Stevenage Borough Council (202342284)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342284

Stevenage Borough Council

27 January 2025

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 resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 young children, both of whom have asthma.
On 28 December 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her child’s bedroom and condensation throughout the property.
The landlord conducted a damp and mould inspection in January 2022 and a ventilation survey in June 2022, during which recommendations were made to improve the property conditions.
In September 2022, the landlord upgraded the loft insulation in the property.
The resident complained to the landlord on 19 November and 18 December 2022. She said that:
1. She was frustrated with the landlord’s response to the increasing damp and mould.
2. The lounge walls remained damp, and increased heating only masked the issue.
3. Her son’s bedroom was damp, and she was concerned for her children’s health, as they both had asthma.
4. She would continue complaining until she was happy with the repairs or moved from the property.
In December 2022 the landlord installed a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system.
Between January and September 2023, the landlord completed further works which included:
1. Mould treatments to the bedrooms, lounge and bathroom.
2. Stripping wallpaper in the children’s bedrooms.
3. Renewing the plaster and skimming above the living room window.
4. Applying an external sealant to the gully at the rear of the property.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident, noting that her complaint was still open. The landlord said the complaint would be closed as the work had been completed. However, the resident was advised to escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2024, unhappy that the complaint was being closed. She confirmed that the repair work had not been completed.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process on 22 January 2024. It said that:
1. Water ingress into the property was linked to replacing the tile cladding, which it intended to remediate through insulation and by providing a ledge to divert water from the wall.
2. It would replace a section of the roof felt above her son’s bedroom.
3. Once the repairs were completed, it would complete a damp and mould treatment and decoration, scheduled for 8 and 9 February 2024.
4. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the delays in carrying out the repairs and the inconvenience this caused.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted us to investigate her complaint. As a resolution, she has asked that all repairs be completed satisfactorily or that she be relocated from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the resident’s complaint, she expressed concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her children’s health. We recognise the distress this situation has caused. However, establishing liability is more appropriately considered by a court. In this case, we have not attempted to determine liability. Instead, we have focused on the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, as well as the landlord’s response to her concerns.

The resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days. Examples of urgent repairs include a leaking roof or malfunctioning extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom.
The landlord’s damp and condensation policy commits to investigating the causes of damp and condensation and carrying out remedial repairs. It will diagnose the cause, inform the resident of the investigation findings following a visit, and recommend effective solutions along with a timeline for the completion of remedial work.
The resident initially reported damp and mould on 28 December 2021. The landlord appropriately arranged to inspect and complete a property survey on 11 January 2022.
The landlord’s damp and condensation policy, in place at the time of the complaint, did not specify a timeframe for completing an inspection. In this case, the landlord responded within 8 working days, which we consider to be within a reasonable timeframe.
The 11 January 2022 inspection confirmed that:
1. Mould was visible on the bathroom ceiling, and the extractor fan needed updating.
2. The loft insulation was a “problem” that needed correcting.
3. No mould was visible in the second bedroom, but it was very cold, so upgrading the radiator was recommended.
According to the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord should complete the above actions within 20 working days. However, the landlord failed to meet its repair timeframes or provide evidence of having agreed upon a completion date with the resident.
The loft insulation was completed in September 2022, 9 months after being identified as an issue. The landlord informed us that some delays were due to the need to procure a new contractor. While we understand that this may have contributed to the delay, 9 months is excessive under any circumstances.
There is no evidence confirming that the landlord upgraded the radiator in the second bedroom, and we have been unable to contact the resident to confirm whether this has been done. We expect the landlord to maintain comprehensive records to clearly outline what repairs were completed and when. The landlord’s record-keeping will be addressed in a separate section later in this report.
On 14 June 2022, a second survey was conducted to assess the property’s ventilation. The survey found minimal airflow in the loft. Based on these results, installing a PIV system was recommended to improve airflow, manage condensation, and prevent mould growth in the property. Additionally, the survey noted that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen, and the wall-mounted fan in the bathroom was not functioning and needed to be replaced, as mentioned in the January 2022 inspection.
The landlord failed to follow its repair policy, which lists non-working extractor fans as an urgent repair that should be repaired within 5 working days. It is unclear why the landlord did not address this issue at that time. There is no evidence that the landlord considered if a temporary repair was necessary to address the problems while effectively awaiting a replacement. The inspection reports state that the bathroom lacked adequate ventilation and was an internal space, so the repair was even more crucial. The landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable.
In June 2022, the contractor informed the landlord on 28 July 2022, that it could not install the PIV unit or the extractor fan because the fuse board was unsafe. There is no evidence that the landlord took proactive steps to repair the fuse board to facilitate the quick installation of the ventilation units. Subsequently, the job was closed. It appears that the landlord only became aware of the outstanding work after an inspection by the damp and mould team on 27 October 2022.
The landlord’s repair policy states that these contractors are considered an extension of its repair service, and as such, we expect repair times to mirror those in its policy. The PIV unit and fan was completed on 16 November 2022, 5 months after the recommendations were made.
Although the landlord completed some repairs and improvements, the issues remained unresolved. On 17 November 2022, the resident reported that the walls and plasterboard at the front of the property were wet after heavy rainfall. The landlord responded within the designated 5 working days for urgent repairs and confirmed that the windowsill needed to be replaced. While this may have contributed to the water ingress, the landlord has not provided an inspection report to determine if there was a more significant underlying problem causing the damp throughout the property. Landlords are expected to keep comprehensive records including detailed inspections.
On 19 November 2022, the resident complained about the damp in the property. Despite her efforts to improve the situation by purchasing dehumidifiers, the conditions had not improved. She expressed her intent to continue complaining until the necessary repairs were made to her satisfaction or until she was relocated to a different property.
The first indication of a possible leak affecting the property was recorded on 21 November 2022. An internal email noted active leaks at the front and back of the property. The landlord said the leaks “could not have been present at the time of our inspection [in January 2022].” However, it is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion, as the inspection report does not indicate that any external property assessments were conducted to rule out leaks.
A follow-up survey conducted on 2 December 2022 found mould in the lounge, bedrooms, and bathroom, primarily on the external walls and at the joints with the skirtings and ceilings. This indicated a noticeable deterioration in the property’s condition compared to the inspection from January 2022. The report does not mention any investigation being carried out to identify the cause of the leaks at the front and back of the property, which was unreasonable given the indications of leaks observed in November 2022.
In early December 2022, the landlord performed a stage 2 mould treatment in the lounge and bathroom and a stage 3 treatment in the bedrooms. Although this was a reasonable attempt to improve the property’s conditions temporarily, it did not address the underlying root cause of the issue.
In an email on 18 December 2022, the resident highlighted her frustration with the ineffectiveness of previous mould treatments and cleanings. She clarified that the landlord’s repeated approach was insufficient and had failed to address the underlying issues causing the mould. The situation caused her distress, as she was concerned about the potential health risks that mould posed to her children, who had respiratory conditions.
On 3 February 2023, during a follow-up inspection, the landlord noticed that the bathroom extractor fan was covered in moisture and was not effectively ventilating the space. Due to insufficient records, we cannot confirm whether any further repairs were made to the bathroom fan.
A works order was raised on 18 July 2023 to apply an external sealant to the gullies at the back of the property. It is unclear how this repair was identified. However, the repair was not completed until September 2023, a significant departure from the landlord’s repair timeframes.
In November 2023, the resident reported ongoing issues, which included unresolved repairs and missed appointments for roof repairs. A new work order was issued on 8 November 2023, to repair raised eave tiles. However, it is unclear whether this repair was completed. Given the subsequent report of water entering the property on 20 December 2023 and the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair was not addressed at this time, or did not resolve the problems.
It is a concern that earlier inspections did not identify all necessary repairs to ensure that the resident’s problems were effectively resolved.
On 3 January 2024, the resident chased outstanding repairs which included:
1. Cleaning the windows and ceilings of mould.
2. Changing the filter in the loft.
3. Fixing the roof.
We would expect the landlord to keep the resident suitably informed of progress of repairs to manage expectations and ensure they are completed in a timely manner. It was unacceptable that the resident had to seek updates which added to her frustration.
The landlord completed the roofing work on 11 February 2024, 3 months after issuing the work order. This delay is a departure from the expected response time of 5 working days.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays in resolving the issue and offered £75 in compensation to address the resident’s situation. However, this amount was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. The absence of documentation raises concerns regarding the thoroughness of the inspections.
The landlord’s inability to effectively coordinate efforts to promptly identify the root cause of the problem and complete repairs within the established timeframes meant that it could not resolve the issues quickly. As a result, the resident was left in an uncertain situation, experiencing distress, inconvenience, and delays for over 2 years due to the landlord’s shortcomings in diagnosing and reasonably addressing the issue.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the health of her children. This lack of acknowledgement failed to consider the resident’s concerns about the potential impact on her children’s well-being, which likely exacerbated her distress and inconvenience.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress. We have considered the landlord’s compensation policy alongside our remedies guidance. The landlord has acknowledged some failings but failed to address the detriment caused or proportionately redress for its failings. Therefore, an award of £600 has been ordered for the failings identified, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.
We have not been able to confirm with the resident if the repairs completed in February 2024 have permanently resolved the issue. Therefore, we have made subsequent orders to resolve the matter fully and put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a two-stage complaints process:
1. Stage 1: Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a response is provided within 10 working days after the acknowledgment.
2. Stage 2: Complaints are also acknowledged within 5 working days, with a response given within 20 working days following the acknowledgment.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes landlords responding to complaints and escalations within a reasonable time.
The resident complained on 19 November 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged her email as a complaint. The landlord responded on 20 November 2022 but failed to acknowledge her email as a complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy, in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint, defined a complaint as any expression of dissatisfaction. The resident expressed that she was “unhappy” and stated she would “continue to complain,” which should have prompted the landlord to log this correspondence as a complaint. It was unreasonable and inconsistent with its complaints policy not to take this action.
This led the resident to spend additional time submitting a further complaint on 18 December 2022. The landlord has not provided evidence that this was acknowledged as a complaint, which is again unreasonable.
The landlord failed to:
1. Acknowledge and record the correspondence submitted on 19 November and 18 December 2022 as complaints, in accordance with its policy.
2. Provide a formal stage 1 response.
3. Meet its timescales as detailed in its complaints policy for acknowledging and responding to a stage 1 complaint.
4. Advise the resident of any reason for the delay or provide her with interim updates on the progress of her complaint.
This was unreasonable and significantly protracted the resident’s complaints process. The landlord informed us that there was a backlog of complaints at the time. However, this does not relieve the landlord of its obligation to respond to complaints according to its policy.
On 13 October 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and confirmed that the complaint was still open. The landlord noted that since all necessary work had been completed, it would close the complaint. The landlord also provided guidance on how the resident could escalate the matter if she wished to do so.
The response was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code, which confirms that a stage 1 response will provide the following information:
1. The complaint stage.
2. The complaint definition.
3. The decision on the complaint.
4. The reasons for any decisions made.
5. Details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. Details of any outstanding actions.
The email sent on 13 October 2023 cannot be considered a stage 1 response. This caused the resident inconvenience and confusion regarding her complaint and resulted in an 11-month delay in addressing her initial complaint from November 2022.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 January 2024 as she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed the repairs or resolved the damp and mould in the property.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 22 January 2024, which was within its 20-working day response timeframe.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, specifically the repair delays. It appropriately apologised and offered £75 compensation for the inconvenience this caused. While this went some way to trying to put things right, the landlord did not fully address all that went wrong, the reasons behind this, or the learning it had taken from the complaint. As such, it did not use the complaints process as an effective tool to ensure positive change to its service delivery.
The landlord failed to explain why it did not provide the resident with a stage 1 response or demonstrate it had investigated the reasons for this oversight. Furthermore, it did not explain the reasons for the delays in repairs or appropriately consider the impact this had on the resident and her children, despite the concerns she raised, which she said caused her anger and frustration.
By not addressing what went wrong, the landlord missed an opportunity to clarify the situation. A key part of the complaints process is explaining why issues occurred and outlining the steps that will be taken to prevent them from happening again. Since the landlord did not identify lessons learned, its handling of the complaint compounded the substantive issue and undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to put things right.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered additional compensation to reflect the time and delay caused by its handling of the complaint and have awarded an additional £150 for the failings identified in its complaint handling.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) confirms that good record keeping is vital to evidence a landlord’s action, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes were not operating effectively.
Our investigation into this complaint has been hindered by a lack of evidence and detailed reports that the landlord has not provided. Specifically, we are missing the following:
1. Comprehensive records of calls and emails between the resident and the landlord.
2. Complete records of repairs, including detailed information on all completed work and the specific tasks performed.
3. Inspection reports and/or records for all visits completed.
The lack of documentation raises concerns about the diligence and effectiveness of the repair work. Missing reports, detailed repair records, and correspondence have likely hindered the resolution process. These omissions highlight issues with the landlord’s transparency and thoroughness in record-keeping. Such practices are unacceptable. We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s record-keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of damp, mould and water ingress.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £825, comprising:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience, time and delay caused by its handling of the complaint.
  3. £75 as offered at stage 2. If already paid, this amount can be deducted from the total.
  4. The landlord should pay the money directly to the resident.
3. Contact the resident and confirm if the repairs have resolved the damp and mould. If not, the landlord should:
  1. Arrange an inspection of the property by a suitably qualified person to identify any further repairs.
  2. If issues are identified at the inspection, an action plan should be compiled, setting out steps to address them and a timescale to complete.
  3. Share a copy of the inspection report with the resident and us.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review the complaint and identify why it delayed in providing a lasting repair. Confirm what changes it has already taken, or will take, to improve its service.
2. Investigate why it did not respond at stage 1 of its complaints process and confirm what steps it will take, or has already taken, to mitigate similar failings.
3. Confirm why its records failed to contain comprehensive information relating to all communication with the resident, inspections and repair records and what action it will take or has already taken to ensure its record-keeping practices are robust.
4. The landlord must provide us with a copy of the review within 8 weeks.