Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Tower Hamlets Homes (202320700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320700

Tower Hamlets 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of faulty windows at the property.
    2. Reports of damp, mould, cold, and water ingress at the property.
    3. The associated complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a family of 4 in a flat which is situated in a larger block. His 2 children were aged approximately 6 months, and 5 years, when he reported cold rooms and draughty windows on 9 May 2022.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 May 2022 to inspect the windows, noting that the “single glaze windows were at least 30 years old, very draughty and that the rooms [are] cold even with the heating on and the windows closed and locked.” The contractor recommended replacing the windows.
  3. After some further inspections, in which the landlord sought a second opinion and took measurements for new windows in the property, the resident reported water ingress through the windows. A contractor attended on 29 November 2022 and noted that the windows did not have sufficient ventilation, resulting in “large build ups” of condensation and mould growth.
  4. The resident complained on 12 December 2022. He said that the window repairs had been outstanding for over 7 months, the rooms in the property were “freezing cold” and that he was being ignored while mould grew in the property. He complained that his heating bills were excessive because he needed to keep the heating on constantly. He asked for [financial] help with these bills. He said that the cold and mould was a health risk to his children (who had a disability and other health condition[s]). He requested urgent repairs.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2023. It explained there had been errors, particularly due to its contractors, that had led to repairs to the windows not being completed. It offered £250 compensation for time and trouble. It offered £60 for appointments the landlord had missed, in line with its compensation policy. It raised a request to deliver 2 fan heaters to the property the following day. It attended on 5 January 2023 to inspect the windows again, noting that they were letting in rainwater and required replacing.
  6. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 9 January 2023. He said that his baby was unwell from the winter cold, that he had been chasing repairs to the windows and to deal with water ingress. He said he was behind on his heating bills and the landlord should be compensating him for the additional cost of keeping the property warm. He reiterated that the property was so cold it was “not liveable”. He was frustrated that the landlord had “inspected” the windows on several occasions, but had not completed any repairs. He added that there were separate water leaks in the property which he had reported, not relating to the windows, which had not been resolved.
  7. On 16 January 2023 the landlord carried out a mould wash. It raised several further inspections in January, February, and March 2023. The resident chased on 28 March 2023 adding that his family were “suffering a lot”. The landlord carried out a further mould wash at the property on 29 March 2023.
  8. On an unknown date in April or May 2023 the landlord replaced the bedroom windows with double glazing. The kitchen and living room windows remained outstanding. The resident chased on 23 August 2023 and a further inspection was raised on 4 September 2023.
  9. On 13 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated that there had been delays with the remaining window repairs due to a miscommunication with its contractor. It apologised and said it would inspect the windows again.
  10. On 14 September 2023 the resident approached the Ombudsman. He repeated the issues and emphasised how cold the property was. He explained he was using credit cards to fund his heating bills. He wanted the windows to be replaced, the cause of the mould and water ingress to be resolved, and financial compensation of “at least £6,000”, including compensation toward his high heating costs. He wrote to the landlord on 18 September 2023. He was unhappy that it had failed to respond to a number of elements of both his complaint and subsequent escalation request.
  11. On 21 December 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord instructing it to respond to the damp and mould issues, reports of water ingress and any other missed elements of the resident’s complaint, in line with its complaints procedure. The landlord responded on 8 January 2024 stating that it felt these additional issues were resolved and that the resident had not raised them as part of his complaint or escalation request.
  12. The resident reported that the landlord replaced the kitchen and living room windows in March or April 2024 with double glazing. The landlord continued to attend the property after this date in response to reports of mould growth.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of faulty windows at the property

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be attended within 20 days. The landlord did attend to inspect within this timeframe, and was informed that the windows needed replacing on 19 May 2022, however they were not replaced until significantly later (and these were the bedroom windows only). There is some evidence that they may have been replaced in March 2023, though the landlord’s repair log states it was not completed until 11 May 2023. The evidence is unclear if the landlord inspected the living room and kitchen windows at this time. The resident raised specific concerns about these windows with the landlord on 9 January 2023, however these were not replaced until March or April 2024. These delays represented significant failings. The timescale set out in the repairs policy does note that repairs where manufacturing may be required (including replacing windows) may take longer, however there is no evidence that manufacturing times significantly contributed to the delays in this case.
  2. The reasons for these delays are largely unclear. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that there had been administrative errors and miscommunications with its contractors at various points in time. There is some evidence of this. However one of the key reasons for the delays appears to be that the landlord repeatedly raised inspections of the windows, even after a contractor had recommended they be replaced. Contractors repeatedly recorded the issues with the windows, such as that there was “excessive condensation running down [the] glass causing large build ups of water [and] creating mould growth”. The landlord however still did not appear to make the decision to replace the windows. The landlord said that it had accepted a quote to replace the windows on 17 October 2022 but “was unable to provide an installation date due to a backlog of repairs”. It is unclear which windows it had decided to replace at this point. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. Although the landlord used multiple contractors at various points in time, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to instruct a different contractor to replace the windows. The landlord reinspected the windows for an unknown reason on 29 November 2022 and again on 9 December 2022, but then took no further action until it carried out yet another inspection on 5 January 2023 in which an engineer stated that “new windows are required as they are letting in rainwater”. It is unclear whether this referred to all windows, or just some.
  3. Despite having already “accepted a quote” prior to this, on 22 March 2023 the landlord added comments to this repair log of 5 January 2023, seemingly for the benefit of its contractors, stating that after the visit, the landlord “needed to go back and see where they need new windows”. It added that the resident had advised that “new windows had been approved however this was not the case, [the landlord has only agreed to a minor repair]”. As the windows had already been measured for and a quote had been “already approved”, it is unclear why the landlord changed its position, without telling the resident. It did the same in respect of the kitchen and living room windows, which it inspected on several occasions (noting various issues), however appeared reluctant to state that the windows needed replacing. This was inappropriate, not only because of the issues being reported, but because under its repairs policy, the landlord was responsible for “100% of the cost of replacement windows which are over 20 years old”. An operative noted that the windows were already “over 30 years old”, and so it is unclear why a decision was not made sooner to replace all of the windows after it first noted the age of the installations. Therefore, each of the further inspections to decide “if the windows needed replacing” were perhaps unnecessary.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it had apologised for failing to replace the windows in good time and offered £250 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble, however then failed to complete the works that it said it would. Although the contractor told the landlord that no further works had yet been booked on 4 April 2023, it failed to contact the contractor again until 23 August 2023. The resident reported that during this time he had been trying to call the landlord, but had been subject to “excessive [telephone] waiting times of over an hour” and that when he got through to them, staff would “hang up on him”, however there is no evidence to support this. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised “for any delay and inconvenience experienced with your request for your window replacements.” It noted that there appeared to have been a “pause with the follow-up” due to an oversight. It then said that it would inspect and advise the resident if the windows needed to be replaced. As above, this approach was unreasonable, unnecessary, and caused additional undue delays. It was at this point that the resident approached the Ombudsman. The resident reported that the living and kitchen room windows were eventually replaced in March or April 2024, though the landlord provided no evidence of this.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble over a 2 year period to have his concerns about the windows resolved. The resident was subject to several unnecessary appointments, causing disruption, and given confusing and conflicting information by the landlord and its contractors. The landlord made repeated and significant errors in handling the repairs in this case, resulting in maladministration. The landlord offered £250 at stage 1 of the complaints process for “time, trouble, and inconvenience”, however the resident was subjected to significant further delays after this point and offered no further compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration that has resulted in a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £600 should be considered. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay £800 to the resident, inclusive of the £250 already offered, in recognition of the adverse effect he experienced. Although the evidence also shows that cold and water ingress was contributed to as a result of the landlord’s handling of the window replacements, the Ombudsman has considered this in a later section of the report.
  6. The landlord explained that it, or its contractors, had undertaken learning as a result of this complaint. There is no evidence to support this. If any learning did take place, the evidence seen after the landlord’s complaints responses suggests that it was ineffective. As such, an order is made below.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, cold, and water ingress

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as “those that have serious effects on people or damage to the home”. These repairs should be attended within 24 hours. It is widely understood that mould, in some cases, can be prejudicial to health.
  2. The landlord should therefore have treated reports of mould in line with its emergency repairs policy. The landlord’s operatives first noted mould on 29 November 2022. The resident stated in his formal complaint on 12 December 2022 that he had contacted the landlord 3 or 4 times about the mould issue and water ingress, which he felt was a significant health risk, and requested that someone “urgently look into this”. The landlord however failed to carry out a mould wash until 16 January 2023. The landlord completed several further mould washes at the property after this, though it is unclear on what dates they were completed. The resident reports that he continues to raise issues with mould at the property and that he has been given conflicting advice to either “wash this himself” (which he said he tries to do as often as he can) or to raise it for the landlord to complete.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident continued to raise issues with cold, damp, and water ingress at the property (from various reported sources, including through the walls), however the landlord failed to take any decisive action to understand the cause. Although there is 1 repair record showing that the landlord instructed its contractor to “trace and remedy leak causing mould” on 13 March 2023, there is no record of when this was completed or what the outcome was. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a survey of the property or carried out any further inspections. This was a serious failing, especially given the reports the resident was making at this time about the impact this was having on his family. A number of orders are made below to ensure extensive, independent investigations are now carried out at the property.
  4. The landlord did deliver 2 fan heaters to the property on 4 January 2023, though the resident reported that these had “no effect”. The resident also repeatedly raised, both as part of his initial complaint, escalation request and beyond, that his heating bills were excessively high. An operative noted that the property was “very draughty and that the rooms were cold even with the heating on and the windows closed”, supporting his account. Despite this, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for financial help. The resident’s bills were likely impacted again when temporary heaters were placed at the property (where they still remain), but the landlord did not appear to consider this impact. There is no mention in the landlord’s policies of how it should respond to reports of inflated bills, however if the landlord had remedied the causes of the cold, he would not need additional heaters. The resident raised this with the landlord on many occasions, including stating that he was “relying on credit cards” to keep the heating on. In respect of what is fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to make payment toward the resident’s heating cost, and included a formula to use.
  5. The resident repeatedly advised that his children were ill because of the damp, mould and cold. Although the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusion from the evidence of the cause of any ill health suffered by the resident or his family members, it was a serious failing that the landlord failed to respond to these reports quickly or decisively.
  6. The resident also stated that the second bedroom was “freezing” to the landlord. He later told the Ombudsman that the bedroom had been unused for “over 2 years” due to the damp, cold, and mould. On 3 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that “I have a 5 year old with [a] disability with severe health issues, he is sick all the time because of the cold. Will [you] be taking action if one of us or our son dies? Come and visit our home, the rooms are not liveable.” On 28 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and that he and his children were struggling to keep warm, even with the heating on all the time. The landlord did not appear to reply to this, or to consider this in its complaint responses, which was a failing. While the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the bedroom was unusable for the two year period referenced, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the use of this room was impacted by the landlord’s failings. As such, an order for compensation is made below.
  7. In conclusion, despite repeated reports of cold, damp, mould and water ingress at the property, the landlord failed to respond appropriately by completing in-depth investigations or considering the impact on the resident and his household. Although the landlord was responding to one of the reported causes (windows), the resident reported that the works it eventually undertook had “little to no effect”.
  8. There was maladministration by the landlord. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration that has had a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £600 is due. The Ombudsman has considered the reported effect to the resident including time and trouble, distress and inconvenience, and concluded that the redress required to put things right is substantial. An order for the landlord to pay £1000 compensation to the resident has been made below, in addition to a number of steps the landlord must now take to address the issues at the property.
  9. The landlord does not appear to have a dedicated damp and mould policy. Although the landlord appears to have completed a number of training-based tasks at a senior level, as seen in its Damp, Mould and Condensation improvement plan, there is no evidence that any of this work has been effective. The landlord’s handling of the issues in this case was concerning, as it appeared incapable of taking even basic preliminary steps to investigate the cause of the issues. The Ombudsman has considered the way in which this may give rise to further complaints of a similar nature, or impact other residents.
  10. Where the Ombudsman finds that a policy or practice may give rise to further complaints about the same matter, we may make orders under paragraph 54.f  of the Scheme that the landlord review that policy or practice. The landlord has been ordered to review its approach to damp and mould. This includes, as a minimum, a requirement for the landlord to produce and implement a dedicated policy for handling cases of damp and mould. Further details of this order are made below.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in responding to residents’ complaints. This includes the timescales by which it must issue its responses, which is to respond “within 10 days” at stage 1 of the complaints process, and “within 20 days” at stage 2. The landlord exceeded this timescale by over 12 days at stage 1, and over 8 months at stage 2. Although the landlord apologised for this delay in March 2023, it took a further 6 months to issue its stage 2 response. It offered no apology or compensation for this delay. The evidence shows the resident chased regularly during this time.
  2. The Code states that the landlord must respond to all elements of a complaint. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The resident raised a number of issues in his initial complaint including damp and mould, water ingress, and cold at the property. The evidence shows that he escalated his complaint twice, first on 9 January 2023 in which he raised window repairs, “freezing cold” rooms and the bills for increased energy usage. On 10 January 2023 he requested to escalate his complaint again, by repeating his stage 1 complaint, which also included damp and mould and water leaks. Between 9 January 2023 and the stage 2 complaint response, the resident has told this Service that he made further expressions of dissatisfaction about the damp and mould, to which the landlord did not record his calls, but did raise further mould washes. However the landlord only responded to issues with the windows at stage 2. This was particularly inappropriate, as internal notes show that it had listed the resident’s desired outcomes to his stage 2 complaint as “tackle the mould issue, insulate the flat, confirm a timeframe, provide help with bills”, in addition to the issues it responded to. This therefore was a complaint handling failure.
  3. On 18 September 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling, stating that “you have failed to mentioned the financial compensation for all the extra bills incurred [and you also] didn’t resolve the issue with the cold room and mould issues”. The landlord should have responded to these issues formally at this point to put right its error, but instead did not respond to this email at all. On 21 December 2023 the Ombudsman sent the landlord a request for action, stating that it “must respond to all complaint points” and that the resident had also raised “damp and mould [and] water ingress issues from the bedroom walls”. It instructed the landlord to respond to these points by 16 January 2024.
  4. The landlord responded on 8 January 2024 stating that the “damp and mould issues were resolved on 16 January 2023” and that the resident had made “no mention” of water ingress or damp and mould at stage 2. This was incorrect, as the resident had reported mould at the property after 16 January 2023 and reported continuing to report mould as late as June 2024. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord was given ample opportunity to respond to these issues, but declined to do so.
  5. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident was subject to unacceptable delays and despite raising issues on multiple occasions, did not receive a response to all of these. The evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble as a result of these failings. The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failings and made no attempt to put things right. As such, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation of over £100 should be considered. An order to pay £300 compensation in recognition of the adverse effect resulting from the landlord’s complaint handling, is ordered below.

Record keeping

  1. Record keeping by the landlord was poor throughout this case, in respect of its communication with the resident and its handling of the repair issues at the property. The evidence shows that there are a number of repairs which both the resident and landlord agree took place, which are not reflected in the landlord’s repairs records. The notes attached to these repairs often lack detail, or were added to the repair log weeks or months after the repair took place. This made it challenging for the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of this case.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord retained very little information about the progress of ongoing repairs, at any given time. In an email to its contractor on 27 March 2023 it asked the contractor to “confirm if a recent inspection has been carried out to the windows? [Were any repairs done and] did the repairs include double glazing?” showing how little oversight the landlord retained over these works.
  3. The landlord also failed to keep any telephone logs of its communication with the resident. This provided additional challenges to this investigation, as the resident reported that for much of the time period assessed, the majority of his contact with the landlord was via telephone. The evidence shows that repairs were also raised, such as mould washes, which were likely a result of the resident’s telephone calls.
  4. The greatest concern in the landlord’s record keeping came in its failure to record important information given to it by the resident. For example, the resident repeatedly said that he had at least 1 child living at the property who was disabled, from as early as 12 December 2022. However when asked by the Ombudsman for an overview of any vulnerabilities at the property, the landlord stated that there were “no vulnerabilities” at the household. This was a serious failing. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
  5. In light of the extent of the record keeping failures seen in this case, and in full view of the impact this had on the landlord’s handling of all issues in this case and therefore the impact on the resident, record keeping has been included as part of the wider order made below, under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme. The landlord is ordered to review of its record keeping practices to prevent similar issues from reoccurring.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of faulty windows at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, cold, and water ingress at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £2,700 compensation, made up of:
      1. £800 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of replacement windows at the property. The £250 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
      2. £600 for the impact of the use of the second bedroom.
      3. £1,000 for the adverse effect detailed resulting from the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, cold, and water ingress at the property.
      4. £300 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident an amount in recognition of the high heating bills at the property. OfGem roughly advises that a property matching the description of the resident’s, would typically be expected to use 11,500 kWh of gas annually, and 2,700 kWh of electricity annually. The landlord should refund, in full, any of the resident’s annual energy bills which exceed these amounts, from June 2022 to June 2024, upon provision of bills from the resident. It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done this, alongside evidence to support its calculations, within 4 weeks of receiving copies of the resident’s historic energy bills.
    3. Instruct an independent surveyor to conduct an in-depth survey to investigate the reported cold, damp, mould, and water ingress at the property. This should include, as a minimum, a clear assessment of the windows, walls, and insulation of the property. It should then send a copy of this report to the Ombudsman and resident.
    4. Instruct an independent surveyor to conduct a heating survey at the property. This should include, as a minimum, an assessment of the heating systems in place at the property, to ensure that these are adequate. It should then send a copy of this report to the Ombudsman and resident.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Produce an action plan, based on the findings of the above 2 surveys. It should send this action plan to the Ombudsman and resident, clearly setting out the timescales in which it intends to complete any works which may be necessary (and then adhere to these timescales).
    2. Conduct a review of its handling of the window installations at the resident’s property, in order to identify what went wrong. The review should clearly set out what action it has or will take to prevent the same failings from reoccurring. It should then provide the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman.
  3. Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must, in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, supply the Ombudsman with the terms of reference for a review of its policies and practices relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould, and record keeping. This should include the development and implementation of a dedicated policy for handling cases of damp and mould. The timeframe for the review will be agreed between the Ombudsman and landlord and form part of the terms of reference. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified by the investigation occurred.
    2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure, within the last 6 months.
    3. How it will ensure there is a clear process to identify and assess where damp and mould may be prejudicial to health, and tackle the root cause of any damp and mould identified within appropriate timescales. It should ensure the policy is compliant with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
    4. How it will respond to reports that any action or inaction it has taken, such as to install temporary heaters at a property, has impacted upon a resident’s energy usage and incurred costs to the resident.
    5. How it will make changes to its record keeping practices so that it can retain closer oversight over repairs relating to damp and mould, identify and record disabilities and vulnerabilities, and ensure all phone calls between the landlord and residents are accurately recorded. It should refer to the Ombudsman’s 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    6. A review of its staff’s training needs in relation to the above.
  4. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
    1. The findings and learning from the review.
    2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
    3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
    4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
  5. The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
  7. The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.

Recommendations

  1. Pay the resident the £60 offered in respect of missed appointments, if it has not done so already.
  2. That the landlord continues to make contributions to the resident’s energy bills, in line with the above order, until all remedial works set out in its action plan are completed, and when an independent surveyor confirms that temporary heaters are no longer required at the property.