Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202003643)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003643

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

27 February 2021

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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Repair to plaster to the walls and ceilings in her living room and bedrooms.
2. Repair to her bathroom.
3. The growth of mould in her living room.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a Secure tenant of the landlord, which is a Council. The property is a three-bedroom end of terrace house. The tenancy commenced on 4 December 2019.
The resident was given the keys to the property on 4 December 2019. When the resident started to strip the wallpaper off the walls the plaster started to come off with the paper. The resident reported this to the landlord and on 9 December 2019 the landlord raised several jobs related to replastering a number of walls and ceilings in the resident’s property. The works commenced on 13 December 2019, were completed on 20 December 2019, following which the resident moved into the property on 23 December 2019.
On 18 December 2019, the landlord logged a report of water ingress towards the right hand side of the resident’s living room. The following day, the landlord raised a job to reset a single roof tile which it believed would resolve the issue of water ingress into the resident’s living room.
On 13 January 2020, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about the condition of the plaster to a number of walls and ceilings, the condition of her bath and the growth of mould in her living room. The resident said that ‘‘this was not an acceptable way to let the property’’.
1. The resident said that when she moved into the property and started to strip the paper off the walls the plaster started to come off with the wallpaper. The resident said that she had to wait a week for the plaster to be inspected and for the works to start. The resident said that landlord had to replaster three walls and the ceiling in their living room, one wall and the ceiling in her bedroom, her daughter’s bedroom had to be replastered and that work was also needed to the walls and ceiling in her sons’ room. The resident said that the replastering works were so extensive that she and her family were unable to move into the property and so had to remain in their old home, paying rent on both properties.
2. The resident also complained about the condition of her bath, which she said was cracked, had no chrome on the handled and that the taps were leaky and also lacking chrome. The resident that due to the condition of the bath she was having to use her mother-in laws house to keep clean.
3. The resident said that the landlord had arranged for the mould in her living room to be painted with damp proof paint, but she was concerned that the ground outside her property was above the damp course and so the damp might come back, ruining their a newly decorated room and in turn costing her more money.
The landlord visited the property on 7 February 2020, following which, on 10 February 2020, a job was raised to renew the resident’s bath.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 24 February 2020.
1. With regards to the resident’s complaint that the replastering works were so extensive that she and her family were unable to move into the property and so had to remain in their old home, paying rent on both properties. The landlord said that i’s criteria for rent credits is based on whether the resident would need to be decanted during the repair works carried out at their home. The landlord said that the resident did not meet that criteria.
2. The landlord confirmed that due to the leaking tap and condition of the chrome work, particularly the pitting in bath handles, it had raised a job for the resident’s bath to be replaced. The landlord also said that it had raised a minor repair for the plastering to the bathroom window wall.
3. The landlord said that works to address the growth of mould in the living room was completed ‘‘swiftly’’ following a site visit on 9 December 2019.
4. The landlord also said that following a boundary check it would raise a job to reduce the ground levels to the front gable end wall of the property. In its response, the landlord did not link the reduction of the levels to the front gable end wall to the resident’s reports of the growth of mould in her living room.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord raised two jobs: to renew the resident’s bath, the other to plaster patching the bathroom window wall.
On 20 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord requesting an escalation of her complaint. The resident explained that her reasons for escalating her complaint were that:
1. She was not happy with the landlord’s decision regarding her meeting the criteria for a rent credit. The resident said that her family of 5, including three children one of whom was 2 years old, were unable to sleep in the property given that plastering works were being carried out in the living room and all the bedrooms. The resident sent the landlord a number of photos to support this.
2. Whilst the bathroom was going to be fixed, when the property was let to her the bath was ‘’broken, dirty and all in all disgusting’’ and, despite chasing it up, she still hadn’t been given a start date for the works.
3. The growth of mould in her living room being completed ‘‘swiftly’’ was false. The resident said that the damp proof paint did not resolve the issue, nor did the landlord arranging for the roof tile to be replaced. The resident acknowledged that the landlord had raised a job for the land to the side of her property to be lowered to below the damp course, but complained that she was not listened to when she first raised concerns about the level of the ground outside her living room. The resident also said that there were now mould spores appearing in her living room which she said was ruining her decorating. The resident sent the landlord a number of photos to support this.
The landlord’s issued its Stage 2, and final response, on 23 April 2020.
1. The landlord said that at the void stage it was unable to see the condition of the plasterwork, due to the existing wall coverings, and ‘‘whilst a soundness test is carried out, sometimes this is inconclusive’’. The landlord also said that it would not expect the resident to remove all wall coverings throughout the property in one go, although it did acknowledge that it was the resident’s prerogative to do so. The landlord said that once the plastering work became evident, following the removal of the wall coverings, both the inspection and commencement of works were dealt with in a timely manner, and in line with its service standards.
2. The landlord explained that, under its Empty Home Standards, the inspection of the bath should have been undertaken by the voids team and not the repairs team as it was during the first three months following the void handover date. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay and any inconvenience this may have caused her. The landlord also said this had resulted in an internal investigation and in the issue being raised with the team member who made the error to ensure that they understood the process and did not make similar errors in the future.
3. With regards to damp and the external works to the property, the landlord said that it does not carry out external works whilst the property is void, unless it affects safe ingress and egress. The landlord explained that works of this nature are allocated to a different funding stream, as was the case in this instance, again the landlord did not relate the external works to the property to the growth of mould in the resident’s living room.

The landlord ended by advising the resident that this was its final response and that, should she remain dissatisfied, she had the right to take her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Policies, procedures, and agreements

The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities for the landlord and the resident. In general terms, the landlord is required to maintain and keep in good repair the structure of the building.
The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable time and that the tenant must provide access for the works to be done.
The landlords Housing Standards state that when an empty property (void) is re-let, or a mutual exchange takes place, it will be re-let to meet the Occupation Standard.
The Occupational Standard states a property must have a reasonably modern bathroom, that internal walls and ceilings must be capable of receiving decoration after reasonable preparation by the tenant and that walls will be free of rising or penetrating damp and excessive mould growth. The Standard acknowledges that sometimes the landlord will need to carry out non-essential repairs within 6 weeks of the resident moving into their new home.
The tenancy ‘‘Your repairs and improvement’’ handbook – list two types of repairs, Emergency (with a response time of within 24 hours) and Routine (with a response time of 15 working days. The handbook also lists repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility, including baths and plaster finishes to walls and ceilings.
The tenancy ‘‘Your repairs and improvement’’ handbook also states that if the works reported require a major repair, the landlord will normally need to send an inspector to assess the cause and nature of the fault. The inspector will then determine what work is required and will provide the resident with an indication when any work will be undertaken. Depending on the nature of the work the landlord may only be able to advise approximate timescales. However, the landlord will contact the resident again in the future, with more accurate timescales, when these are known.

Assessment

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s role is also to consider whether the landlord’s complaint response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Reports of repair to the bathroom.

The resident has complained that when she moved into the property she could not use her bath as it was cracked, dirty and had no chrome on the handles but the landlord had said that it was an acceptable standard.
Following the resident’s complaint about the condition of her bathroom on 13 January 2020, the landlord visited the property on 7 February 2020 to inspect the bathroom. Following the visit, on 10 February 2020, the landlord raised a job to renew the resident’s bath.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord raised another job this time to both renew the bath and for plaster patching the window wall in the bathroom. The resident challenged the landlord’s decision to only plaster patch the wall. However, at that time, this was a reasonable approach by the landlord given that its Housing Standards state that Plaster patching will always be carried out in preference to total replacement.
The bath had not been replaced at the time of the landlord’s final response, on 23 April 2020, two months after the job to replace the bath was raised. This is not reasonable.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay with the installation of her bath and any inconvenience it may have cause her. The landlord said that the delay had been raised with the relevant team, in order to ensure that they understood the process and did not make similar errors in the future.
The landlord did not, however, provide resident with either an update on the replacement or an approximate date for its completion. This was not in accordance with the tenancy ‘‘Your repairs and improvement’’ handbook with regards to major repairs, which refers to the landlord providing approximate timescales and contacting the resident again in the future, with more accurate timescales, when these are known.
We are aware that the bath was not replaced until December 2020. We have had sight of information that may have impacted on the time it took to complete the works but we have not considered this as it occurred after the landlord’s final response of 23 April 2020.

Reports of the growth of mould in her living room

It is unclear when the resident first reported the growth of mould in a corner of her living room to the landlord. However, the landlord responded appropriately to those reports, treating the lounge wall with damp proof paint on 9 December 2019. On the 18 December 2019, following reports of water ingress to the right side of her living room, the landlord then raised another job to reset a single roof tile, which it hoped would resolve the issue.
In her complaint of 13 January 2020, the resident expressed concern that the growth of mould in her living room had reoccurred and that it was caused by the ground next to her property was above the damp course. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by carrying out an inspection of the property, following which it agreed to have the ground to the gable end of her property lowered.
In its final response of 23 April 2020, the landlord explained that it had not previously carried out the works to lower the ground to the gable end of the property because it does not carry out external works whilst the property is void, unless it affects safe ingress and egress.
However, there were communication failures by the landlord in respect of its failure to provide the resident with an approximate timescale for when the works might be completed and, given that the resident had said that the level of the ground was the cause of the growth of mould, its failure to provide the resident with an explanation as to whether or not that was the case.
Whilst this investigation has only considered matters up to and including the landlord’s final response of 23 April 2020, the resident has confirmed that as of 11 February 2021 the works to lower the ground to the gable end of the property remain outstanding.

Reports of repair to plaster to the walls and ceilings in the living room and bedrooms.

The resident initially reported repairs to her plaster sometime between 4 December 2019, when the tenancy commenced, and 9 December, when the landlord raised a number of jobs to carry out repairs to the plaster in her property. The issues with the plaster did not become apparent until the decorations began.
In its final response the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint that this issue was not picked up during the void inspected, explaining that it was unable to fully inspect the condition of the plasterwork, due to the existing wall coverings, and ‘‘whilst a soundness test is carried out, sometimes this is inconclusive’’. It was only when the wallpaper was removed that the issues with the plaster became apparent.
Once the need for repairs to the plaster became evident, the landlord recognised its repair obligation and arranged for the repair to the plaster to be addressed.
The works were completed in a timely manner, commencing on 13 December 2019 and completed on 20 December 2019, in line with the 15 working days deadline for routine repairs in the tenant’s ‘‘Your repairs and improvement’’ handbook.
The resident also complained that the replastering works were so extensive that she and her family were unable to move into the property and so they had to remain in their old home, paying rent on both properties. There is no evidence of the resident raising concerns at the time the plastering works were being arranged about the impact the works might have on her being able to move into the property.
The landlord considered whether the resident would be entitled to rent credits under it decant policy but concluded that the required criteria were not met.
The landlord took appropriate steps to address the plastering repairs at the resident’s property and provided a reasonable explanation as to why it was unaware of the condition of the plastering before the resident started to remove the paper.
The landlord considered whether the resident might be entitled to a rent credit under its Decant policy but concluded that the resident did not meet the required criteria. Whilst the landlord was entitled to make that decision, given the extent of the plastering required, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience this matter had caused her.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair to her bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of growth of mould in her living room.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repair to the plaster in her property.

Reasons

The landlord raised a job to replace the resident’s bath on 10 February 2020 but by the time of its final response, two months later, the bath had not been replaced. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in replacing her bath and explained what steps it had taken to ensure that it did not make similar errors in the future but failed to provide the resident with an approximate date for the completion of the works.
The landlord took initially took reasonable steps to address the growth of mould, treating the wall with damp proof paint and replacing a roof tile. However, having agreed to lover the level of the ground to the gable end of her property, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an approximate timescale for when the works might be completed nor did it explain what the consequence of the works being allocated to a different funding stream might be in terms of those timescales. Given that the resident has said that the level of the ground was the cause of the growth of mould, the landlord should also have provided the resident with an explanation as to whether or not that was the case,
The landlord responded appropriately to the reports of repair, carrying out the plastering works within a reasonable period of time. However, it failed to adequately consider the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of the extent of the works required.

Orders

That within six weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord pay the resident a total of £250, made up as follows:
1. £100 compensation for the delay in carrying out repairs to her bathroom;
2. £100 compensation for its communication failures with regards to the resident’s reports of the growth of mould in her property.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience of the plastering works that had to be carried out at the start of the resident’s tenancy.
That within 6 weeks the landlord is also to:
1. Provide the resident with approximate timescales of when the works to lower the level of the ground at the side of her property are to be carried out.
2. Provide the resident with an explanation as to whether or not the level of the ground to the gable end of her property is a contributory factor to the growth of mould in her living room.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.