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

Greenwich Council (202005808)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005808

Greenwich Council

7 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s delay in sending information to the Ombudsman.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the 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. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion 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”.
  3. The resident has complained to the landlord about not having taken action in respect of her reports of damp and mould at the property since 2008; 11 years prior to making the formal complaint which is the subject of this report.
  4. The resident has evidenced to the landlord – and to this Service – that she had indeed previously notified the landlord of an issue with damp and mould at the property in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and also submitted a formal complaint or complaints on some of these occasions. The fact that the resident previously reported the issue is not in doubt.
  5. However, there is a reasonable expectation on a resident not only to bring the matter to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of time, which ordinarily would be within six months of the matters occurring (in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme), but also to this Service.
  6. Bringing a complaint to the Ombudsman quickly, allows for recent practices and processes of the landlord to be properly assessed and findings made, which both redress the complaint and seek to identify current improvements required of the landlord in order to rectify its failings and help prevent a recurrence.  It is not possible to look back in time across 11 years in these ways.
  7. Further, historic matters do not always have available records or staff personnel, leaving the ability to sufficiently investigate compromised.  The landlord should also be afforded an opportunity to put things right close to the time, for example, to undertake works within a reasonable period of time and it cannot do this many years later.
  8. Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure”.
  9. Although the landlord has acknowledged in its responses to the complaint that it did not take action historically, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the historic matters, while being referred to for wider context, will not be assessed by this Service, for the reasons described.  Instead, this determination focusses on the complaint made in November 2019 and the six months prior to this, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from around 2005 until June or July 2020 when she moved out of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 20 working days.
  3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and provide a response within 15 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two, where the complainant has requested escalation of the matter, following dissatisfaction with the initial outcome.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy advises that the landlord can use its discretion when determining whether to offer compensation for non-statutory reasons, including inconvenience.
  5. The resident initially reported mould in the property in 2008 and again in 2009, 2010 and 2012, prior to the most recent report and complaint in 2019.

Summary of events

  1. On 13 November 2019 the resident reported water ingress and mould in the property to the landlord.  In her email to it, the resident referred to having reported the same issue in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 and included attachments of historic emails to evidence this being the case. 
  2. The resident stated that she had been unable to decorate because of the issue and unable to have lights in the bedroom and front room because the bulbs continually blow, which she suspected may be due to water ingress. She explained the impact on her of having to regularly clean mould off the walls and asked the landlord to rectify the issue as a matter of urgency. 
  3. On 28 November 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email, apologising for the service she had received and informed her that an inspection had been arranged for 2 December 2019.
  4. The inspection on 2 December 2019 determined that a check should be conducted to ascertain whether there was a leak from the property above. This was arranged for the following month and the resident was written to on 6 December 2019 to advise that this was the case.
  5. On 14 January 2020 the upstairs property was checked and no evidence of a leak could be found, although this was not communicated to the resident at the time.  The landlord later said in its stage one complaint response to the complaint that this was due to an “oversight” and Covid-19, which prevented the landlord from re-attending to further investigate the matter or satisfy itself that it was resolved.
  6. Four months later, on 22 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord about her dissatisfaction with its handling of the issues of damp and mould and the lack of outcome she had received following the inspection.
  7. On 27 May 2020 the landlord spoke to the resident and she confirmed water was still coming into the property when it rained, which she believed may be due to the flashing.
  8. The following day, on 28 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, apologising for the delay and inconvenience experienced by it not advising her of the outcome of the surveyor’s inspection of the neighbouring property.  It confirmed that no leak could be found and that it would be undertaking further investigations into the flashing, which it would do as soon as it could once restrictions had eased.  It said it would update her again within the next 10 days.
  9. On 10 June 2020 the landlord attended the block and noticed that the cavity tray required inspection and advised the resident that it would erect scaffolding in order to do this.  The landlord met with a specialist contractor on 24 June 2020 to arrange this.
  10. On 12 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident, advising that it was aware there were outstanding works required to the property but explained that due to Covid-19 it was currently undertaking urgent repairs only.  It also advised that it was planning to undertake communal and external works within the next few weeks.
  11. On an unknown date, the resident advised the landlord that she did not want any works undertaken as she had decided to leave the property.
  12. On 14 June 2020 the resident requested escalation of her complaint, stating that the problem of penetrating damp had been ongoing for years, with the landlord taking no action.  She said that there had been three surveyors who had attended the property, although when she asked for the outcome recently, she was told there were no notes on the system and the landlord would have to contact the individual contractor to find out.
  13. On 15 June 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s email, advising it would raise a complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure, as previous correspondence had been dealt with as “general enquiries”.
  14. On 3 July 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and delay experienced by the resident in respect of the water ingress, finding this to be “unacceptable”, noting she had been reporting this between 2008 and 2012 and again in 2019.
  15. On 10 July 2020 the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident wanted to know why there had been such delay, explaining the impact on her; having to clean black mould on a weekly basis and the water ingress affecting the lights, walls and ceilings and causing the whole property to smell of damp.  The resident stated that a surveyor who had visited the previous year said that there was no point in undertaking any work on the inside when the problem was with the outside of the building.
  16. On 30 July 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. The complaint was upheld, with the landlord acknowledging that despite first reporting damp 11 years prior, in 2008, action had not been taken until December 2019, following the report in November 2019. 
  17. The landlord acknowledged there was then a further delay in informing the resident of the outcome, which it did four months after the inspection, in May 2021.  It apologised for these failings and said that it had made changes to its processes as a result.

Post complaint

  1. The landlord has stated that works were completed in September 2020, after the resident had left the property.
  2. The Ombudsman requested disclosure of information from the landlord in respect of the complaint on 8 January 2021 and again on 22 February 2021 when the information had not yet been received. 
  3. On 11 March 2021 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again, requesting the information, reminding it of its obligations as a member of the Scheme.  Information was requested by no later than 18 March 2021.
  4. Having not received the information by the deadline of 18 March 2021, this Service chased the landlord by telephone on 6 April 2021 and again on 23 April 2021, with the landlord providing the information on this final date, three months after the initial request.

Assessment and findings

  1. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out an inspection and any identified repairs, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case there were historic reports of water ingress and mould which were not acted on, which the landlord recognised and it was the same issue was reported again.  This was the landlord’s opportunity to put things right and act in an appropriate and timely manner and also in accordance with its repairs policy, of carrying out routine repairs within 20 working days, which it did not do.
  2. While this investigation is not doubting that the resident reported the issue initially in 2008, these historic reports are not being investigated for the reasons described at the top of this determination.  However, the landlord, having acknowledged historic extensive delay, did not use this as learning going forward but again delayed in informing the resident of the outcome of its inspection of the neighbouring property and in taking further steps to investigate the matter.
  3. The landlord has recognised on a number of occasions “inconvenience” and “delay”, finding this to be “unacceptable”, yet despite this, did not take the opportunity of the complaint to learn from it.  The Ombudsman’s published ‘Dispute Resolution Principles’ include the importance of a landlord ‘learning from outcomes’ which it did not do, despite its assertion in its stage two complaint response.  This is further demonstrated by the significant delay in providing information to this Service despite repeated chasers and passing deadlines.
  4. It is not sufficient in a response to a complaint, for a landlord to state that it has learned lessons or changed policies, processes or systems, without being specific about what this learning has been and what it has done.  A standalone sentence stating that improvements have been made does not satisfy a complainant or this Service that specific action has been identified and taken and does not instil confidence that it will not happen again.
  5. While Covid-19 lockdown restrictions meant that delays were necessary between March and May 2020, with only urgent works being permitted in accordance with Government guidelines, these restrictions did not prevent email communication.  Notwithstanding the inevitable challenges and perhaps short-term delay in communicating with residents due to organisations moving to home working, the landlord failed to update the resident in a timely manner as it should have done.  
  6. Additionally, the inspection took place on 14 January 2020 and the landlord was required to take steps to further investigate within a reasonable period of time, given that water ingress through the properties was not found.  There were over two months from this date until the national lockdown, which was a reasonable period of time for the landlord to take next steps, taking into account all of the circumstances of this case as well as the landlord’s own repairs policy.
  7. While the landlord did act quickly initially, securing an inspection shortly after the resident notified the landlord of the issue in November 2019, it failed to follow up thereafter, both in terms of an outcome and further investigations.
  8. The landlord is not at faut for the delay due to the national lockdown, however.  Having offered to carry out the works in June 2020 the resident’s refusal was due to her leaving the property and her frustration around the situation, with the situation being unresolved from being reported nine months earlier, not including the historic notifications of an issue with damp and mould over the years.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a report of damp and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its repeated failure to provide the Ombudsman with the requested documentation when asked to do so.

Reasons

  1. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the November 2019 report of damp and mould at the property insofar as, having carried out an initial inspection, it did not update the resident as to the outcome, or carry out further investigations in a timely. 
  2. This delay is aggravated by the references to historical reports and admission by the landlord that no action was taken.
  3. There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its failure to provide the Ombudsman with the information requested in a timely manner, insofar as it has an obligation to do this and failed to do so on five occasions, only providing it following the sixth chaser, causing a three-month delay. 
  4. This is aggravated by the fact that the landlord advised it had learned from the complaint, specifically in respect of delay.  While this delay was in a different area of service, it indicates a lack of joined-upness in systems or processes.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £550 compensation, comprising:
    1. £300 for the maladministration found in respect of its response to a report of damp and mould, and;
    2. £250 for the maladministration found in respect of its failure to provide this Service with the documentation requested in a timely manner, on a number of occasions.
  2. The landlord is to carry out a root cause analysis into why the delays occurred and to provide this Service with evidence of learning and steps taken or to be taken, to improve procedures or systems or staff training, for example.