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

West Northamptonshire Council (202323699)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323699

West Northamptonshire Council

25 October 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 repairs related to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat with a property above his, and he pays it £101.52 per week rent. It has no health issues or vulnerabilities recorded for him, but he reports noticing his breathing becoming difficult over the past year at his property.
  2. In March 2023, the resident reported outstanding repairs to his bathroom to the landlord following a leak from the flat above his. This was after he found mould there and unsuccessfully tried to treat and retile this himself and requested extractor fan works from it. The resulting cracked, warped, and dipping bathroom ceiling also led to works being needed for insulation, walls, plaster, and mould. The landlord recorded it therefore inspected and attended these repairs within its 90-calendar-day target timescale in May 2023. However, it then noted in May and July 2023 that the resident’s bathroom ceiling was flaking and needed to be replaced. The landlord also recorded that the extractor fan was not working again.
  3. The resident nevertheless twice chased the landlord in July 2023, as his bathroom ceiling was removed but the appointment to restore this was missed. He subsequently told it the contractor attending to do so was unable to due to structural damage needing to be addressed first. However, the resident explained the landlord’s repairs team did not confirm the date they gave him for it to attend this, which they subsequently missed. This was despite him chasing this 5 more times in July 2023, with its contractor saying they awaited its authorisation to restore the ceiling. The landlord then inspected the ceiling in August 2023, which required joist repairs before being restored.
  4. The resident subsequently made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord that it responded to in August 2023. He complained he was still waiting for his bathroom ceiling to be restored after its previous inspections. The resident also described these as identifying an ongoing leak from the flat above his causing black mould that had not been resolved yet. This had made the bathroom damp and caused a bad smell, and so he was dissatisfied this had not been addressed. The resident added he had taken time off work to attend missed appointments and repeatedly make unreturned calls.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for not yet actioning the works to the resident’s bathroom yet, seeking to arrange major repairs for this. It nevertheless explained its existing contractor’s timescale was too long, so there was a delay while it sought a new contractor to complete works sooner. The landlord therefore confirmed its new contractor starting in October 2023 would prioritise this, as well as investigating the flat above for leaks. However, the resident made a final stage complaint to the landlord in August 2023 reiterating it had not repaired his bathroom yet. He also chased it about this again in September 2023, when he reported further debris was now falling from above the bathroom.
  6. The landlord then discussed the resident’s bathroom repair with its new contractor in September 2023, telling him they aimed to begin early October 2023. It nevertheless declined to escalate his final stage complaint in September 2023, referring him to the Ombudsman to progress this instead. This was because the landlord’s complaints and feedback policy excluded cases where it was unable to take further action after a stage 1 response. It repeated it had to source the new contractor to repair the bathroom, as no other contractors could do so sooner. The landlord therefore apologised for the resident’s stress and inconvenience from the further delay, which its new contractor would prioritise without more delays.
  7. However, the resident chased the landlord again in early October 2023, as no start date for his bathroom repair had been confirmed yet. He explained this was ongoing since July 2023, he continued to take time off work, and debris still fell into the cold and exposed bathroom. The landlord subsequently raised works to restore the bathroom ceiling’s plaster, which the new contractor completed in late October 2023. It also arranged for further extractor fan, insulation, and damp and mould works in the bathroom to be done at that time. The resident nevertheless told the contractor the leak had not been resolved yet but the landlord instructed them to complete the ceiling works anyway. It did not then give him a satisfaction survey for this or otherwise ask for feedback.
  8. The resident subsequently reported a leak and wet patches on his bathroom ceiling to the landlord again in November 2023. He then described further leaks, damp and mould, mushroom growth, and falling asbestos in the bathroom, but it photographed and did not repair this. The resident reported operatives’ repeated inspections found 99% humidity, leaks behind the walls and bath, and a risk of falling tiles in the bathroom. His bathroom ceiling subsequently collapsed and filled his bath with debris in September 2024, which he made a new stage 1 complaint about. The landlord acknowledged but did not respond to the complaint, other than the resident’s housing officer’s call. It agreed to check upstairs for leaks and repair the ceiling in late-October 2024.
  9. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of bathroom ceiling and related repairs, with photographs and a video of this. This included a lack of mitigation for exposed joists and falling debris after the ceiling’s removal, such as requested plastic lining that was not provided. He reported being unable to fully use his bathroom throughout his case, being cold, lacking insulation, and causing health concerns, using a gym bathroom instead. The resident therefore asked for the landlord to repair the leak from the flat upstairs, replace his bathroom ceiling, and compensate him for his experience. This was including in light of him paying it full rent for his property throughout his case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is very concerning the resident reports further leaks and repairs leading to his bathroom ceiling collapsing after the landlord’s previous works to this. This investigation is, however, limited to considering its bathroom ceiling repairs up to and including the original ceiling works in October 2023. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme. This states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident’s new complaint about its subsequent handling of his bathroom ceiling repairs has not exhausted the complaints procedure yet. Therefore, this investigation is currently unable to consider the subsequent repairs, but we have recommended a response to his new complaint below.

Bathroom ceiling related repairs

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to repair his property’s structure and water and sanitation installations, including pipework and the bath. Its website states it aims to get repairs right first time and carries out satisfaction surveys after completing repairs to follow up on feedback. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it had no repairs policy during the resident’s case. It also told us would review and publish a repairs policy, but it has not yet done so. The landlord therefore currently has no published repair timescales and set only 90-calendar-day repair targets in the resident’s case.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (the spotlight report) recommends landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. This should include proactive intervention and diagnosis. Opportunities should be identified to extend scope of diagnosis within buildings, including examining neighbouring properties. This is to ensure responses early on are as effective as possible. There should be a data driven, risk-based approach to damp and mould, avoiding solely placing the onus on residents. Mitigations should be evaluated when structural intervention is not possible, taking all reasonable steps. Responses should be timely, reflect urgency, communicate clearly and regularly with residents, and consider if moves are appropriate at early stages.
  3. The resident initially reported bathroom ceiling, wall, damp and mould, and extractor fan repairs to the landlord on 29 March 2023. It responded by arranging a damp inspection 41 calendar days later on 9 May 2023, which was within its 90-calendar-day repair target in his case. This was nevertheless contrary to the spotlight report’s recommendations for zero-tolerance, proactive, effective, timely, and urgent responses and so was unsuitable. While the landlord does not have a published repairs policy or timescales, it ought to have at least followed industry-standard timescales in the resident’s case. These routinely require landlords attend non-emergency damp and mould and inspect and complete non-emergency repairs in 7 and 28 calendar days, respectively.
  4. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord’s damp inspection both exceeded the above timescales and had an even later target date. It also unsuitably raised bathroom ceiling and wall plaster repairs within the same timescales, which it attended after 57 calendar days on 25 May 2023. The landlord set another 90-calendar-day target on 30 May 2023 to remove the flaking ceiling it completed 45 calendar days later on 14 July 2023. These works additionally inappropriately exceeded the above timescales. Moreover, the resident chased the landlord on 4 July 2023 before the works were done, placing the onus on him contrary to the spotlight report.
  5. It is particularly of concern the resident reported the landlord did not mitigate exposed joists and falling debris after removing his bathroom ceiling. This was contrary to the spotlight report’s recommendation to evaluate doing so when structural intervention was not possible. The resident also described requesting plastic lining in place of the removed ceiling from the landlord that was not provided, which was unreasonable. The landlord then attended further repairs logged on 17 July 2023 to overhaul the resident’s malfunctioning bathroom extractor fan on 12 October 2023. This was after 87 calendar days, and so was just within the above target timescale it set for this. Nevertheless, this was unsuitably far in excess of the above industry-standard timescales.
  6. Moreover, it is concerning the resident chased the landlord again on 17 and 18 July 2023. This was after it missed an appointment to replace his bathroom ceiling on the former date without notice. This once more inappropriately placed the onus on the resident to chase this instead of clear and regular landlord communication, contrary to the spotlight report. He then told the landlord on 24 July 2023 its contractor was unable to restore the ceiling on 21 July 2023 due to outstanding structural repairs. However, it did not confirm or subsequently attend the 26 July 2023 repairs team appointment the resident was given, which was unreasonable. He therefore chased the landlord and its contractor on 27 July 2023 and said the latter awaited authorisation to replace the ceiling.
  7. The landlord did then inspect the resident’s bathroom ceiling joists on 3 August 2023, confirming these needed repairs before the ceiling could be restored. It nevertheless only set another 90-calendar-day target for these works and took no further action for them at that time, which was unsuitable. The resident therefore complained to the landlord about this, the ongoing leak from upstairs, damp, mould, and the bad smell in his bathroom remaining outstanding. Its 12 August 2023 response, however, only agreed its new contractor from October 2023 would prioritise the ceiling and leak. The landlord explained this was because its existing contractor could not do so sooner, so there was a delay while it sought a new contractor.
  8. It was understandable that the resident’s bathroom ceiling replacement and related works were delayed by the unavailability of contractors to carry these out. Nevertheless, the landlord did not handle this situation appropriately in line with the spotlight report. This is because it did not avoid solely placing the onus on the resident to chase it for updates on the above repairs. There is also no evidence the landlord evaluated and took reasonable steps to mitigate outstanding works or consider if he should be moved for these. Its failure to follow these recommendations from the spotlight report caused the resident unnecessary additional time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience, which was unsuitable.
  9. The resident therefore made a final stage complaint to the landlord on 25 August 2023 as his bathroom ceiling and related repairs remained outstanding. He also chased it again on 4 September 2023, reporting further debris was falling into the bathroom from above, which was inappropriate. However, the landlord only responded on 28 September 2023 by telling the resident its new contractor aimed to start works on 8 October 2023. It otherwise repeated its stage 1 complaint response and declined to escalate his final stage complaint, saying there was no further action it could take. This meant the resident was still left without mitigations or a move for the outstanding repairs even being considered by the landlord, which was unreasonable.
  10. This was shown by the resident having to chase the landlord again on 9 October 2023, reporting no start date for works was confirmed. This once more demonstrated the landlord solely placing the onus on him to seek updates instead of it clearly and regularly communicating with him. This and the fact it exceeded its above proposed timescale to begin restoring the resident’s bathroom ceiling without notice was unsuitable. The landlord did subsequently arrange the contractor’s works for the ceiling’s plaster, the extractor fan, insulation, and damp and mould on 30 October 2023. However, this was 215 and 153 calendar days after the resident’s 29 March 2023 initial report and it raising these on 30 May 2023, respectively.
  11. This was an extremely inappropriately excessive delay, contrary to both industry standards and the spotlight report. The landlord also contravened its website by not carrying out a satisfaction survey with the resident after the above repairs to follow up on his feedback. Moreover, it is especially of concern there is only evidence that it did not get these works right first time, contrary to its website. This is because the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman it did not complete survey or inspection reports for the resident’s property, including post-inspecting these repairs. He then reported further bathroom ceiling leaks and wet patches from 14 November 2023 onwards, with no evidence it repaired the leak upstairs.
  12. This was completely unacceptable and the resident’s subsequent reports about his bathroom’s condition suggested the landlord’s above ceiling plaster repair was ineffective. This is because he described leaks including behind walls and the bath, damp, mould, mushroom growth, 99% humidity, and falling asbestos, tiles and health risks. While these later issues and the ceiling’s collapse and debris in September 2024 are outside this investigation’s scope, they suggest previously ineffective ceiling related works. The landlord’s handling of these repairs was therefore contrary to both its website’s right first time standard and the spotlight report. The latter also recommends extending scope of diagnosis to neighbouring properties it unreasonably failed to do for the upstairs leaks.
  13. The spotlight report recommends proactive intervention and diagnosis for effective early responses, but the landlord’s reactive approach meant it repeatedly required chasing. There is additionally no evidence it suitably diagnosed the causes and effective remedies for the upstairs leaks, damp, mould, and other ceiling related repairs. This was further contrary to the spotlight report’s recommendations for the landlord to do so, as was the absence of a data driven, risk-based approach. Moreover, its above lengthy repair delays and lack of consideration of mitigations or moving the resident demonstrated absences of timeliness or urgency towards his reports. This very inappropriately increased his distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  14. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord’s complaint responses apologised to the resident for its repair delays and his stress and inconvenience. It nevertheless did not take further steps to put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle for it to do so. This is because the landlord neither completed the resident’s bathroom ceiling related repairs effectively nor considered compensating him for its poor handling of these. This is particularly due to his reported health concerns including breathing difficulties, and being unable to fully use his cold, damaged bathroom lacking insulation. This meant the resident had to use gym bathrooms instead, also taking time off work for missed appointments and repeated unreturned calls.
  15. It was therefore unsuitable the landlord did not consider compensating the resident for its poor handling of his bathroom ceiling related repairs’ significant impact. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends up to £1,000 compensation for such impacts, so the landlord has been ordered to pay this to him below. This also permits us to consider awarding partial rent refunds for residents’ loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, such as from losing facilities. The resident experienced partial loss of use of his bathroom for 26 weeks from 29 March to 30 October 2023 covered by this investigation. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay him further compensation of £329.94 below for 12.5% of his £101.52 per week rent in the above period.
  16. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation. It has agreed to repair his subsequently collapsed bathroom ceiling and check upstairs for leaks but did not previously do so effectively. The landlord has therefore been ordered to arrange a surveyor’s inspection and report of the resident’s bathroom and his upstairs neighbour’s flat. This is to determine the causes, mitigations, and remedies for his bathroom related repairs. The landlord shall then produce a schedule of works to restore the bathroom and stop these issues recurring. It should give the resident regular progress updates until their completion and him and the Ombudsman copies of the surveyor’s report and schedule of works.
  17. It is also of concern that the landlord did not show it that it had learnt from the outcome of the resident’s case. This is in order to prevent its failings in his case from occurring again, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to do so. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the resident’s bathroom ceiling related repairs. This is to identify exactly why its failures in handling this happened, and to outline how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review.
  18. The landlord’s senior management review should include consideration of its failure to review and publish a repairs policy. The review should also include a self-assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report. This is to ensure the landlord follows published industry-standard timescales for responding to repairs, damp, and mould. This is to additionally ensure its responses to leaks, damp, mould, and related repairs are in line with the spotlight report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs related to the resident’s bathroom ceiling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £1,329.94 compensation within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £1,000 to recognise its poor handling of his bathroom ceiling related repairs’ significant impact on him.
      2. £329.94 for the partial loss of use of his bathroom for 26 weeks.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for its further failings in handling his bathroom ceiling related repairs identified by this investigation. It shall accept responsibility for these and acknowledge their impact on him.
    3. Arrange a surveyor’s inspection and report for the resident’s bathroom and his upstairs neighbour’s flat within 4 weeks. This is to determine the causes, mitigations, and remedies for his bathroom related repairs. The landlord shall then produce a schedule of works to restore the bathroom and stop these issues recurring. It should give the resident regular progress updates until their completion and him and the Ombudsman copies of the surveyor’s report and schedule of works.
    4. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review within 8 weeks of its handling of the resident’s bathroom ceiling related repairs. This is to identify exactly why its failures in handling this happened, and to outline how it proposes to prevent these from occurring again. The landlord shall present the review to its senior leadership team and provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its review. This review should include:
      1. Consideration of its failure to review and publish a repairs policy.
      2. A self-assessment of its compliance against the spotlight report.

This is to ensure the landlord follows published industry-standard timescales for responding to repairs, damp, and mould. This is to additionally ensure its responses to leaks, damp, mould, and related repairs are in line with the spotlight report.

  1. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 and 8 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and whether it will follow the below recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord respond to the resident’s new September 2024 stage 1 complaint about his bathroom ceiling collapse and related repairs. It should do so in accordance with its complaints and feedback policy.