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

Harrow Council (201914659)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914659

Harrow Council

28 January 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 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. This complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the overall condition of the property.
    3. The impact on the resident’s health from the damp and mould in the property.
    4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of historic problems with her tenancy and the condition of her home.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
  3. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of:
  1. being unable to have a second viewing of the property in 2014
  2. not having enough time to move her belongings into the flat
  3. not having a surveyor come after requesting so in 2017
  4. not having a reply from the housing officer who came to visit in February 2017
  5. the landlord’s dealing with her previous complaints.
  1. No evidence has been provided for this investigation of a formal complaint being raised with the landlord until the one which the landlord responded to in September 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that “were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. In view of the time periods involved in this case, this investigation will focus on the events in the months leading up to the formal complaint to which the landlord responded in September 2019.
  3. Under paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. In parts of her complaint the resident has referred to the impact on her health. Unfortunately, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident sent an undated letter to the landlord in which she complained about a range of issues, several of which were historic and not part of this investigation. She also explained that there was a mice infestation inside and outside the property, and that the property was damp, mouldy, and generally in poor condition.
  3. The landlord issued a partial stage one complaint response on 19 September 2019. It apologised for the delay responding and gave the resident a phone number to ring in order to arrange free pest control treatment for the mice. It said such treatment had taken place in September 2018 around other properties in the block and could be arranged again.
  4. The landlord then explained that it would respond separately to the resident’s other concerns regarding damp, condensation and the property not being “cosmetically attractive”. The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint to stage two of the complaints process if she was not satisfied with this outcome.
  5. The evidence below stems from an emailed complaint from the resident to the landlord on 10 January 2020. The email has not been provided for this investigation, and its contents are not known.
  6. In an email sent on 14 January 2020 the landlord advised the resident that “your complaint is being investigated under Stage one of the council’s complaint policy. I have referred it to a surveyor from the Asset Management Team, who will arrange for the issue you have raised to be investigated”. The landlord said that it would reply again by 4 February 2020. The resident responded and pointed out that the landlord had already investigated at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord said in return that the deadline for escalating the 2019 complaint had passed, and so her latest complaint would be treated at the first stage. The resident then explained she had responded to the September 2019 complaint in October. Following that the landlord agreed to treat the latest complaint at stage two of its process, with a reply target of 11 February.
  7. On 17 February the landlord sent a letter to the resident apologising that its final response letter had not yet been issued.
  8. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 5 March 2020. It apologised for the delay. It explained that it had attempted to arrange an appointment with its surveyor to visit the resident in early February. However, after several unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident via telephone, “the request for the survey appointment was closed down”. The landlord acknowledged that it should have written to the resident in order to organise an appointment.
  9. The landlord confirmed that its surveyor would visit on 16 March 2020 to assess the property’s dampness and condition.
  10. The landlord explained that the pest and mice control service “sits outside repairs and maintenance”. However, it provided the resident with an email to Pest Control to arrange a service for her.
  11. The landlord sent a follow up to its stage two complaint response on on 19 March 2020 (after the surveyor had visited the property). In it the landlord said thar it had arranged for Pest Control to come and place baiting stations on 16 March 2020. It also explained that a surveyor had visited the property on 16 March 2020 and had arranged for the following:
  1. Repair blown plaster in bedroom, and hallway by 16 April 2020
  2. Repair plaster to kitchen ceiling and redecorate by 16 April 2020
  3. A ventilation specialist from Airtech to attend and provide a recommendation about the damp and mould.
  1. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  2. In the resident’s reply to the stage two complaint response on 20 March 2020, she requested a rebate of her rent and other charges for the period of her tenancy which began in 2014. This was due to a range of issues, most of which are not part of this investigation.
  3. The landlord sent a response to the resident on 20 March 2020 advising her that it would be in contact within five working days after reviewing her comments. No evidence of a response to the resident’s compensation request has been provided for this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Complaint of pest infestation

  1. According to the landlord’s pest control policy the landlord “does not have a duty to provide pest control services”. Despite being under no obligation, the landlord’s stage one complaint response offered the resident a free treatment of pests in her property. This went above the landlord’s obligation given that, as explained in the pest control policy, any internal pest infestations are to be dealt with by the resident at their own personal cost. Therefore, this response was a goodwill gesture from the landlord as it offered to do more than it was obliged to. 
  2. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage one complaint response after the landlord had given her a contact email for Pest Control. The landlord then escalated the complaint and arranged an appointment on 16 March 2020 for Pest Control to place baiting stations in the property. As stated above, under the landlord’s pest control policy tenants would be responsible for resolving a mice infestation in their property. Therefore, the stage two complaint response was a further attempt by the landlord to aid the resident. In an email dated 20 July 2020 the resident acknowledged that it was her responsibility to deal with pest infestations.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately and took reasonable steps in response to the resident’s reports of a pest infestation at her home.

Complaint of damp/mould and general condition of property

  1. Following the initial complaint in 2019 by the resident about the damp, mould and poor condition of her property, the landlord stated that it had referred the issue to a surveyor, who would then investigate the problem further. No evidence has been provided for this investigation showing that a surveyor visited the resident’s property, or any other action by the landlord in response to the matter. The evidence shows that the landlord took action only after the resident raised the matter again in January 2020. No explanation for the lack of action was given to the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould, at least initially, were not reasonable.
  2. The landlord stated that it had attempted to contact the resident via telephone prior to 20 February 2020 to arrange an appointment with its surveyor. The landlord’s explanation was undermined by the resident’s clarification that the landlord did not have her phone number. In that light, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that it had failed to try alternative contact methods.
  3. In its stage two complaint response the landlord arranged for its surveyor to visit the property in order to examine the dampness and general condition. At this stage the landlord did take appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns within a reasonable timeframe. Following the surveyor’s appointment, it was decided that various repairs needed to be completed to the hallway, kitchen and front bedroom. Also, the surveyor stated that due to a lack of ventilation, a ventilation specialist would be required to further assess the issue of dampness. These actions were appropriate and relevant to the issues reported by the resident, and showed that the landlord had recognised the problem, and was taking steps to investigate further.
  4. Overall, while the landlord’s actions were appropriate following the resident’s escalation of the issue in January 2020, its initial lack of action, despite its promise in its September 2019 complaint response, was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of reports of a pest infestation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it dealt with the resident’s complaint about damp/mould and overall condition of the property.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience and delay experienced as a result of the service failure identified with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp/mould and overall condition of the property. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.