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

London Borough of Redbridge (202208497)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208497

London Borough of Redbridge

31 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

  1. The landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of a leak coming from the property above, damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The resident has stated that she lives with her elderly mother.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in 2020 to report that there was damp and mould at the property. The landlord arranged an inspection of the property in December 2020.
  3. On 23 August 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained that since the contractor first visited, she had been chasing the landlord for a copy of the surveyor’s report regarding a damp and mould inspection. She also stated that the repair works that the landlord agreed to were still outstanding.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in providing its response. The landlord explained that the delay was due to some confusion on its part, as to whether or not a leaseholder consultation under section 20 of the Landlord Tenant Act was required. The landlord explained that the consultation was not required and confirmed that it had planned for all of the work to be carried out. It stated that it would delay the works until February 2022 as requested by the resident.

 

  1. On 24 November 2021, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She stated that she did not feel her complaint had been met to her satisfaction. The resident explained that the landlord did not respond to her question regarding section 20 under the Landlord and Tenant Act. She also stated that she would like to know why her issues had been outstanding for 9 months.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 April 2022. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced in her concerns being resolved. The landlord stated that its approach had been unsatisfactory and had fallen short of its standards. To resolve the outstanding issue, the landlord offered the resident 2 options. The first option was for the landlord to agree a monetary sum with the resident that would allow her to complete all the works herself. The second option was for landlord to carry out all the necessary work, which mainly included kitchen tiling, thermal insulation to be fitted to both rooms and some decorations for the bedroom.
  3. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated her desired outcome was for the outstanding works to be carried out and she would prefer the works to be carried out by the same contractor who installed the thermal boards at her property. The resident has also stated that when the works to the kitchen are carried out, she would like the landlord to pay for her to be rehoused temporarily during the works. She has also stated that she would like a single point of contact she can communicate with regarding the outstanding works. The resident would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
  4. The resident informed the Ombudsman in October 2023 that all the works agreed by the landlord remained outstanding apart from the reduction of the ground level around the external and rear side elevation of the property. The landlord also told the Ombudsman in October 2023 that it has only completed works to reduce the ground level on the outside of the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak coming from the property above, damp and mould in the property.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has told this service that her wardrobe has been damaged by the damp and mould in her property. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to assess this aspect of the complaint, as it would be more appropriate for the landlord to provide details of its liability insurer if it has one, so the resident can submit a claim for her damaged belongings. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims because the landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. However, we will recommend that the landlord provides the resident with its liability insurer’s details so she can progress this aspect of her complaint.

Policies and procedures

  1. The residents lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the external main structural parts of the property, including the roof, external walls and also walls dividing the flats from the common halls and staircases. The lease agreement also states that the landlord is responsible for the sewer drains and gutter pipes.
  2. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook explains that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 working days and routine repairs within 25 to 28 working days.

Assessment

  1. The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord about a leak entering her property, from the flat located above her in August 2021. The resident stated as part of her complaint that the landlord’s contractor first visited her property in December 2020 to inspect the issue and identify any required works.
  2. The resident has raised as part of her complaint that she requested a copy of the surveyor’s report for the survey carried out in December 2020. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request a copy of the survey report from December 2020. In response to the request, the landlord provided a surveyor’s report from October 2021. Therefore, it is unclear whether the landlord has a copy of the surveyor’s report from December 2020 on file. However, the landlord did also confirm in its response that its records indicate that a copy of the surveyor’s report was not sent to the resident. The Ombudsman believes it was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond and comply with the resident’s request for a copy of the surveyor’s report. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the resident now or if cannot provide this it should write to her explaining why it cannot provide it.
  3. The landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the damp and mould at the resident’s property on 14 October 2021. The surveyor recommended a range of works to resolve the damp and mould at the property. The works included the removal and refitting of skirting boards, removal of wall plaster, installation of a damp proof course, installation of thermal boards and redecoration. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord took appropriate action by arranging for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property. However, the landlord’s response to the damp and mould was late and not in line with the timescales referenced in its leaseholder handbook.
  4. Shortly after, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident and confirmed that it would carry out all of the necessary works. The landlord confirmed in its response that it had agreed to delay the requested works until February 2022 as requested by the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident’s request to delay the works would have been outside of the landlord’s control and it was reasonable for the landlord to agree to this request.
  5. On 7 February 2022, the landlord’s independent surveyor carried out an additional inspection of the resident’s property. The surveyor’s inspection identified several works including installing thermaboard insulation in 2 of the bedrooms and in the lounge. The removal and reinstatement of kitchen units around the outside wall and the striping off of wall tiling around the same area and installation of a thermaboard on the outside wall. It was also recommended that the ground level was reduced around the external and rear side elevation of the property. The surveyor also confirmed during the inspection that there was a damp patch on the ceiling in the resident’s kitchen. The surveyor stated this was caused by a leaking washing machine located in the flat above the resident’s property. The landlord took reasonable steps by carrying out an additional survey of the property prior to carrying out the necessary works, as several months had passed since the surveyor carried out the last inspection and the situation may have changed during this period.
  6. Following the surveyor inspection carried out in February 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in April 2022. It offered the resident 2 options. The first option was for the landlord to agree a monetary sum with the resident that would allow her to complete all the works herself. The second option was for landlord to carry out all the necessary works. The resident agreed on 12 April 2022 to the second option and requested the landlord to carry out all the necessary works.
  7. Both the landlord and the resident have confirmed that the majority of the proposed works are still outstanding. the landlord’s contractor has completed the reduction of the ground level around the external and rear side elevation of the property. The resident has confirmed that the external repair was not completed to the agreed standard, as the contactor has not arranged for the pea shingles to be placed on the ground which was agreed as part of the proposed works. The landlord also completed some damp proofing works at the property. However, all the remaining works for the kitchen, lounge and 2 of the bedrooms are still outstanding, which is unacceptable after this length of time.
  8. The Ombudsman recognises that it must be very difficult for the resident and her elderly mother living in a property with damp and mould conditions. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the landlord to have the repairs outstanding for such a significant period of time. The landlord should have prioritised the repair and resolved the issue quickly considering the resident’s circumstances and the severity of the damp and mould.
  9. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised during its stage 2 complaint response that there have been delays in completing the proposed works to resolve the damp and mould. However, the landlord has failed to offer compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by long delays. In addition, a significant amount of time has passed since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and the majority of the proposed works are still outstanding.
  10. The Ombudsman requires the landlord to draw up a schedule of works, including timescales, for the work it is responsible for, and to resolve the outstanding issues at the property. Following this, the landlord should carry out all the necessary works. It is recognised that several of the rooms in the resident’s property require work. Therefore, if it is possible, the Ombudsman would suggest that the landlord completes the required work one room at a time. This is because the resident is a leaseholder and her and her elderly mother will still need to live at the property whilst the works are carried out. It is acknowledged that this arrangement may mean the repairs take longer to complete.
  11. The Ombudsman does not expect the landlord to carry out any work which it is not responsible for under the lease agreement. In most cases, décor is the leaseholder’s responsibility, but as the décor was damaged by the landlord during the course of its repairs, the landlord would be responsible for making good any areas which are damaged as a result of its repair works. Therefore, in this case, the landlord would be responsible for repairing the décor and tilling for the areas where the thermaboard would be fitted.
  12. There has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak coming from the property located above and damp and mould in the property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1000 to recognise the significant distress and inconvenience she has experienced due to the landlord’s failure to carry out the agreed works within a reasonable time period. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies guidance suggests awards of £1000 or more where there have been serious failings by the landlord which had a significant long-term impact on the resident, as in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales which are referenced in the code.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2021 about outstanding works to resolve the damp and mould at her property. It then took around 3 months for the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response, which was issued on 10 November 2021. The landlord did apologise for the delay and explained that the reason its response was late, was because it was clarifying details on whether a consultation was required under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Ombudsman believes in this instance the landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the information was necessary for the landlord to provide an accurate response to the resident.
  3. It also took around 5 months for the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response. On 10 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 April 2022.  The response was significantly late and there was no reason provided for the late response. However, the landlord did apologise for the delay. The delay would have caused inconvenience for the resident as the Ombudsman had to chase the landlord for a response, and the resident was delayed in progressing the complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  4. Given the delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint responses, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.  The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the significant unexplained delay the resident experienced. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, although the delay would have been inconvenient, there may be no permanent impact to the resident, as she eventually received a final response letter from the landlord and was able to submit her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak coming from the property located above, damp and mould in the property and the resident’s request for a copy of the surveyor’s report from the landlord.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to draw up a schedule of the required works to resolve the damp and mould at the resident’s property. The schedule of works should include works related to the repair of the décor and tilling for the areas where the thermaboard would be fitted. A copy of the schedule of works should be sent to the resident and to this service.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation for errors in its handling of the damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for errors in its complaint handling.
  4. The landlord to provide a written apology to the resident for its handling of the damp and mould at the property. The apology should come from a senior member of staff at director level within the landlord’s organisation.
  5. The landlord should provide a copy of the surveyor report from October 2021 to the resident, or if cannot provide this it should write to her explaining why it cannot provide it.
  6. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.
  7. The landlord to start the required works to resolve the damp and mould within four weeks of the date that the schedule of works is sent to the resident and this service.
  8. The landlord to carry out a review into the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement. The review should be completed by a senior member of staff at director level. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the resident.
  9. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides the resident with details of its liability insurer (if it has one) so that the resident can make a claim if she wishes to for her damaged belongings.