London Borough of Enfield (202220213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220213

London Borough of Enfield

4 October 2023

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:
1. damp in the bedroom,
2. loose windows,
3. cracks to the outside of the property, and,
4. mice.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The resident is elderly and has health conditions which the landlord is aware of. The resident has given this service authorisation for her friend to act as representative in this complaint.
On 21July 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to investigate damp on the bedroom and kitchen walls and identified this was due to cracks in the building. It is unclear from the landlord’s repair records whether any work was carried out to remedy the damp at this time.
On 24 September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
1. She had told the landlord that she had seen mice in her property in May 2022. After several visits from contractors, the airing cupboard floor, and holes around the perimeter of her flat had been repaired and she hoped this would prevent the return of the mice.
2. There was damp in her bedroom. The landlord had carried out repairs to address this, however there was still water running down the external wall of the property, and she was worried the damp would reoccur. She asked that the landlord address the root cause of the issue and ensure that it made good the decoration once works were completed, as the landlord’s contractors had removed the wallpaper.
3. The windows in her property were loose in their frames and needed replacing.
4. She had been told by the landlord’s housing officers and contractors that any work undertaken, could not exceed £1000 and asked that this cap be lifted.
5. She had raised the issues repeatedly with the landlord. She had health issues and was concerned that these would become worse if the repairs were not addressed.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2022. It said it was sorry to hear about the impact the resident’s concerns about the repairs were having on her health, and the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter. It said that:
1. Multiple repairs had been raised to assess where the leak into the property was coming from. It believed the leak was coming from the roof. It had booked appointments for 29 October 2022, to erect scaffolding and another for 9 November 2022, to start the repairs to resolve the leak.
2. It had arranged an appointment for 26 October 2022, to assess if the windows needed replacing.
3. Its pest control team would contact the resident to arrange a suitable appointment in relation to the mice she had reported.
On 26 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident to say it had not been able to gain access to carry out the booked appointments following her complaint. It had attempted to contact her multiple times but had not received a response. It had booked a new appointment for 7 November 2022. It asked the resident to get in contact if she needed to reschedule this appointment.
The landlord repaired the leak on 9 November 2022.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 30 November 2022. She said that although the landlord had now repaired the roof, her walls were still wet and needed drying out. The walls also needed to be replastered and redecorated once they were dry. She said the repairs had taken 5 months so far and the landlord had sent the wrong tradesmen on several occasions. She said the windows needed to be replaced. She had not received a response to her complaint to the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that the resident’s representative requested that the resident’s complaint be escalated on 7 December 2022, as the repairs had not been completed. He said that the resident could no longer stay at the property due to its condition.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 March 2023. It apologised for the delay in replying to the resident. It said that:
1. It had raised a works order on 6 March 2023, to carry-out damp protection works to the internal walls.
2. It said it had arranged for a dehumidifier to help dry out the walls. It said it had agreed to cover the costs of running the dehumidifier and had arranged for a payment of £184 (42 days at a cost of £4 per day).
3. It said it had started the waterproof rendering which it would complete once the walls were dry.
4. It had raked out and reapplied the putty underneath the sash windows and repaired and painted the window frames. It had inspected the windows and had concluded that they did not need replacing now that the repairs had been completed.
The landlord’s repair logs indicate that further repairs were completed as follows:
1. 23 March 2023, wet soil outside the property believed to be causing the rising damp to the bedroom was dug out, the shingle renewed, a new vent to the wall installed, and a second coat of render applied to the bedroom wall.
2. 17 April 2023, the bedroom walls and ceiling were painted, and a new skirting board was installed and painted.
On 11 May 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in resolving her concerns. It apologised for damage to the resident’s carpet and offered her £100 compensation in view of this.
The resident’s representative has told this service that since the resident’s complaint there have been issues with damp in the cellar of the property and in the living room. He said cracks have appeared in a different section of the outside wall. The landlord is also investigating whether there is asbestos in the property. The resident’s representative also said that the resident had to replace the bedroom carpet after the works were completed.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

This service has not seen evidence that the resident escalated her complaint about the mice in the property via all stages of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The issues with damp in the cellar and the living room, the cracks in the different section of the outside wall and potential asbestos did not form part of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. Therefore, these issues have not been considered in this assessment and are noted in the background to the resident’s complaint for context only. This is because in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (which governs our service), the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident complained to the landlord that her health was affected by the damp in the property. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health, and it is accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to court or a liability insurance claim to determine. This service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Policies and procedures

Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and outside of the property. This includes internal and exterior walls, windows, and roofs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will complete non-emergency repairs within 30 working days. The policy states that if the landlord is aware that a resident has special needs or is vulnerable, it may schedule the repair faster than normal.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will compensate residents for time, trouble, and inconvenience or distress caused, if residents have suffered distress, frustration, or anxiety regarding a service failure over a considerable period. It also states that it will compensate residents for a loss of a bedroom at a rate of 10% of weekly rent if the room is uninhabitable for a period of more than 48 hours.
The landlord’s complaints policy has two stages. The policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints (initial stage) within 3 working days and will send a response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and send a response within 30 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy, set out above, states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 30 working days and that if it is aware that a resident is vulnerable, it may schedule the repairs faster. The resident complained on 24 September 2022, and the landlord’s repair logs show that the repairs were fully completed on 17 April 2023. It is accepted that issues such as damp can take more than one attempt to resolve as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset, and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, the repairs exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy by over 5 months. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly as the repairs policy states that the landlord should prioritise repairs where residents are vulnerable, and the resident informed the landlord of her health concerns in her initial complaint and that she was over 80 years old meaning she should have reasonably been considered to be vulnerable.
The landlord’s internal records show that it agreed to liaise with the resident’s friend as her representative as calls were becoming difficult for her. The landlord acted unreasonably by not responding to the resident’s representative’s concerns that the resident could no longer stay at the property due to its condition. The resident’s representative first told the landlord that she could no longer stay at the property on 22 September 2022, and did so again on 7 December 2022. The landlord should have responded to this concern, providing evidence that it had considered offering the resident alternative accommodation and if this was not an option, what the reasons for this were.
The landlord said that it was not able to gain access to the property to complete the repairs on several occasions. However, its records show that the resident’s representative told the landlord on 22 September 2022, that the resident was not living at the property and asked therefore that the landlord call him when arranging appointments so he could provide access. This service has not seen evidence that the landlord did so, which would have caused access issues, delaying the repairs.
The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the windows to establish whether these needed replacing. Once it had completed this inspection, it was reasonable that it decided to repair the windows rather than replace them. Landlords are not obliged to replace items such as windows if they can resolve the issue by completing repairs as this ensures value for money and reduces costs which would otherwise be passed on to residents through their rent and service charge.
The landlord acted appropriately in providing dehumidifiers to dry out the walls in the resident’s bedroom. It was also appropriate that it reimbursed her for the cost of running the dehumidifiers.
The wall in the resident’s bedroom was decorated with wallpaper. The landlord has painted the bedroom wall, but this service has not seen evidence that it has re-wallpapered it. Whilst the interior décor is usually the resident’s responsibility, the landlord has an obligation to make good any damage to the decoration after repairs. The resident’s representative has said the resident had to pay to put up replacement wallpaper. The landlord should reimburse the resident for re-wallpapering the wall on receipt of evidence from the resident as to the cost of this.
The resident complained that the damp in her property risked affecting her health. The landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint and apologised to her. However, it would have been reasonable for it to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
The landlord has apologised to the resident for damage caused to her carpet and offered the resident £100 compensation for this. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that she could make a claim to its liability insurer for this damage should the costs of the damaged carpet exceed £100. As noted above, this service cannot comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurance if a claim is made to it.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. Where maladministration has been identified which has adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. In the opinion of this service, the landlord should offer the resident £200 to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of the repairs.
The evidence seen by this service suggests that the resident’s bedroom was not habitable between 15 July 2022 and 17 April 2023. It would have been reasonable therefore for the landlord to offer the resident compensation based on rent due to the fact she was unable to use this room until the repairs had been completed. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will offer compensation for a loss of an uninhabitable bedroom at a rate of 10% of weekly rent if the room is uninhabitable for a period of more than 48 hours. The Ombudsman considers compensation based on 10% of the rent is appropriate for 39 weeks. The calculation is based on the tenant’s weekly net rent, which is £112.31. 10% of £112.31 is £11.23. £11.23 x 39 weeks = £437.97 (rounded up to £438 for ease). Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £438 compensation for the temporary loss of her bedroom.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, set out above, states that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. The landlord acted unreasonably in not addressing the resident’s concern that there was a £1000 cap on expenditure for repairs. The landlord should have responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The fact that the resident was told that there was a limit on how much the repairs could cost, would have caused her to worry that the repairs would not be fully carried out. A cap of £1000 is not supported by the landlord’s repairs policy or its legal obligations to keep the resident’s property in a good state of repair.
The resident’s representative asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint on 7 December 2022. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 23 March 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy, set out above, states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 35 working days of receiving them. The landlord exceeded this timescale by 38 working days. This delay will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident as she was left waiting for a response to her concerns for longer than she should have been.
As set out above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been identified that adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation should be considered. In the opinion of this service, the landlord should offer £150 compensation for its failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that this service is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
1. £200 for its failures in the handling of the repairs.
2. £438 based on rent, as set out in the calculation in paragraph 31.
3. £150 for its failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord is ordered to reimburse the resident for the cost of re-wallpapering the bedroom wall, within four weeks of the date of this report, should she provide evidence of the cost of this.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of how to contact its liability insurer (if it has one) so she can make a claim for damage to her health and/or damage to her carpet if she wishes to do so.