Tower Hamlets Homes (202126875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126875

Tower Hamlets Homes

31 July 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:
1. response to reports of leaks into the property;
2. response to reports of damp and mould, and;
3. related communication and complaint handling.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident and his wife are secure joint tenants of a 1-bedroom flat. They share the property with their three children and were expecting another child at the time of the complaint. The two oldest children use the living room as a bedroom.
The resident reported a leak into the property in December 2020. On 29 January 2021, the landlord inspected the property and identified a cold bridging issue and found condensation and black mould. There were several investigations into the source of the leak throughout 2021, however, the resident raised a complaint on 11 January 2022 as the issue continued.
On 25 January 2022, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay. It advised the resident that the source of the leak was through the external brickwork and as a resolution advised that it would erect scaffolding on 04 March 2022 to begin repairs.
On 04 March 2022, the scaffolding was not erected, and the resident escalated his complaint due to the delay. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld the complaint. The landlord advised that it visited the property on 30 March 2022 and confirmed that they misdiagnosed the repair and there were no issues with the external brickwork. The landlord advised that the issue was condensation because of overcrowding and lack of air circulation. The landlord offered compensation of £600 for the miscommunication, misdiagnosis of repair, and delay.
When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he advised that there were ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property. The resident advised that the first time the landlord stated that the issue was condensation and not a leak was on 30 March 2022 when it visited the property. The resident felt that the landlord made an offer of compensation instead of identifying and repairing the issue. As a resolution, the resident wants the landlord to investigate and repair the source of the damp.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The resident advised this Service that there are ongoing problems with damp and mould. There has been no further contact between the resident and the landlord since he brought the complaint to this Service, as such, we will not assess the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould beyond the 01 April 2022 when it issued its stage two complaint response letter.
Damp and mould represent a potential hazard in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the landlord is obliged to consider if mould within its properties represents a hazard that requires a remedy and act if necessary. It is reasonable to provide the resident with advice to control the causes of mould. If the cause of the mould is a repair issue it should carry out the repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repair policy does not specifically refer to damp and mould, but it does state that it is the tenant’s responsibility to take action to prevent and control condensation. The policy does not specify the landlord’s responsibilities to prevent and control condensation. The landlord’s website states that “Damp and mould can occur for various reasons, and we’d like to know so we can investigate why the issue isn’t going away, check if any repairs can be made and give you advice.”
It is unclear to this Service when the resident first made the repair request to the landlord. The resident advised in his complaint escalation that he first reported water ingress into the property in November/December 2020. The landlord advised in its stage two complaint response that the water ingress was first reported in December 2020, but it did not specify a date. The landlord’s contractor first reported black mould after its visit to the property on 29 January 2021.
On 29 January 2021, the landlord’s roofing contractor identified that the property was suffering from condensation and that there was a cold bridging issue. It reported to the landlord that the windows were streaming with water, and black mould was appearing. The contractor advised that a builder should investigate the brickwork and another contractor should attend to the condensation and cold bridging issues. The landlord raised a work order to repair the brickwork. This was a reasonable response by the landlord; however, it should have taken steps to address the black mould.
On 17 February 2021, the landlord’s building contractor reported that the external wall in the living room was freezing cold and estimated that it required 10 square metres of insulation. The landlord did not raise a work order to survey the wall with a view to providing insulation. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
On 15 March 2021 and 19 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord a video of a leak through the ceiling and images of damp paintwork and mould. The resident requested that the landlord complete repair works as soon as possible as the flat is overcrowded and he had concerns for his children’s welfare. On 24 March 2021, the landlord raised a work order to carry out a roof dye test and a further order to carry out a specialist damp survey. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. However, the landlord should have done more. It should have communicated with the resident to assess the extent of the mould and provided advice on removing the mould or ordered a mould wash. It could also have provided advice on controlling condensation.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord’s roofing contractors attended. It is not clear if it completed a roof dye test. The contractor reported that there were no roofing defects found. It noted a cold bridging issue, and that the resident was awaiting insulation for the flank wall and ceiling. The landlord took no action in respect of surveying the wall to provide insulation. This was unreasonable because cold surfaces contribute to condensation which cause damp and mould.
On 19 April 2021, the landlord carried out a damp survey. The surveyor noted:

The kitchen and bathroom extractor fans be replaced with appropriate units and mould treatment would be required to affected walls.
A mould wash and mould resistant paint would be needed in the bedroom 1.
There were damp readings from the walls in bedroom 3. Treatment needed to be done through a mould wash, but the walls would not be able to be redecorated until a process of ‘drying out’ took place.

On 21 June 2021, the landlord carried out a roof dye test. The landlord’s repair notes show that it found no defects with the roof and that the property is suffering with condensation and cold bridging issues. There is a false wall in the affected room. The contractor advised that a builder should attend to the defective brickwork and other contractors attend to the condensation and cold bridging issues. It is clear from the landlord’s repair notes that a cold bridging issue remained outstanding. The landlord took no further action to insulate the wall to address the cold bridging issue. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
On 05 July 2021, a mayor wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf enquiring about the outstanding repairs. The landlord replied on the 19 July 2021 advising the timeline of its investigations to date. It advised that on receipt of the mayor’s enquiry it contacted the damp and mould specialists to carry out the recommended works from its survey on 19 April 2021. These works included renewing a circuit board to the fuse board, renewing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and carrying out a mould wash. The landlord booked this work for 13 and 14 September 2021 and this was an unfair and unreasonable delay by the landlord.
On 13 September 2021, the damp and mould specialists cancelled the appointment. It completed this repair on 16 December 2021. The landlord did not provide this Service with the supporting documentation, but the resident has confirmed that the landlord installed extractor fans and completed a mould wash at this stage. Based on the evidence, this is the first time that the landlord addressed the issue of mould in the flat. This is a delay of 11 months since the mould was reported by its contractors. This delay was unreasonable. The landlord did not take into consideration the individual circumstances of the resident and did not treat the resident fairly given the potential detrimental affect mould can have on the resident’s and his family’s health.
On 25 January 2022, the resident complained that damp and mould had returned to the property and was affecting his son’s health. On 03 February 2022, the landlord raised an order for stage three mould treatment. On 30 March 2022, the landlord completed a mould wash and applied mould paint.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord attended the property and provided advice to the resident including keeping the extractor fans switched on, opening windows, and keeping large items of furniture away from the walls. Providing this advice is a fair and reasonable response by the landlord. However, there was an unreasonable delay of 14 months in providing the advice.
On 01 April 2022, in its final complaint response, the landlord advised the resident that the mould in the property was because of overcrowding and a lack of air circulation. The landlord further advised that condensation was not its responsibility. It was unfair and unreasonable for the landlord to take no responsibility for the mould in the flat. Up until this correspondence, the landlord had been investigating a leak as a source of the damp. This Service further notes that the landlord took no action on the report of a cold bridging issue which contributes to condensation, which is the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident replied to the landlord and disputed its findings. The resident advised that the damp and mould specialists noted that there was slight mould in the passage, significant mould in the bathroom, and significant mould in the living room. The resident also advised that the extractor fans were automatically controlled and were not switched off. The presence of mould in the property caused significant distress to the resident.
This Service finds that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property. This is because the landlord’s actions were unreasonable, and it treated the resident unfairly in the circumstances. The landlord initially failed to engage with the resident to assess the extent of the mould and it delayed in providing advice. The landlord did not address the mould until 11 months after it received a report of it. The landlord took no responsibility for the mould after it identified a cold bridging issue for which it is responsible.
The landlord did not provide this Service with sufficient evidence to show that a further survey was done to rule out issues with the brickwork and the cold bridging issue. Based on the evidence provided, there was mould in the flat and a cold bridging issue identified to the landlord on 29 January 2021, an issue which remains unresolved.
Based on the evidence, the landlord was aware the property was overcrowded and failed to consider the potential detriment to the resident when dealing with the reports of damp and mould. This Service finds that the resident lost enjoyment of the living room which doubled as a bedroom. This Service orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the home based on 30% of the rent charge between 29 January 2021 (when the mould was reported) until 30 March 2022 when the mould was removed.
This Service orders the landlord to carry out an independent survey of the wall to assess the cold bridging issues that it identified and that it acts on the recommendations of the survey.
This Service recognises that the landlord has issued a statement on damp and mould on 22 December 2022, (further updated on 07 February 2023), and is creating a mould action plan after review of this Services recommendations. The landlord is looking again at all damp, mould and condensation cases reported over the previous two years. It is ordered that the landlord contacts the resident about ongoing concerns with damp and mould at the property.
This Service recommends that the landlord considers what assistance it can give to the resident with a move through its own management transfer list or supporting an application to the local authority or mutual exchange.

The landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property

When a resident reports a leak into the property, the landlord is expected to take reasonable steps to identify the source of the leak and repair it. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out responsive repairs, including, leaking roofs/minor roof repairs and repairs to outside walls within 20 working days. The policy further states that there will be some situations where works identified because of a responsive repair request are extensive, and it is not appropriate to undertake the complete works as an unplanned responsive repair.
The resident advised that in November/December 2020 he reported to the landlord that water was coming into the house when it rained. The landlord’s repair notes do not specify when it received the repair request, but it advised in its complaint response that it was December 2020. The repair notes state that it raised a repair order on 29 January 2021, and its roofing contractor attended on the same date. It concluded that no roofing work was required, and a builder needed to attend to defective brickwork and other contractors to attend to condensation and cold bridging issues. It raised a work order for a builder to attend to the defective brickwork. This was a good initial response to the report of a leak.
Between 17 February 2021 to 21 June 2021, the landlord instructed a builder to inspect the property, a roofing contractor to carry out a roof dye test and a plumber to carry out a plumbing dye test. The contractors reported that there were no roofing issues or plumbing issues. A cold bridging issue and defective brickwork were identified as possible sources of the leak. These were good measures for the landlord to take to identify the source of the leak.
On 05 July 2021 and 12 July 2021, the resident chased an update and advised there was water coming into the living room when it rained. On 22 July 2021, the landlord raised a work order to repair external brickwork, wash the external walls, and apply two coats of masonry sealer. The repair notes state that the contractor had previously advised that the source of the leak is through the brickwork and not damp. The contractor attended on 11 August 2021 but concluded that it needed scaffolding to carry out the work. The landlord should have reasonably known that it would have required scaffolding to carry out the works.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord requested an update from its contractor for when the inspection will be complete. On 01 December 2021 and 13 December 2021, the resident called the landlord advising that he desperately needed the issue resolved and requested that the landlord erect the scaffolding. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action after these calls. This was unfair and unreasonable.
On 11 January 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. The landlord replied on 25 January 2022 and apologised for the delay. As a resolution to the complaint, it advised it would have the scaffolding erected on 04 March 2022 to carry out the repair works. This was not done and on 08 March 2022, the landlord apologised and advised its contractor was awaiting a pavement licence. On 10 March 2022, the landlord called the resident and again advised the delay in erecting the scaffolding was due to a pavement licence.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord’s contractors advised they were arranging a pre-inspection and then would apply for the pavement licence, therefore, the repair on 23 March 2022 would need to be re-arranged. The landlord failed to advise the resident and no operative attended on 23 March 2022. On 25 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor advised the landlord that they hadn’t applied for the pavement licence and that they will be attending the property soon to carry out an assessment. This missed appointment and failure to communicate was unfair to the resident.
On 30 March 2022, the contractor visited the property and advised that there was no external brickwork issue, and that the problem was mis-diagnosed. Due to a lack of supporting evidence such as a survey report, it is unclear to this Service how the contractor arrived at this conclusion. This Service notes that the roofing contractor, building contractor, and plumbing contractor indicated that the issues arose from the external brick work. It is also noted that the landlord had previously raised an order to repair the external brickwork and apply sealing masonry paint to the wall. This repair was only postponed because there was no scaffolding in place.
This Service finds there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks in the property. This is because there was a delay of 40 weeks between the landlord becoming aware of an external brickwork issue and it concluding that the repair was mis-diagnosed. Based on the repair notes there was a potential issue with the external brickwork, and it is unclear to this Service why the landlord cancelled the repair.
This Service orders the landlord to carry out an independent survey of the external wall and carry out any recommendations on repairing and sealing the wall if necessary.
In its compensation review the landlord noted that an offer of £10-20 per week would be appropriate for inconvenience and distress caused by the delay in repair. There was a delay of 40 weeks since the landlord became aware of the external brickwork issue and concluding that it misdiagnosed the issue. This Service orders £800 compensation, representing £20 per week, for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for this delay.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint handling policy. It will acknowledge a formal complaint within 48 hours. At stage 1, it will review the complaint and respond to the complaint within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the complaint, they can escalate it to stage two. At stage two, the landlord will review and respond to the complaint within 20 working days. If the complaint is not resolved after stage two, the resident can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
On 11 January 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. He advised that he first reported water ingress into his property in November/December 2020 and the issue was ongoing. He advised that there was severe damp and freezing temperatures in the flat and that the living room was doubling as a bedroom because there were five occupants. He reported that he had been awaiting scaffolding to repair the external brickwork and nothing had been done. He complained about the time and trouble and distress caused to himself and his family.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in repairing the external brickwork and as a resolution advised it would erect scaffolding on 04 March 2022 to begin the repairs. On the same date, the resident replied and advised he remained unhappy with the further delay in erecting the scaffolding and that it was urgent as damp and mould in the flat was affecting his son’s health. He requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint at this stage. This was unfair to the resident and the landlord did not follow its complaint handling policy.
On 06 March 2022, the resident emailed this Service for assistance. On 08 March 2022, this Service contacted the landlord and advised it to engage with the resident. On the same date, the landlord acknowledged and escalated the complaint. It is unclear if the landlord would have escalated the complaint without the intervention of this Service.
The landlord raised a repair order for the external brickwork to be complete on 23 March 2022, but it did not complete the repair because the scaffolding was not erected. The landlord contacted the resident and offered £300 compensation. The resident rejected the offer as he felt it didn’t reflect the delay and missed appointments. The landlord reviewed its compensation and noted an offer of £30 for 3 missed appointments and £25 for failure to escalate the complaint would be appropriate.
On 01 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that it had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint. It made a global offer of £600 to include misdiagnosis of repair, delay, and miscommunication. It was appropriate for the landlord to make an offer of compensation for the miscommunication, but as this was a global offer it was not sufficient.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the property was overcrowded. However, when providing advice, it inferred that the resident was solely responsible for the condensation in the flat. It advised that the resident didn’t have any windows open in the flat, didn’t have extractor fans switched on, and had large items of furniture against the wall. It advised that “The condensation found within your property is a result of overcrowding and lack of air circulation which is not the responsibility of the landlord”. This was unfair language to use, especially as it was the first time the landlord advised the resident that the issue was not damp caused by a leak.
This Service finds there was maladministration with the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. This is because it did not follow its own complaint handling procedures. It is unclear if the landlord would have escalated the complaint without the intervention of this Service. The landlord also used language in its communication which unfairly blamed the condensation solely on the resident.
This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £200 for time and trouble caused by its failure to escalate the complaint, and distress caused by the landlord blaming the resident in its complaint response, and a further £30 compensation for the three missed scaffolding appointments.
This Service recommends that the landlord train its staff in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that complaints are escalated when appropriate.
This Service recommends that the landlord reviews the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould and considers the language used in its communications about damp and mould. Recommendation 11 states that “Landlords should review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed”.

The landlord’s record keeping

In response to this Services request for information, the landlord failed to provide relevant repair records. The landlord should be open and transparent in all communications and its information should be accessible.
The landlord is expected to provide all evidence relevant to the case when it makes its original submission, which in this case was June 2022. This information was requested again on 20 March 2023, with a chaser being sent on 30 March 2023 and 25 April 2023. When the landlord did finally provide some information following the request, not all the evidence was provided until 16 June 2023. These delays ultimately impacted the ability for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint efficiently resulting in further delays for the resident to receive the determination.
The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
This Service finds there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping and orders that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording repairs.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident total compensation of £3,084.34 as calculated in paragraphs 64 and 65.
It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident for the loss of enjoyment of his home based on 30% of the rent charge for 60 weeks between 29 January 2021 (when the mould was reported) until 30 March 2022 when the mould was removed.

Weekly rent	£114.13*
Total (avg) rent for the period	£6,847.80
Total rent value selected (%)	30%**
Rent Refund Due:	£2,054.34

* Based on average social rents in Tower Hamlets for 2021/22: Live_Table_702_Jan_23.ods

**30% of the rent – worked out as multiplying the rent by 0.30

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident further compensation of £1,030 (inclusive of its previous offer of £600), compromising:
1. £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in dealing with the report of a leak.
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling and poor communication with the resident.
3. £30 for missed appointments when arranging scaffolding.
It is ordered that a senior director for the landlord apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
It is ordered that the landlord arranges an independent survey of the external wall to assess the external brickwork and the cold bridging that it identified and acts on the recommendations of the survey.
It is ordered that the landlord contacts the resident to agree an action plan to address the damp and mould at the property.
It is ordered that the landlord review its record keeping procedures in relation to recording repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers what assistance it can give to the resident with a move through its own management transfer list or supporting an application to the local authority or mutual exchange.
It is recommended that the landlord train its staff in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code to ensure that complaints are identified and escalated when appropriate.
If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord considers its communications about damp and mould in line with this Services recommendations in its damp and mould spotlight report.