West Northamptonshire Council (202308586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308586

West Northamptonshire Council

26 March 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 landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property (including reports of damp and mould).
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is a local council.
The available evidence indicates that, during 2022, the resident had reported required repairs to the landlord. These reports had included issues with the roof, windows, brickwork/plaster, damp and mould, and an external gas meter cupboard.
On 26 October 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They said:
1. The landlord had not correctly carried out works to resolve the damp in their home. The damp had now returned.
2. The landlord had only overhauled the windows on one side of their property.
3. Sealing the space in the bricks had meant air cannot circulate which was causing damp.
4. There had been ground movement when works to gas pipes were carried out. This had caused the property to shift. The roof tiles were now letting water in.
5. The landlord did not carry out repairs efficiently or to a good standard.
6. Living in their home was detrimental to their health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2022. It said the resident had advised they did not want their complaint investigating by a Team Leader. Instead, the resident wanted to escalate their complaint immediately to stage 2. The landlord confirmed it would escalate the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 December 2022. It said it had visited the resident’s property on 11 November 2022. It confirmed that the resident had previously raised repairs for the matters included in their stage 1 complaint. It noted the resident had also previously raised concerns about birds getting into the external wall cavity (possibly through a hole in the neighbour’s wall) and a broken shelf and asbestos in the external gas meter cupboard. It confirmed that repairs it had carried out had not solved the issues. It said it would do the following to resolve the identified failings:
1. It needed to do a more detailed investigation of the roof and repairs needed to be carried out over a larger area. It would arrange scaffolding so it could remove the roof tiles and renew the felt, as required.
2. It was attempting to engage with the owner of the next-door property to instruct them on carrying out work to seal a hole in the external wall.
3. It would replace the resident’s bedroom and lounge windows.
4. It had arranged to repair the broken gas meter shelf. A gas operative would attend to disconnect the gas meter while the repair was taking place. If it assessed it could not complete the work safely then it would make arrangements to remove the asbestos before repairing the shelf.
5. It had arranged for a structural survey to take place. It would consider any recommendations made about required repairs.
On 4 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process. They said:
1. The structural surveyor had told them the bracing in the roof needed correcting, but the landlord had only arranged to replace the felt and tiles.
2. The windows in their bathroom and kitchen were in a similar state to the one in the bedroom and lounge. They also needed replacing.
3. When the landlord had come to remove the asbestos from the meter cupboard it had not realised it would also need to disconnect the electricity meter. It had not completed the work.
4. The landlord had left the meter cupboard door hanging off the hinges. The resident had needed to screw it back on themselves. There had been no further contact about a return visit to complete the required works.
5. They had requested compensation several times but the landlord had not addressed this. They wanted recompense for belongings that had been ruined by continued damp issues in the property.
6. The front door had a large draft. They had mentioned this in the complaint history but the landlord had not addressed it.
7. The ongoing issues were having a serious toll on the resident’s mental health.
The landlord refused to escalate the complaint on 3 March 2023. It said this was because the issues raised had already been considered through the complaint process and actions had been agreed or resolved. It also said the resident’s escalation included a new request for service, information, or an explanation. It set out its reasons for applying the above exemptions:
1. It was due to complete the outstanding works.
2. It would check the roof at the same time as the windows.
3. It acknowledged it had erected scaffolding in the wrong location. It apologised for this error. It advised it had corrected the issue and had carried out works on 5 January 2023 and 16 February 2023.
4. It had repaired the meter cupboard door on 16 March 2022 and again on 16 December 2022.
5. It had written to the resident’s neighbour.
6. The structural survey had not identified any further repairs or the need for further inspections.
7. The resident could make their new claim for damages to its claims department. The resident would need to complete a claim form which the council’s insurance team would review.
On 2 August 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint. On 18 February 2025 the resident advised that the landlord had completed repairs to the gas meter cupboard, but all the remaining matters were still outstanding.
The landlord has provided copies of stage 1 and stage 2 responses to recent complaints made by the resident. While we will not be considering these complaints as part of this investigation, a stage 2 response dated 14 January 2025 does suggest the resident had continued to raise the same (or similar) repair issues and the landlord was still carrying out remedial works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on their health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property (including reports of damp and mould)

The Ombudsman expects that when landlords are dealing with reports of damp and mould they should carry out appropriate investigations to determine the cause. This should be done within the timescales set out in any relevant policy. Landlords should be aware that damp and mould could be caused by other reported issues, such as leaks. If it is determined that damp and mould is being caused by problems with the fabric of the property, landlords should take thorough and effective steps to resolve the issues.
Further information about the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should deal with reports of damp and mould can be found on our website.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the repair policy that was in force at the time of the resident’s complaint. The current information available on its website indicates that it would be responsible for the repairs reported by the resident. Its website also says that it attends emergency repairs within 24 hours. It does not provide a timescale for urgent or routine repairs.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
The landlord has provided a repairs log for the resident’s property. For each repair job this records the date it was logged, the date it was completed, as well as a short and full description. The descriptions are generally limited and provide a minimal level of information about the repair. It is not clear for every repair who had reported it or when.
The landlord has also provided a ‘tenancy diary’ which contains some details of contact between the resident and the landlord. However, this only contains 5 entries for 2022, 1 entry for 2023, and 1 for 2024. This appears to be a fewer number of contacts between the resident and landlord than is suggested by the repairs log. The complaint case file also contains records of contacts that the landlord has not included in the tenancy diary. Based on this, we cannot be satisfied that the landlord has provided a full and comprehensive record of its contact with the resident.
The repair log indicates that during 2022 the landlord raised orders for:
1. Damp inspections and remedial damp and mould works (applying anti-fungal paint, re-laying insulation, overhauling fans).
2. Roof inspections for possible broken tiles and leaks.
3. Repairs to replace roof felt and broken roof tiles.
4. A structural survey to assess if the property had moved.
5. An inspection of the gas meter cupboard to assess the shelf.
6. Repairs to the shelf and to remove the asbestos from the meter cupboard.
7. An inspection of the resident’s windows.
8. Repairs to external brickwork, including re-pointing and re-sealing around openings.
9. Repairs to cracked plaster.
In January 2023 the landlord raised an order to replace the resident’s lounge and bedroom windows. The same order also stated the front door needed inspecting and repairing.
While it initially appears that the landlord had taken steps to resolve the resident’s issues it has not provided this Service with any inspection or survey reports. It is therefore not possible to adequately determine whether the ordered inspections or survey had taken place. If they had, it is not possible to determine:
1. When the landlord (either directly or via a contractor) had carried out the inspection or survey.
2. What the inspection or survey had looked at and what it had found.
3. Whether the landlord had identified any issues that required repairs.
4. If the landlord had identified repairs, whether it had completed these within a reasonable time and checked they had been effective.
5. Whether the landlord had assessed the risk to the resident. This is particularly relevant in relation to the damp and mould inspections.
We have noted that the landlord raised a second damp inspection as the tenant had reported the first inspection had only been done visually. There were also multiple inspections to locate leaks in the roof. This raises concerns about the adequacy of any inspections that the landlord did carry out.
Where the landlord ordered repairs, there is insufficient information to determine:
1. The full scope of the ordered work.
2. What the landlord did when it attended to do the work.
3. Whether it had undertaken any post-completion inspections to confirm it had completed all the required work and that it had been effective.
Other than the information provided in its stage 2 response, there is no record of the landlord’s visit to the resident’s property on 11 November 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure it kept a clear record of this visit, both for the handling of repairs and of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord stated in its complaint responses that it had written to the resident’s neighbour about the issues with external holes in their property. It has not provided any evidence of this contact. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the landlord’s actions were appropriate or reasonable.
There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any additional support or guidance on steps they could take to minimise the risk of damp and mould. While this would be unlikely to have resolved the damp and mould issues it may have lessened the impact and would have demonstrated the landlord had considered the resident’s wellbeing.
The landlord’s advice, in its stage 3 refusal, about how the resident could make a claim for damaged belongings appears to have been in line with its compensation policy and was appropriate.
In summary, there is no dispute that the resident had raised repairs with the landlord. These repairs were the responsibility of the landlord. There is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman can be satisfied the landlord:
1. took all reasonable or appropriate steps to identify the cause and/or extent of the issues reported by the resident,
2. identified the appropriate repairs to remedy the reported issues,
3. carried out those repairs within a reasonable time, or
4. took any steps to assess whether the repairs had been effective.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
The landlord did not offer any redress to the resident at any stage of the complaint process. This was not appropriate.
When considering appropriate redress, the Ombudsman is mindful that there is no clear evidence the landlord has completed the required repairs. This has led to the resident living in unsuitable conditions for approximately 3 years (at a minimum). The resident has also stated that they have had to pay additional costs to heat their home.
The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 in recognition of the likely distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where a severe maladministration finding has been reached and there has been a significant long-term impact on a resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaints process. Stage 3 was an optional escalation to the landlord’s Complaint Panel.
In September 2022 the landlord self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). The landlord indicated its policy complied with the requirements of the Code.
The landlord’s complaint policy stated:
1. It would log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
2. At stage 1, a team leader or manager would investigate and respond within 10 working days. The landlord could extend this for a further 10 working days and would keep the resident informed.
3. At stage 2, a director would review the complaint and respond within 20 working days.
4. It would respond to requests to escalate the complaint to stage 2 or stage 3 within 3 working days.
The landlord logged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days and issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
The landlord does not appear to have carried out any meaningful investigation at stage 1. While the Ombudsman appreciates the landlord had said the resident had told it they did not want the complaint investigating by a team leader, it still should have carried out an investigation and provided the resident with its findings. This would have been in line with section 5.6 of the Code which stated landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The failure to provide an appropriate stage 1 response prevented the resident from being able to hold the landlord to account or challenge the findings the landlord had reached. It also prevented the landlord from being able to review the complaint at stage 2. These are important steps in the complaints process that allow the resident to identify outstanding issues or matters that the landlord did not address. It also allows the landlord to assess its complaint handling and provides a further opportunity to acknowledge and address any failings, as well as further consider what remedy or redress may be appropriate.
The landlord appears to have allocated the stage 2 investigation to a manager, rather than a director. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate. It is possible the landlord did this because there was no stage 1 investigation for it to review and it was necessary for it to carry out an investigation. However, if this were the case, it would have been better for the landlord to have considered re-issuing the stage 1 response, with an acknowledgement its previous response had been inadequate.
The landlord took 42 working days to respond to the resident’s request to escalate their case to stage 3. This was significantly longer than the time stated in its policy and was not appropriate.
While the landlord was entitled to refuse to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 3, the Ombudsman does not consider this was fair or reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s stage 2 investigation and response were, in practice, what should have occurred at stage 1. The resident’s request to escalate to stage 3 should have been a request to escalate to stage 2. It would have been better for the landlord to have identified this and handled the complaint accordingly.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord did not acknowledge or address any of its complaint handling failure. It did not offer any redress to the resident. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide the resident with an apology for the failings outlined in this report. This written apology must be from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,700 which is comprised of:
  1. £1,500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £200 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint together with the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. The landlord must make all payments direct to the resident and not credit it to their rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
4. Instruct an independent survey and report of the property which should inspect (but is not limited to):
  1. Whether there is any damp and mould in the property. If so, it should identify any potential causes.
  2. The condition of the roof (including assessing the loft space).
  3. The condition of all the windows in the property (including frames).
  4. The condition of the internal and external walls.
  5. The structure of the resident’s property and wider building to determine if there is any evidence of subsidence and/or the property shifting.
5. The survey report must set out:
  1. Full details of what had been inspected and the findings reached.
  2. What further works or repairs (if any) are necessary to provide an effective and lasting repair.
  3. A proposed timescale for those works to be completed.
6. The survey report must include date-stamped photographs to evidence the inspection.
7. Within 5 days of the survey the landlord must provide a copy of the survey report and a schedule of works to the resident and this Service.
8. It is at the discretion of the landlord whether it instructs 1 or multiple surveys to cover all the required areas. It must be able to demonstrate that any surveys were carried out by an appropriately qualified individual.
The landlord must within 12 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Use its best endeavours to ensure that it has completed all the works identified by the survey. The landlord must create and maintain records to demonstrate to the Ombudsman what endeavours it has taken to have the works completed.
2. If the landlord is unable to complete the works within this period it must agree on a time-specific action plan with the resident for any outstanding works.