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

Waltham Forest Council (202218457)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218457

Waltham Forest Council

13 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs to the bathroom including the installation of an extractor fan and the replacement of a bath panel and bathroom tiles.
    2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a non-secure tenant of the landlord, and the property is a 3-bedroom temporary accommodation house.
  2. On 8 March 2022 the resident reported that her bathroom tiles were cracked and damaged and that there was damp and mould on her bathroom ceiling. She raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of these matters on 6 September 2022 as she stated there had been a lack of action in completing the repairs which had led to further damage, the wooden bath panel had rotted, there was damp and mould and the ceiling was crumbling. Also, there was no ventilation in the bathroom, and opening a window was not enough to remove the moisture. She requested that the landlord replace her bathroom tiles, fit an extraction fan, and make good the resulting damage.
  3. The landlord emailed its stage 1 response on 5 October 2022. It apologised for the delayed works to the property and stated that its external contractor had confirmed that the tiling works had been completed. Also, that it would call the resident during the week to schedule a date for the bath panel works to commence. It stated that its surveyor would have to approve the installation of an extractor fan as this was an improvement and it had arranged for them to contact the resident to arrange for an inspection.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 October 2022. She stated that only one job had been completed, yet the complaint was closed. After an initial visit, she had been told she required an extractor fan. Her bathroom remained extremely damp and the surveyor who was supposed to contact her did not. The landlord had made contact with her again on 5 October 2022. The resident stated that she would like the landlord to install the extractor fan and make good the resulting damage on the ceiling and investigate why the case was closed without it being resolved.
  5. The landlord emailed its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022. It upheld the complaint. It stated that its stage 1 complaint was not responded to in accordance with our corporate complaints procedure, as the resident was given an informal response, which did not provide info on how to escalate the complaint. It acknowledged that there had been a three-month delay in replacing the tiles in the bathroom. Also, that there was a delay in raising the work requested for a bathroom vent. Additionally, there was a missed appointment on 19 October and an unsuccessful appointment on 20 October in respect of the replacement of the bath panel. It apologised and offered compensation of £270 in total for its service failures, inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service on 21 November 2022. She informed this Service on 9 October 2023 that all the works were completed, however she believes that further compensation is due.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident explained to her landlord that the living conditions had adversely impacted both her and her family’s health due to their asthma. Unfortunately, this service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgments. Nonetheless, consideration will be given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused them.
  2. The evidence shows that after the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident complained about its staff member’s conduct. This Service cannot investigate a complaint which has not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs to the bathroom including the installation of an extractor fan and the replacement of a bath panel and bathroom tiles

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that routine repairs are to be completed within 21 calendar days. These include works requiring specialist materials, components or subcontractors, or materials or components that cannot be procured off-the-shelf and need to be ordered.
  2. It also states that it adopts a zero-tolerance approach when addressing reports of damp/mould and will carry out actions to prevent/treat damp and mould, which could include programmed repairs, or responsive repairs. It states that it will carry out a pre-inspection in some instances to establish the precise repair work required. In such cases, the inspection would be carried out within 5 working days of the matter being reported.
  3. Section 11(g) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300’.
  4. Section 11(i) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘The remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300’.
  5. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles require landlords to be fair, put things right, and to learn from outcomes.
  6. The landlord’s repairs log record shows that the repair job raised on 8 March 2022 for the cracked and damaged tiles was not completed until 28 September 2022. The evidence shows that it did not communicate with the resident in the intervening months until after her stage one complaint in September. There was roughly a 7-month delay in the landlord completing the works. This was an unreasonable delay compounded by the fact that the tiles had been cracked prior to her moving into the property in September 2020. It’s noted that at the time the resident moved in the work to repair tiles were considered non-essential as it was during the pandemic. Due to the unique circumstances during the Covid-19 restrictions at the time it was appropriate for the landlord to prioritise what it considered emergency repairs. However, it should have completed the job in a timely manner when it was raised again in March 2022.
  7. Moreover, the resident reported to the landlord on 8 March 2022, that there was damp and mould in her bathroom. However, the landlord repairs log does not include any record that the landlord responded to this report. In accordance with its policy, it should have carried out a pre-inspection of the damp and mould. The landlord failed to do this and also did not update the resident on the progress of any action it would take for a prolonged period. The resident again complained to the landlord that her bathroom was extremely damp on 6 October 2022, and sent pictures of the damp and mould in the bathroom on 2 November 2022. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response on 10 November 2022 that its contractor had attended and found no issue with mould. This Service has contrary evidence to this, however as the landlord raised an order for a mould wash after the resident reported it again on 2 November 2022. It completed the mould wash on 15 November 2022. It was unreasonable that the resident had to report this issue on multiple occasions to have this taken seriously. In the meantime, the resident and her family would have been frustrated, distressed, and inconvenienced.
  8. As a means of managing the damp and mould, the resident had requested an extractor fan in her stage one complaint on 6 September 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge or update the resident on this matter until 5 October 2022 when she chased it. This was an unreasonable delay that would have frustrated the resident. The landlord did take appropriate action after this, and its surveyor attended on 10 October 2022 and inspected. It however failed to raise the required works until after the resident had contacted it again and complained. It raised a job on 1 November 2022 but it appears that this job was not completed until 2 March 2023, contrary to its repairs policy. This was inappropriate particularly as the resident had explained that she had been informed that further ventilation was needed to manage the dampness. She also informed the landlord that she had historically been made promises by the landlord’s surveyor, but nothing had come from it.
  9. It is noted in the landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 October 2022 that the works to replace the bath panel needed to be raised. It promised that it would call the resident that same week to schedule this and that its surveyor would call regarding the resident’s request for an extractor fan. The evidence shows that the landlord called the resident that same day to arrange for the replacement of the bath panel. The landlord acknowledged that the appointment date agreed for 19 October 2022 was not kept to and it stated that it would provide compensation for this as the resident had waited all morning. Although the landlord’s repairs log states that it completed this job on 20 October 2022, the evidence clearly shows the job had to be raised again on 1 November 2022 and was completed on 25 February 2023. The landlord’s carpenter arrived on 20 October 2022 but could not replace the bath panel because he had the incorrect replacement and would need to reorder a longer bath panel and reschedule. It is unclear why it took the landlord an additional 4 months after identifying the correct part required. The resident had to chase the landlord in the meantime, adding to her frustration.
  10. It was appropriate and reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings, and also made an offer of compensation of £245. This demonstrates that the landlord attempted to ‘put things right’ for the resident and recognise its failings. The breakdown of the compensation was £45 for delay in completing the repair to the tiles; £50 for miscommunication regarding the installation of the vent; £25 for inconvenience due to an unsuccessful appointment on 20 October 2022; and £100 for time and trouble. Noting this, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the redress offered did not proportionately reflect the prolonged period of time taken to address the issues at the resident’s property.
  11. The compensation amount was also insufficient to recognise the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the vulnerability of an affected household needs to be considered, for example, where there are young children who may have been affected to a greater degree by the service failure. The evidence clearly shows that the full detrimental impact on her family was not taken into account as she had four young children in her household. 
  12. As the initial £245 offered fell short of the compensation that was reasonable to offer, the landlord did not do enough to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
  13. Further, the landlord has not demonstrated how it has ‘learned from outcomes’ from its failings and/or how it will improve its services in the future. It is good practice, and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, for landlords to communicate how services to residents will be improved in complaint responses so that the resident is reassured and landlords learn from their mistakes.
  14. The Ombudsman has determined that in this instance, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation to proportionately recognise the delays. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £355. This amount is in addition to the compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The amount of the compensation is appropriate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. It is also compliant 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 £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but the landlord has failed to address the detriment.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident has stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling. She stated that her complaint was closed without being resolved and she was not provided with details for escalation.
  2. After its stage 1 response on 5 October 2022 the evidence shows the resident responded to the landlord requesting details on how to escalate her complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), (published on our website) sets out best practice for complaint handling which landlords who are a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme should adhere to. The Code states that a landlord should always provide sufficient information in its complaint responses for a resident to escalate their complaint if they continue to be dissatisfied. The landlord’s stage one response did not comply with this. To compound matters, the resident checked the status of her complaint and found that the landlord had closed it. Due to this on 6 October 2022, the resident escalated her complaint using the landlords online form. The landlord stated that it had a target of 20 working days to respond to complaints and it could close them as long as it followed up with the action plan outlined in its response. This would have led to frustration for the resident as all the matters in her original complaint had yet to be addressed.
  3. Also, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that it did not deal with the resident’s complaint formally, in accordance with its procedure. Its response did not set out a summary of the complaint, the key events, its findings, conclusion, and decision or details for escalation should the resident remain dissatisfied. To recognise this error the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation.
  4. In the opinion of the Ombudsman, the amount offered does not fully recognise the landlord’s failures and the time and trouble the resident has taken to chase a response and the early closing of her complaint without providing details for escalation. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out amounts of £50 to £100 for minimal failings of short duration: In this case, in addition to the informal response at stage one of its process, the landlord has not set out what learning it has taking from the complaint handling failures in this case.
  5. The Ombudsman believes in this instance, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation to proportionately reflect the errors in its complaint handling. The landlord should pay the resident additional compensation of £75. This amount is in addition to the compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The compensation amount is compliant 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 £50 to £100, where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs to the bathroom including the installation of an extractor fan and the replacement of a bath panel and bathroom tiles.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £700, comprised of:
    1. £600 in recognition of the impact of its failings (inclusive of the £255 previously offered).
    2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (inclusive of the £25 previously offered).
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its compensation offer of £270 which was offered in it stage 2 complaint response if it has not already done so.