Kirklees Council (202118661)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

Kirklees Council

202118661

12 May 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

This is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Antisocial behaviour reports.
2. The resident’s reports of disrepair to their property, including cracks, damp and mould.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy which started on 25 May 2015. The property is a two bedroom ground floor flat in a two story building. The access to the first floor consists of a set of external stairs. The resident has mobility issues and lives with her partner who has a mental health illness and her adult son. At times the son represented the resident during conversations with the landlord. For readability, all the residents of the property will be referred to as “the resident”.

Repairs and Maintenance Policy

In the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy it says:
1. A responsive repair is an item of minor or routine maintenance undertaken in response to minor defect resulting from a request from a tenant.
2. That responsive repairs will be based on the appointment that meets the needs of the customer, and within 25 days.

Tenancy Agreement

The landlord’s tenancy agreement says:
1. Residents cannot keep more than two animals at their home without the landlord’s permission.
2. Residents must make sure that no animal that is kept or is brought to the property causes a nuisance, annoys or frightens anyone.
3. The resident will make sure that no-one (whether adult or a child) does anything which is likely to cause a nuisance to, or harass, annoy, distress or worry any person.
4. The landlord will investigate complaints of antisocial behaviour and take whatever action is practical to sort out any problems.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.

Summary of events

On 27 April 2015, prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord concluded investigations that it had undertaken at the property due to structural issues. These issues included extensive cracking at the property. The report concluded that:
1. Cracking was not causing a major structural issue.
2. Work to stabilise the ground would not be cost effective.
3. The landlord should replaster the cracks.
4. Cracks at the property should be monitored for a 12 month period before consideration of any additional recommendations.
On 1 September 2020, the resident made a report to the landlord about theupstairs neighbour’s antisocial behaviour. She reported that the neighbour had five pets, there was noise caused by dog barking,noise from regular arguments and dog mess around the building.
On 1 September 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that a large crack had appeared on both sides of an internal wall between the bedroom and the hallway. Above the door frame the plaster was bulging and other pieces were loose. Where the crack ended the floor seemed to have sunk as there was now a gap between the skirting board and the floor. The landlord prioritised this repair as routine.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident. It confirmed that it had spoken to the neighbour. The neighbour had taken steps to stop the dogs barking and reduce the sound transfer into the resident’s flat. It had also received a commitment that dog mess would be picked up. The landlord signposted the resident to report to the noise pollution team at the local authority, letting the resident know that this team had more powers for dealing with the noise reports.
On 6 October 2020, the resident reported loose plaster throughout the property, there were cracks to internal walls and a sunken floor in the bathroom. The resident thought that damp at the property had caused the issue. A subcontractor visited the property sometime in late October 2020. They observed a broken window lintel in the living room and suggested that the block may need underpinning.
On 2 November 2020, the landlord responded to a further emailed report of noise from shouting, dogs barking and dog fouling from the resident. It said it had tried to contact the resident by phone and had been unable to reach them. It asked the resident to contact it back and provided a telephone number.
On 15 November 2020, the resident reported the neighbour’s dogs barking. The landlord liaised with the environmental health department who confirmed a letter had been sent to the resident’s neighbour.
On 17 November 2020, the landlord visited to inspect the property and assess the extent of the works required. It instructed a structural engineer to undertake further investigations.
On 19 December 2020, the contractor undertook an initial survey of the property. The survey was to identify the cause of cracking walls internally and externally.
On 25 January 2021, following the survey the contractor provided the landlord with a structural report. It observed:
1. Rising damp on the right side of the front bedroom, which appeared to follow the profile of the external stairs.
2. Cracking in the front bedroom, lounge and bathroom.
3. Some previously repaired cracks had opened up again.
4. The living room window lintel had dropped significantly.
The survey recommended several steps needed to investigate the problem further. This included the digging of trial pits, a soil investigation, assessing the influence of tree roots on foundations and inspecting the drainage system.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident. The noise pollution team had forwarded it reports from the resident about the noise. The landlord confirmed that it had written to the neighbours with regards to the number of pets. The landlord advised that if the neighbour did not respond then a team leader would make a decision on what needed to happen next.
On 25 April 2021, the landlord received an online complaint from the resident. The complaint was about a poor level of service. The resident said that they still did not know what was going to happen about the cracks and dropped floor at the property. They complained that the cracks had become worse and that they had to ‘‘chase up every appointment’’. The outcome asked for was that the landlord undertook all necessary property repairs.
On 27 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She was asking for an update on her stage one complaint response. On this date the landlord opened a stage one investigation.
On 11 May 2021, the resident said that she called the landlord to report the neighbour’s dog barking for several hours.
On 15 May 2021, an internal email between the landlord’s technical and complaints departments confirmed that the property was not in any danger of collapsing. It would need to be monitored for a year to observe whether the cracks would worsen.
On 15 May 2021, after receiving the email from the resident, a local councillor wrote to the landlord. They queried what was happening with the property repairs. They passed on the email the resident had written. This included complaints about the lack of communications from the landlord about the property’s disrepair and the complaint of dogs barking and arguing from the neighbouring property.
On 17 May 2021, the landlord raised a repair job to treat mould in the property where applicable.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord enquired whether the environmental health team had received any recent complaints from the resident. It responded that it closed its case on 16 February 2021 as no reports had been received.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone. It explained that ‘‘more tests were needed’’. On this date the landlord organised for trial pits to the front and rear of the property and to core out the internal floor slab where the settlement had taken place. These investigations began on 27 May 2021.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident following a telephone call. It confirmed the contact details for the noise pollution team. It also confirmed it would speak to the neighbours about the dog mess and dogs running loose.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord responded to the local councillor about the resident’s neighbours noise. It provided advice that the local authorities pollution and noise team had more powers than the housing offers. The landlord confirmed that it had advised the resident to direct their complaints to this team and that if the resident did not provide up to date complaints it would close its investigation. The landlord gave advice to email reports to a generic inbox to ensure a reply in case the housing officer was away from work.
On 13 June 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord. She asked what the landlord was going to do about the ‘‘crumbling house’’. She also said:
1. She had not received the stage one response as she had expected.
2. She had purchased a dehumidifier for £180 because of damp in the property.
3. There had been no update since inspection pits were dug in the property on 27 May 2021 which had needed furniture to be moved around and was “dirty work”.
4. There was no point of contact dealing with the matter.
5. A radiator had rusted due to damp and guttering needed repairing.
6. The resident said they would leave the complaint about the neighbour for now because the landlord could not even reply about the building work.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord emailed the local councillor. It said that it had liaised with the noise pollution team and found it had closed its case due to lack of reports. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident and provided advice. This advice was to report noise to the noise pollution team. It also confirmed that it was proceeding to the next stage with the neighbours in relation to the rehousing some of the pets.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident about the complaint, which the landlord identified as being at stage two. The resident said the neighbour had been shouting all weekend. It was getting too much for her and her husband. The landlord said it was aware the housing officer was dealing with this. The residents concern was about disrepair at the property, issues with the cracks remained unexplained despite the contractor’s visit and investigation work. She also complained that there was rising damp in a bedroom.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord sent its stage two response. It had upheld the residents complaint. This was due to the resident not receiving the level of communication that she should have about the repairs between the contractors survey in December 2020 and actions being taken in May 2021. In the response it said:
1. It had spoken with the housing officer. A customer care officer would contact the resident on 5 July 2021 to discuss referrals to the noise pollution team.
2. It apologised that it had not kept in touch with the resident after the structural survey in 2020. It explained the reason for the delay was that there had been an increased demand for its service and one of the lead officers had been absent.
3. After a completed survey it needed a more robust process to provide customers with feedback and action plans.
4. It confirmed its contractor had identified movement in the ground of the property, but this was not due to a major structural issue. It planned to undertake close monitoring every three months to determine whether the ground movement was continuing. A visit was organised for 7 July 2021 to discuss the arrangements for the monitoring.
On 1 July 2021, a damp and mould contractor surveyed the property. Its report identified that a probable cause for mould was the previous lack of ventilation. A recommendation was made for the treatment for severe mould on a bedroom wall.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. They discussed the resident’s concern about the neighbour. There had been shouting all weekend coming from the neighbour’s property. The landlord said that the housing officer was dealing with this and that they were looking at getting the dogs removed.
On 7 July 2021, the landlord visited the property with the contractor to look at the cracks and see where the floor had dropped. It identified that a leak in the bathroom needed fixing and would need the flooring taken up. The leak was resolved on 9 July 2021.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. He said it had been a bad weekend. There had been shouting and dogs barking in the neighbour’s property. The landlord asked him to contact the housing officer to set up an antisocial behaviour case. It advised him to keep sending in records of what was happening.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident. He appreciated there had been some updates and there was an action plan, but there were no dates of when repair work would happen. The resident wanted the cracks filled in. They felt “fobbed off”. They knew that the bathroom floor coverings would be replaced but nothing had been said about the uneven floor. For the complaint to be resolved he wanted the cracks filled in. The landlord confirmed that the complaint would be considered at stage three.
Further to this, regarding the repairs, the resident explained it was not fair that the cracks needed monitoring for 12 months and the landlord was taking no action. As a surveyor was due to visit it was agreed questions about timescales and the monitoring process would be put to him.
On 29 July 2021, the engineering contractor issued a structural investigation report which concluded:
1. Standing water found in one of the trial pits had also been seen inside the property by the resident and needed further investigation. The evidence pointed towards an overflowing shower tray and high levels of rainfall.
2. Water ingress had happened after the settlement of a slab to the front right of a bedroom. This was likely due to poor quality repairs following a similar investigation done in 2015.
3. It was likely that the water found in the trial pit was causing the clay soils to move which was causing the cracking that had recently occurred.
4. The contractor needed to monitor the cracks over a period of time to assess whether the movement was seasonal.
5. The lack of waterproofing between the external staircase and the external wall was likely contributing to the cause of damp in one of the bedrooms.
The report’s recommendations identified that movement was historical. Many of the cracks had opened up again following investigations and repairs in 2014 and 2015. Further investigation was recommended to establish the cause of the movement and identify an appropriate repair strategy. The report recommended essential works:
1. Repair the shower tray to ensure no further leaking.
2. For a period of 12 months monitor the cracks to establish whether the ground movement was seasonal.
3. To undertake repairs to the ground floor slab at the location of the 2015 internal trial pit to ensure it is backfilled and compacted appropriately. The damp proof membrane also needed to be checked and reinstated if required.
4. Undertake action to resolve the external staircases lack of waterproofing.
On 6 August 2021, an internal email between the landlord’s departments clarified its position. It said it needed to meet its contractor at the property to agree next steps. It summarised actions taken so far as:
1. Drainage checks had found no issue.
2. Dye tests on bathroom sink, shower and toilet showed no issue.
3. Mould treatment had taken place.
4. Bathroom floor covering replacement was due. This included levelling the floor before laying the floor covers.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident. They discussed that:
1. Crack monitoring would take place over 12 months.
2. Repairing the existing cracks would be futile as they would just reappear.
3. All remedial works would be done in 12 months after anything more serious had been ruled out.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident. The landlord asked to close the case now the bathroom had a new concrete floor and had provided a new floor covering. It confirmed that:
1. It could not plaster the cracks on the walls as the surveyors needed to monitor the movement over a year. At this time any repair would crack again.
2. It offered £100 as a goodwill gesture. This was for some floor coverings and decoration of the damage. As the flooring coverings had already been arranged by the landlord, the goodwill gesture was then reduced to £50. The resident said they would consider this offer.
3. When discussing the neighbour’s dogs and the housing officer, the resident said that he “could not cope with this”. He explained that the neighbour’s dogs might be dangerous. The landlord gave advice to speak with the local PCSO.
4. Housing advice was given for moving home. This included a mutual exchange and submitting medical information.
On 6 September, in a conversation with the landlord the resident explained that although they had accepted the bathroom floor covering, they would not be accepting the goodwill gesture of £50. The resident explained they were unhappy that the case had taken so long.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage three review letter. It said it would:
1. Review the cracks in the wall over the next 12 months.
2. It hoped that information provided over the telephone (during the 2 September 2021 call) would be beneficial.
More recently, following the complaint being made to this service. The resident has reported that the cracks remain present and there continues to be damp in the bedroom which has had several mould treatments. The resident has reported that the cracks remain present and there continues to be damp in the bedroom.
The landlord has advised that following the contractors investigation on 19 July 2022 where they recommended underpinning the property’s foundations. To enable this work the landlord had begun its process to decant the tenant. Whilst the resident is yet to move the landlord has identified a property after taking into account the residents needs and request to be moved to a nearby area.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from the outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for service failures identified.

Antisocial behaviour reports.

On 1 September 2020 the resident first reported the antisocial behaviour which included the neighbours arguing in the flat and dog fouling, the sound of dogs barking and that the neighbour had five pets. When the landlord responded on 22 September 2020, it signposted the resident to the noise pollution team at the local authority. This is a reasonable step for the landlord to take. The noise pollution team have the statutory duty to investigate noise nuisance reports such as shouting and barking dogs. Information received by the landlord from the noise pollution team showed that its case was closed in February 2021 after it had written to the neighbour and provided advice to the resident. There is no evidence that further reports noise reports were made at this point. However, the tenancy agreement stated that residents needed to have permission to keep more than two pets and there is also no evidence to demonstrate the landlord spoke to the neighbour about the amount of pets being kept.
In an email dated 29 March 2021, following complaints made by the resident to the noise pollution team the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had written to the neighbour as they were keeping three cats and three dogs, which was above the number permitted by the tenancy agreement. Later in a call dated 5 July 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident this same approach, that the neighbour would be asked to rehome some of the pets. These repeated statements raised the residents expectation that action was being taken although this service has seen no evidence that demonstrated this action was progressed at the time. As of May 2023 it is understood that the situation remains the same.
In the landlord’s stage two response dated 28 June 2021 it does not address the resident’s concerns about the lack of response from the housing officer and the reported lack of action about the neighbour’s noise and mess caused from their keeping of pets. The response offers little information on what the landlord had investigated as part of this complaint and what the outcome had been. It stated that the housing officer had been spoken with and that a member of the customer care team would call to discuss how the resident could make reports to the noise pollution team. The response did not engage with the substance of the resident’s complaint about the lack of contact or progression of the issues being reported. Instead the landlord signposts the resident back to the noise pollution team. This complaint response is a missed opportunity to formally explain to the resident the landlords approach to antisocial behaviour and tenancy management.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord would investigate reports of antisocial behaviour and take whatever steps are practical to resolve the issue. No evidence has been provided that demonstrated the landlord took action on the reported dog mess and noise from too many pets in the property.
At stage three, the landlord’s complaint records show that there was a telephone call with the resident. During this call, the resident said that they“could not cope” when discussing the neighbour’s dogs and the housing officer. There is no further explanation of this comment. The landlordsrecords do not show that the landlord undertook an inquisitive approach to find out more about what this meant. In the complaint brought to this service, the resident reports a lack of contact from the landlord’s housing officer and makingantisocial behaviour reports that go unanswered. From the evidence this service has seenthe landlord had not kept appropriate records of telephone conversations with the resident about antisocial behaviour during March and May 2021. With this in mind, it is reasonable to expectthat the landlord factorinto its complaint handling more information on how it investigated the resident’s complaints, whether there had been a service failure in its communications and what the landlords intentions were going forwards to resolve the issue.
Overall, it is expectedthat the landlord would keep records of itsactions. In its complaints handling the landlord did not address the concern raised about the lack of communication from the housing officer. Whilst the landlord did appropriately signpost the resident to the noise pollution team to conduct a noise investigation it has not demonstrated that it took anyadditionalactions to manage the residents neighbours tenancy and deal with the antisocial behaviour reported.

The landlords handling of disrepair to their property including cracks, damp and mould.

After initial assessments by the landlords responsive repairs teams the landlords surveyors visited on 17 November 2020. Realising the issue needed further investigation they instructed a specialist contractor to conduct a wider investigation into the property’s structure. The contractor completed their initial survey inspection on 19 December 2020. The landlord was then in receipt of the recommended action plan from the contractors initial survey dated 25 January 2021. This survey recommended additional investigative work such as digging trial pits to check the grounds water content and checking the properties drainage. The landlord did not act on this survey until further contact from the resident via a local councillor on 26 April 2021. After this, it raised repair jobs for damp and mould treatment and for the digging of internal trial pits for the contractors investigation which commenced on 27 May 2021. However, despite there being a delay of 101 working days since the initial findings from the contractors, the landlord still had not clearly set out to the resident what its plan was, progressed recommendations made in the report or offered any explanation for the disrepair. It is important that landlords clearly communicate its diagnoses and follow up plans to residents to ensure that they can have confidence in its approach and understand what the next steps might be.
In its stage two letter dated 28 June 2021, the landlord recognised that its communication had been poor and it apologised. To put this right, it set out the next steps for investigating the disrepair which included regular “ground monitoring” and reassured the resident that there was not a major structural issue. This kept the resident informed of the next steps in the process for the investigation and repair. Whilst this element of the complaint handling was good the landlord failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint by not setting out its timeframe or intentions for completing all remedial works at the property such as the rusted radiator caused by damp. Neither does it recognise the delays in its handling of the damp reports and the resident’s reported purchase and use of a dehumidifier due to this.
The landlord was aware of a damp problem in the bedroom of the property following the resident’s report on 6 October 2020. This issue was further highlighted in its contractor’s initial investigation report dated 21 January 2021. The cause of the rising damp was not diagnosed by the landlord until 7 July 2021 during an inspection some 116 working days after the resident first reported the issue. The inspection found a leak under the bathroom floor which it resolved two days later. The landlord failed to act with any urgency to respond to the resident’s report of damp and took no action for an inappropriate amount of time resulting in a ten month period before diagnoses, repair and treatment.
The contractor’s structural investigation report dated 27 July 2021 referred to water ingress into the bedroom due to the lack of waterproofing on the external stairs. The landlord did not set any timescales for the completion of this work in its stage three complaint response dated 6 September 2021. This response does not address the resident’s ongoing concern about communication about the disrepair issues. The only information provided was that the cracks required ongoing monitoring before they could be repaired. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude its investigation into the ground settlement before undertaking a repair to the cracks. However, this should not cause delays for other essential works, such as waterproofing the staircase. It is important that the landlord addressed all possible causes of the damp to avoid recurrence of the mould. In this, the landlord failed to communicate its plans effectively by providing detailed information on the contractor’s findings and what its solutions were to resolving all the items of disrepair.
Also, prior to issuing its stage three response the landlord initially offered £100 to the resident as a goodwill gesture. During this call the offer was changed to £50 plus the bathroom flooring which it had already provided. In all the £50 goodwill gesture made at stage three does not take into account the disruption, time and distress that the resident had suffered as a result of this extensive investigative work which had been prolonged by the landlords initial failings.
Overall, there was no communication from the landlord for the five months between its contractor’s survey on 19 December 2020 and the landlord contacting the resident to organise the digging of trial pits on 20 May 2021. The landlord does not address mould or the cause of damp in a timely manner. At its stage three response the landlord does not recognise the extent of the ongoing disrepair and the disruption to the resident, who had needed to buy a dehumidifier and rearrange rooms to accommodate the investigation. This is a failing considering the resident who is vulnerable was living in a home and was worried by the large cracks, damp and sunken flooring for an extended period of time. The landlord did not offer a reasonable goodwill gesture in the £50 amount it offered. Due to this the landlord did not go far enough to offer reasonable redress. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance can be found on our website. It recommends remedies in the range of £250 and £700 for failure over a considerable time period to address repairs.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of antisocial behaviour reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of disrepair of the property including cracks, damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord had taken all actions that are practical to respond to the residents reports of the neighbours antisocial behaviour. It then did not respond appropriately to the residents’ concerns about the housing officer’s communication and lack of action.
The landlord did not take action in a timely way and communicate effectively with the resident about their reports of structural issues, damp and mould within the property.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pays the resident £600 in addition to the £50 it has already offered within the next four weeks. This total of £650 should not be used to offset rent arrears or other debts. It should be paid directly to the resident. This amount is broken down as:
1. £200 for time and trouble.
2. £100 for its handling of the residents reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £50 for the previously offered goodwill gesture.
It is ordered that the landlord reviews the residents reports of antisocial behaviour from the neighbour and sets out its position. This should be done in writing and provided to this service within one month as evidence of compliance.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers its procedures to ensure that they reflect learning from the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight on damp and mould. This is available on the Ombudsman’s website.