Waltham Forest Council (202300868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300868

Waltham Forest Council

13 March 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leak, damp and mould, and a crumbling ceiling within the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy started on 27 January 2020. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident said her husband and daughter are allergic to mould. The landlord told this Service it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted the health of her family. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of an occupant. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident and her family.
Within the complaint to the landlord dated 8 October 2022, the resident referred to repair issues within the property over the last 3 years. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the previous repair issues completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) or were referred to this Service.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 8 April 2022 onward. This is 6 months before the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord on 8 October 2022. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 22 December 2022. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
This assessment does not consider the resident’s follow-on complaint, or the landlord’s stage 1 response issued in November 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this complaint completed the landlord’s ICP.
Within the resident’s communications with this Service, she expressed concerns about plasterboard in the bedroom falling, and said the lino in the kitchen was old and required replacing. She also referenced the condition of the bathtub and the bathroom tiles. As these concerns did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord in October 2022, they are not matters we can consider within this investigation. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident directly through its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of homes, the services, and some fittings. This includes looking after areas such as walls, floors, ceilings, toilets, baths, sinks, gas pipes and water pipes.
The landlord categorises repair works according to the level and nature of response required. These are not limited to the following:
1. Emergency works: faults or disrepairs that constitute a safety hazard or which make a property uninhabitable, completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent works: faults or disrepairs that require prompt attention, but which do not constitute an emergency, completed within 5 days.
3. Routine works: faults or disrepairs that do not fall within the Emergency or Urgent categories, completed within 21 days.
4. 45-day works: works that cannot realistically be delivered within 21 days due to their nature or complexity.
The landlord’s compensation policy states the following criteria can be used as a guide in assessing the level of compensation payable:
1. Distress – often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases where the distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified.
2. Time and trouble: unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair record refers to reports of a leak beneath the toilet in March 2020 and June 2020. Contractors attended several times and completed works in October 2020.
The landlord’s repair record shows that on 9 August 2022, the resident reported a leak from the bathroom causing damp on the living room wall. The same day, she also reported the landing ceiling was crumbling. Two work orders were raised.
Repair records state the landlord’s contractor attended on 22 September 2022 to investigate the leak. The resident explained that water was leaking before but had now stopped. The contractor cut inspection holes to investigate but found it to be dry. It was noted a damp contractor may need to investigate as they were not sure if the issue was from a neighbouring property which was not the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 October 2022. She said:
1. She had leaking pipes which destroyed a wall in her living room.
2. There was water seeping through the floor in her bathroom.
3. She had damp on the bathroom walls which was spreading.
4. The ceiling above her stairs had gone, “yellow and crumbly.”
5. Her husband and daughter had hay-fever and mould allergies. Her daughter’s allergies had worsened, and she was struggling to breathe.
6. She was told to show a plumber the problems, however she was then told the plumber was only there for one thing and could not do anything.
7. She had contacted the landlord many times about the issues with no resolution.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022. It summarised the resident’s complaint and said:
1. It was sorry to hear of the difficulties experienced and it apologised for the inconvenience.
2. It would ensure it worked closely with its contractor to resolve the issues as soon as possible.
3. It requested for a surveyor to attend the property to carry out a full survey of the repair issues, to raise the necessary repairs, and investigate the leak.
4. The surveyor would contact the resident within 3 working days to arrange an appointment. It also provided his direct contact details.
5. It recognised the leak to the toilet had been ongoing for some time.
6. It would monitor the works through to completion.
7. It offered £400 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 – distress.
  2. £100 – time and trouble.
  3. £200 – inconvenience.
On 9 November 2022, the landlord emailed its surveyor and asked him to contact the resident within 24 hours to book a repair appointment.
The same day, the landlord made enquiries regarding two open repairs for the toilet leak and the defective plaster. It also enquired when the property was due for a bathroom and kitchen renovation. The Ombudsman has not seen the response to these enquiries.
The landlord’s repair log states it tried to arrange an appointment to repair the landlord ceiling on 25 November 2022, but the resident asked for a new appointment.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 November 2022. She said her previous complaint was closed with no action and her housing disrepair had been ignored. She also said she did not receive her compensation.
The landlord contacted its surveyor on 21 December 2022. It asked whether the appointment was made as requested in November 2022. The surveyor said an appointment had been made for 28 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 December 2022. It summarised works which took place in 2020 and said:
1. Two jobs were raised in 2022 in relation to the issues reported:
  1. Work to repair the leaking mixer tap to the bath and locate and remedy leak from bathroom causing damp on the wall in the living room was marked as complete on 22 September 2022.
  2. Work to repair defective plaster to the ceiling in the upstairs landing was still open and no action had appeared to have been taken to resolve it.
2. It appeared the contractors took no action to refer the repair back to the landlord for instruction and authorisation for further works.
3. The previous surveyor had left the landlord earlier in the year and so it was unable to retrieve any records from him to assist with the complaint investigation.
4. Following the stage 1 response, the resident was promised contact from a surveyor. It was unclear whether the surveyor contacted the resident within the agreed timeframe. An appointment had since been scheduled for 28 December 2022.
5. The complaint was upheld. A surveyor should have attended the resident’s property promptly after the stage 1 response.
6. Following the forthcoming inspection, it expected the surveyor to raise the relevant work orders with its repair contractor by 13 January 2023, with a view to completing the works by the end of January 2023.
7. It accepted that its repairs contractor failed to refer the issues to a surveyor. This meant that repairs could not be assessed and authorised. This in turn caused delays in arranging for the works to be done.
8. This case would be discussed with senior members of staff, the contractor, and the contractor’s staff.
9. It offered an additional £100 compensation (on top of the £400 previously awarded) for the delay in arranging a surveyor inspection following the stage 1 investigation, failure by its repair contractor to refer repairs to the landlord, and poor communication.

Events after the end of the complaints process

The resident contacted this Service on 6 April 2023. She said there was mould growing on her bathroom walls, the bathroom floor was forming lumps, her bathtub was run down, there were crumbling walls in one of her rooms and entrance ceiling – near the electric box. She explained her husband and daughter were allergic to mould. She added that she still had not received compensation.
Repair records state the landlord attended on 10 July 2023 to repair the ceiling. A follow up appointment took place on 15 August 2023.
It is not clear from the evidence available what happened from the date the stage 2 response was issued (22 December 2022) until November 2023.
The resident raised a second complaint in November 2023 about the long-standing issues at the property. This Service has not seen a copy of the complaint made.
The landlord arranged an inspection with a surveyor which took place on 24 November 2023. The surveyor reported:
1. Every room was inspected, however, only the main bedroom at the front of the property and the bathroom had readings recorded due to the amount of mould present and the ceiling defect. The living room was affected minimally around the windows.
2. Windows were closed in the bathroom and kitchen. The resident explained she could not open them to let out moisture laden air because of the cold weather and high cost of energy to heat the property to an acceptable level.
3. The humidistat was switched off, furniture was close to the walls restricting air circulation, and clothes were dried on radiators.
4. The mould located to the walls and ceilings within the bathroom was not related to external water ingress but from condensation caused by a lack of air circulation, an imbalance of heating, and the structure being unable to retain the heat that is generated.
5. Frequent cyclical housekeeping practices would rectify the defects. The resident was advised to ensure that where condensation occurred, surfaces should be regularly wiped down to aid prevention of mould growth. The resident was to ensure adequate ventilation and heating.
6. Works were identified within the bathroom, living room and front bedroom.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 29 November 2023. It said:
1. It had reviewed its property records and found no work orders being raised after the surveyor’s visit dated 28 December 2022. This created an entirely avoidable delay it attending to the resident’s reports of disrepair.
2. A further surveyor’s inspection took place on 23 November 2023. It summarised the surveyor’s findings and recommendations.
3. It was to be established whether a bathroom refurbishment was a preferable and economical solution. This would be considered with the landlord’s planned works team and its contractors.
4. The surveyor found the damp and mould was linked to a lack of ventilation within the property and signposted the resident to resources.
5. It apologised for the resident’s experience and upheld her complaint.
6. It offered £500 compensation.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2023 and January 2024 stating she had no further response from the landlord.
The resident confirmed to this Service in March 2024 that the repairs had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak, damp and mould and a crumbling ceiling within the property.

The landlord’s record shows the resident reported a leak on 9 August 2022. It did not attend until 22 September 2022 – 44 working days later. It did not attend regarding the ceiling until 10 July 2023 – 335 working days later. The landlord acted outside of the repair timescales set out in its repair policy. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s repair record shows the work order for the leak was completed on 22 September 2022 yet in the notes section, the landlord’s contractor said a damp contractor may be needed. However, it was also recorded that both inspection holes were dry at the time. The landlord has not evidenced that it managed the resident’s expectations regarding the next steps or whether it concluded that no further action was required. Additionally, it is not clear from the limited evidence available whether the leak reported was linked to the previously repaired leak beneath the toilet from 2020.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported further instances of a leak after August 2022 until she made a complaint in October 2022. It is unclear whether the leak continued during this period.
The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s record keeping, since the records provided do not include all details of what happened at every appointment or inspection. At stage 2, the landlord said the previous surveyor had left the organisation so it could not retrieve records for the resident’s home. It also did not know whether the current surveyor had kept the commitment made in the stage 1 response. Landlords and contractors should be aware of a landlord’s record management procedure and adhere to this. The landlord’s lack of clarity over the actions of its contractors and surveyors indicates there were shortcomings in its record keeping and management.
It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required.
Within the evidence provided by the landlord, there are no work orders related to investigating damp and mould and no records from the survey promised at stage 2 – despite the resident informing the landlord of mould allergies within her complaint. This Service expects a landlord to have retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook (whether visual or technical) such as by retaining photographs, written notes, or a report.
The resident described calling the landlord on numerous occasions, not having calls returned when promised and overall poor communication throughout. The landlord failed to provide records of communication apart from its complaint responses. As such, the Ombudsman determines that the communication failings throughout exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issues, and worsened the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman recognises that at both complaint stages, the landlord apologised to the resident and recognised the impact on her. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings, offer compensation and set out the next steps with defined timescales.
It is a significant failing that actions promised within the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 were not monitored through to completion and works remained outstanding as of November 2023. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code) states that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion. Within this case, the landlord failed to ensure its surveyor made an appointment, attended the property, and raised the relevant work orders within the agreed timeframe. This demonstrates a lack of oversight and poor complaint handling.
Overall, the main failures within this case were avoidable repair delays, poor communication, and lack of active repair management and oversight. Additionally, several record keeping failures were identified. Considering the evidence available and the cumulative impact on the resident, this constitutes a finding of maladministration.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £700 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s consideration of cases that identify protracted failures of service that have a significant impact on the resident. This sum replaces the £500 offered by the landlord on 22 December 2022.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak, damp and mould, and a crumbling ceiling within the property.

Reasons

The landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of repair issues, including mould within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and communication failures were identified. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide a full record of communication with the resident and there were insufficient records relating to property inspections and repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified.
2. Contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within her household and ensure its internal records reflects those vulnerabilities, subject to any data protection obligations.
3. Pay the resident £700 compensation. If the landlord has already paid £500, it may deduct this from the compensation awarded. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £400 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. £200 for the communication failures and time and trouble.
  3. £100 for the impact of the record keeping failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord self-assesses against the recommendations within the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.