. Calls with the resident concerning her complaint were not recorded. Its complaint response described discussions with its contractors in the investigation; no such records were produced.
The landlord’s records, or rather lack thereof, are consistent with a failure to maintain appropriate records or inability to produce relevant records across different internal services. Without the landlord keeping track of information as to what work was completed and when, it is unclear how it was able to effectively monitor the status of the resident’s concerns. Indeed, the landlord’s investigation appeared dependent on internal accounts rather than its accessible records.
The recording gaps impacted its own complaint response and this Service’s ability to more fully assess the landlord’s actions. For example, this Service was unable to make any findings relating to the landlord’s ‘post-inspection’ or the landlord’s notice of/ lack of notice concerning visits and multiple attendances.
The failure to keep appropriate records prevented the landlord providing fuller transparency to the resident. She was prevented access to fuller understanding, explanation and accountability of the landlord’s actions. This has been described to have exacerbated her distress and placed her at burden of seeking repeat further recourse to try to gain answers.
The landlord is responsible for maladministration and ordered to pay compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requested improvements.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failures identified in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for an apology in writing to the resident from its Chief Executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1200 compensation. It is comprised of:
  1. £500 previously offered by its response 27 September 2023 relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould if this has not already been paid.
  2. A further £400 for the inconvenience, distress and time and trouble relating to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the inconvenience, distress and time and trouble relating to its handling of requested improvements.
  4. £100 for the distress and time and trouble relating to its knowledge and information management.

The above ordered compensation should be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears

Provide the resident with details in writing about how to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance for damage/costs incurred linked to damp and mouldy living conditions.
Contact the resident to arrange for an inspection of the property at a time mutually agreed with the resident to assess the following:
1. What, if any, repairs or improvements, are required to treat or manage any ongoing presenting damp and mould.
2. What, if any, repairs or improvements are required to bring the property to decent homes standard and remedy any ongoing health or safety hazards.
3. The inspection must be completed by a qualified surveyor independent of the landlord and their findings and any recommendations, detailed within a written inspection report.

The landlord is ordered to carry out the following steps within 2 weeks of completion of the inspection at paragraph 57.d.:
1. Agree a schedule of works for any identified repair or improvements with the resident including provision for post inspection of quality of works within 2 weeks of conclusion of works
2. Provide a copy of the inspection report and agreed schedule to the resident and to this Service.
3. Agree with the resident how often and how it will communicate regular updates of progress against the schedule of works.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this decision and in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its identified failings and determine what action it should take to prevent reoccurrence. The review should be conducted by a senior manager independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. A copy of the above ordered review and any associated updated policies, procedures or plans should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £600 previously offered by its response of 27 September 2023 relating to its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.