London Borough of Lambeth (202331497)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331497

Lambeth Council

18 November 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp mould at the property, and the resident’s associated request for temporary accommodation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette. She lives with her adult son and daughter.
Between September 2022 and February 2023 the resident reported outstanding repairs to window frames, raised concerns about condensation, and reported water ingress.
The landlord conducted an inspection of the leak(s) on 12 July 2023 and raised works. A scaffold was erected on 17 August 2023 and repairs were completed on 31 August 2023.
On 21 September 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction. She said that she had not received a response from the landlord since February 2023 and that the property was experiencing water ingress despite the repairs. She questioned if any repairs had been completed in August 2023 as stated by the landlord.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2023. She was concerned that a contractor was due to attend on 20 October 2023 but had not made contact. The resident reported that the appointment never happened.
On 3 November 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction again. She explained that she had developed health problems which she believed were being caused by the damp and mould inside the property. She said it was a health and safety issue. She asked the landlord to move her family temporarily into alternative accommodation while repairs were done.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 November 2023 and said it would respond by 5 December 2023. The resident replied stating that she could not wait that long, and asked the landlord to attend the property to assess the issues. She said the living room was unusable due to fungal growth.
The resident chased the landlord throughout November 2023 and wrote to a senior staff member. On or around 28 November 2023 the landlord called the resident and agreed to arrange an inspection for 7 December 2023.
The landlord attended on 4 December 2023 when it performed a mould wash and repainted the wall. The resident reported that damp had returned the following day and expressed concern about the central heating and insulation.
On 6 December 2023 the resident approached the Ombudsman for help progressing her complaint. She had not received the complaint response that had been promised. The survey took place on 7 December 2023.
The resident chased the landlord on 15 December 2023. She requested a further mould wash and expressed dissatisfaction that she had not been updated. She reported that fungus had returned on 22 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2024. It stated that a surveyor had attended on 7 December 2023 and raised works to rectify the internal damage caused by the damp.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 8 January 2024. She clarified that she had first complained on 21 September 2023. She pointed out that the issue was water ingress and that it was “pointless” to repair the plaster without addressing the cause of the water ingress. She said the surveyor had not been thorough. She requested repairs and financial compensation.
The landlord attended on 11 January 2024 but could not get access. It said it was not able to contact the resident about the visit, as it did not have her contact details. The resident chased the landlord on 24 January 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 February 2024. It stated that the survey on 7 December 2023 had in fact found numerous possible causes of water ingress, including blocked gutters and downpipe, defects to the “joints”, defective cladding, missing roof tiles, and cracks to the concrete windowsill. It listed some repairs which had now been raised. It said that it could not place the resident’s family in temporary accommodation because there was a shortage of properties. It offered £200 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble.
The landlord attended intermittently between 22 February 2024 and 25 June 2024. The resident reported that she was able to use the living room again following repairs which were done on 16 May 2024. Further internal remedial works were finished on 25 June 2024.
On 17 July 2024 the resident told this service that while the living room issues had been resolved, damp and mould problems in her daughter’s bedroom and in the kitchen remained. The resident later reported that water ingress into the living room had started again.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould directly caused or contributed to illnesses or health conditions. The Ombudsman cannot draw any conclusions as to the likely cause of any adverse health impacts experienced by the resident or her family members. This is better suited to the courts, where cross examinations of medical evidence can be conducted by appropriate medico-legal expert witnesses.

The landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp

The landlord’s Damp Charter states that upon receiving reports of damp, it will arrange an inspection within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations (but does not state what might constitute an emergency situation). It adds that it will agree and write an action plan with the resident to resolve the damp, which would include timescales.
The landlord’s Repairs Manual sets out the timescales in which it will complete repairs. It categorises repairs by priority, assigning them a timescale of 1 to 7 days for emergency repairs, 7 to 28 days for routine repairs, and up to 90 days for planned repairs.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of water ingress from the roof when it raised an inspection on 27 January 2023. This was categorised as a routine repair which should be attended within 7 days. There is no evidence of when it attended. The evidence shows there was internal miscommunication around this repair and that the landlord did not know who had raised it. It ordered a roofer to reattend in April 2023, but this did not happen until 12 July 2023, when it was found that there was a leak affecting the resident’s living room, and scaffolding was required. The works were completed on 31 August 2023. The landlord significantly exceeded the timescales set out in its Repairs Manual and its Damp Charter.
The reasons for these delays are unclear, because only limited information about these repairs was provided by the landlord. The Ombudsman can only conclude that these delays were unreasonable and reflect a failing. The resident said that the impact of the delayed repairs during this time was limited, but that she had been concerned about the issues worsening.
On 21 September 2023 the resident reported that water ingress and damp issues persisted and questioned if the repairs had been completed. The repair logs between January and August 2023 are limited. Information about the works required were vague, but referenced blocked gutters and missing roof tiles. The repair log states, “all works completed”, but does not specify what those works were. There is no evidence of a surveyor’s report having been produced. The evidence shows that “blocked gutters and missing roof tiles” were identified again in December 2023. This could indicate that the works were not adequately completed in August 2023.
The landlord should have raised an inspection within 28 days of the resident reporting issues again on 21 September 2023, in line with its Damp Charter. It did not inspect until 7 December 2023. This was a failing.
Although we have not seen a detailed record of the 7 December 2023 inspection, in the landlord’s stage 2 response it detailed its findings. The repairs identified were complex and multifaceted. The landlord categorised these as “planned works” and assigned a 90-day timescale.
The records from inspections completed before this date are vague, which means it is unclear if the landlord had previously identified these repairs. This means it is difficult to assess whether this 90-day timescale was reasonable or not. However, as the resident was experiencing ongoing internal damage to the property and reporting health impacts caused by damp and mould during this time, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider if it could have expedited the works. There is no evidence it considered trying to do this, which was unreasonable.
The landlord then significantly exceeded the 90-day timescale it had set itself. The landlord attended and completed some works on 29 February 2024, but the records show that not all works were carried out on this date. The landlord did not attend again until 2 April 2024. The records from this date are vague, and there is a suggestion in the notes that further works were identified. There is no completion date logged. There is no evidence the repairs to the guttering and downpipe were completed. It may be that this failing has contributed to the resident’s reports that water ingress has since recurred.
The reason for these delays is largely unclear. There is evidence that the landlord could not get access to attend an appointment arranged for 11 January 2024. However, there is no evidence it notified the resident of the appointment. The landlord later explained to the resident’s Councillor that this was because it had given the contractor the contact details of a different resident, implying these were the only contact details on file. However, the resident advised that this was the telephone number of her sister, who had not lived at the property in over 20 years.
The Ombudsman was unable to corroborate the resident’s report that she had updated her contact details prior to this. However, the repair records show that the landlord and its contractors had successfully called the resident on numerous occasions before this date, such as in October 2022. The repairs also had the resident’s name on them, so it is unclear why the name of a different resident was given to the contractor.
In either event, the landlord had the resident’s email address and did not use that to notify her of the missed appointment. It outlined upcoming works in its stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2024, but did not include information about the 11 January 2024 repair. The landlord missed several opportunities to notify the resident of the appointment. The landlord did not proactively seek to rearrange the appointment. This was a failing which contributed to unnecessary delays.
Poor record keeping also appears to have contributed to delays. For example, there is evidence that multiple surveys and inspections took place over an 18 month period, but there is no evidence that a written report was produced. The resident expressed concern to this service that surveyors who attended “would not take notes”. This may explain why there appears to be a distinct lack of detail found in repair logs and why some attendances appeared to need repeating. This likely contributed to delays. It may have also played a part in why the repairs appear to have been ineffective on more than one occasion.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s communication throughout the period assessed, whether internally, with the resident, or with its contractors, was frequently poor. For example, the resident frequently reported that operatives attended without prior knowledge of the repairs history. This included the surveyor on 7 December 2023, who had reportedly not been made aware that significant amounts of black mould and fungus had been removed at the property 3 days earlier. It is unclear if this influenced the perceived risk and therefore the decision to assign a 90-day timescale to the repairs.
The records of the landlord’s contact with the resident are limited. The majority of contact records seen by this service were provided by the resident. Of those seen, there is no evidence that contradicts the resident’s account that the landlord failed to contact her between February and November 2023, despite ongoing repairs. The resident appeared to have been made aware that some repairs were completed in August 2023, but there is no evidence that she was told what works were done or by whom.
The landlord’s Damp Charter explains that “if your home has persistent damp, you will be allocated a surveyor who will act as your point of contact. They will arrange the necessary work and stay in touch until it is completed. They will also give you tips on how to minimise condensation and advise where help may be available to support you with your energy bills.” There is no evidence that the landlord completed any of the steps outlined.
The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) describes how residents must normally be given 24 hours-notice before it attends the property. The resident reported that the landlord often did not give her adequate notice of appointments. For example on 6 March 2024 the resident reported receiving a text message at 6.41AM that an operative would attend at 8AM. There is no evidence of any prior notice being given to the resident of this appointment. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord consider investigating this and taking steps to address it.
In addition to the living room damp issues, the evidence shows that in her January 2024 contact with the landlord the resident raised concerns about damp in her daughter’s bedroom and the kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected these areas of the property as part of the works.
As noted above, the resident reported that she was able to use the living room again following repairs which were done on 16 May 2024 and so it seems that these works did resolve the issue for a period. However, more recently the resident told us that water ingress into the living room had returned. This suggests that again repairs were not effective, although it is unclear whether this has been reported to the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of reports of mould

Although the landlord’s Repairs Manual gives examples of some repairs and the timescales in which they should be attended, there is no reference to mould. There is repeated reference in the Repairs Manual and the landlord’s Damp and Mould Strategy to a “Rapid Response Mould Removal Team”.
The landlord received reports of mould at the property (in the living room) on 21 September 2023 but did not conduct a mould wash until 4 December 2023. This was a failing, as it exceeded the timescale required of it by even routine repairs. It is accepted that damp and mould can be prejudicial to health. The landlord should have ensured it responded to reports quickly by inspecting or requesting more information about the mould. It is unclear why the landlord did not appear to engage its “Rapid Response Mould Removal Team” at any point.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould states that landlords should take a risk-based approach to damp and mould. The landlord should have raised an inspection or mould wash as soon as it had been informed mould was present. It may have been reasonable to attend promptly and complete a risk assessment to inform its next steps. It failed to take any of these steps within a reasonable time.
The resident and her Councillor chased the landlord frequently throughout October 2023. The landlord did not raise any works in response to these reports either. It missed multiple subsequent opportunities to respond appropriately throughout October 2023.
The resident reported suffering an adverse health impact because of the conditions in the living room on 3 November 2023. It is concerning that there is no evidence that the landlord took any action in response. The landlord did not appear to consider the risk and failed again to complete a risk assessment. There is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s reports of adverse health impacts. This was a significant failing. The resident chased frequently, but the landlord did not respond until 28 November 2023 after the resident wrote to a senior staff member.
The resident reported soon after the initial mould wash that black mould and fungus had returned. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. The resident began completing frequent mould washes herself, which continued until the internal remedial works were completed in May 2024. It was unreasonable that the resident had to do this.
It is understood that the landlord had to prioritise the external works, however it had an opportunity to mitigate the adverse effect caused by delays in completing those works by addressing the mould. It should have completed interim mould washes where needed to keep the mould under control.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved temporarily

The landlord does not appear to have a policy or procedure to advise when it should consider moving a resident temporarily. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord should consider if it is reasonable to offer a temporary move if significant and/or prolonged investigations or works are needed. The resident asked to be moved temporarily on 3 November 2023 because she and her son had reported developing “chest problems”. The landlord should have considered this and responded, but there is no evidence that it did. This was a failing.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it states that “there is a shortage of temporary accommodation… therefore any works to be carried out in your property will happen while you are in residence”. It is accepted that the landlord has a shortage of temporary accommodation, however this response was unreasonable. Firstly, because alternative options would have been available, for example to arrange a hotel stay. Secondly, because the landlord implied that, regardless of the scale of works or the condition of the property, it would not be able to arrange a temporary move under any circumstances.
The landlord should instead have explained why it was reasonable and proportionate for the resident to remain in residence. It should have been able to support this decision with a clear assessment of any risk posed by the mould in the property. It should have explained the level of expected disruption posed by the works and why it was reasonable for the resident to remain living at the property during this time. It was a failing that it did not do this.
The landlord did not complete a written surveyor’s report or risk assessment, so the Ombudsman is unable to state whether or not a temporary move should have taken place. The repair logs are vague, so it is unclear how intrusive or disruptive the works were. The landlord failed however to respond to the resident’s request in a reasonable timeframe or carry out the appropriate inspections to establish if a temporary move was required.
In conclusion, due to unreasonable delays, vague records, poor communication, and ineffective repairs, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp, mould, and the resident’s request for temporary accommodation. The evidence suggests that a number of works may remain outstanding and in light of the resident’s reports of ongoing issues, it would be reasonable to perform further inspections and investigations. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord take all necessary steps to establish what works should be undertaken and ensure they are completed.
The evidence shows that the adverse effect caused to the resident during the period assessed was significant. Records prior to September 2023 are limited, but it can be reasonably concluded that the resident went to time and trouble reporting and chasing repairs from January 2023 onward. She also expressed frustration and dissatisfaction at various points throughout this period.
From 21 September 2023 to 16 May 2024 the adverse effect increased notably. The evidence suggests that the resident’s frequent reports that the living room was unusable was likely accurate. She described the family “living from their bedrooms”. She reported wearing masks when entering the room and leaving the windows open throughout the winter. Photographs show that furniture was moved to the centre of the room and covered. The resident’s descriptions of the mould, fungus growth, and “intense odour” are consistent throughout the period. The landlord has provided no evidence which casts doubt on the resident’s description of this.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says that an unusable room is an example of a “loss of amenity”. In such circumstances the policy says that a compensation payment amount “should be calculated as a percentage of the net rent from when the room becomes unusable to the date repairs are completed”. It does not indicate what percentage would be reasonable to apply in the event of an unusable living room. The Ombudsman has considered the description of the property and ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with its compensation policy at a rate of 15% for the period 21 September 2023 to 16 May 2024.
The evidence shows that the resident went to significant time and trouble chasing and raising repairs until May 2024. She also experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s failings which were highlighted in this report. The resident’s relationship with the landlord suffered a prolonged loss of confidence. There is evidence of some adverse effect relating to the period after May 2024, however the Ombudsman has not considered this. The resident has indicated a desire to address this through new complaints to the landlord, which is reasonable.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there have been failings that have had a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £600 should be considered. The Ombudsman has ordered that the landlord pay £900 to the resident, made up of £500 for distress and inconvenience and £400 for her time and trouble. This is in addition to the loss of amenity compensation. The £200 already offered at stage 2 of internal complaints procedure for time and trouble may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
In June 2024, the Ombudsman made a determination of severe maladministration in response to a complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The Ombudsman made a ‘wider order’ under paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to address issues relating to the landlord’s damp and mould operations. As a result, the Ombudsman has considered it unnecessary to make any further orders at this time relating to the landlord’s learning with respect to damp and mould.

Complaint handling and record keeping

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) defines a complaint as an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The Code states that a landlord should respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint. It should respond at stage 1 of the internal complaints procedure (ICP) within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If a resident remains dissatisfied, it should escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the ICP and respond within 20 working days. The Code states that complaints which contain service requests should be dealt with in accordance with the landlord’s relevant policy (in this case the Repairs Manual).
The resident said that she complained on 21 September 2023. The landlord said that it had received the resident’s complaint on 7 November 2023. It is unclear which piece of correspondence the landlord considered as the complaint. The resident explained that she had first complained using an online complaint form on 21 September 2023, but this has not been seen by this investigation. However, we have seen a copy of the email she sent that same day in which she expressed her dissatisfaction. In view of what is reasonable, the Ombudsman considers that the resident’s email from 21 September 2023 should have been raised through the ICP. It was a failing that the landlord did not log her complaint until 7 November 2023.
The landlord did not provide a stage 1 complaint response until 6 January 2024. This was a significant and unreasonable delay, the reason for which is unclear. The resident expressed dissatisfaction throughout November 2023 at the time she had been told she would need to wait for a response to her complaint, as the landlord told her a response would be provided by 5 December 2023.This timeframe was not in line with the 10 working days set out in the Code. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not consider responding sooner given the serious nature of the issues being reported. That the landlord then took an additional month from the promised response date was a further failing.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s stage 1 response on 8 January 2024, but there is no record of an acknowledgment, and the landlord did not respond at stage 2 until 16 February 2024. This was a failing.
The landlord failed to acknowledge service requests contained in the resident’s complaint in a reasonable timeframe. It is likely that the landlord did not read the contents of the resident’s complaint until it came to respond to it. This meant that the landlord missed opportunities to respond appropriately and organise works. This failing was exacerbated because when the resident chased the landlord and tried to highlight her health and safety concerns, the landlord responded only by saying that a complaint was already open.
The stage 1 complaint response failed to address multiple points raised in both the 21 September 2023 and 3 November 2023 emails, for example the resident’s health concerns and request to be moved to temporary accommodation. The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to tell the resident about external works needed at the property. This was particularly unreasonable, because the main element of the complaint was about unresolved water ingress. The stage 2 was more detailed, but it still failed to respond to some elements, such as the resident’s health concerns.
The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor. There is no evidence it recorded its contact with the resident except for isolated references to phone calls and emails seen within the repair logs. The resident began copying the Ombudsman into many of her emails from December 2023 onward, limiting the impact the landlord’s record keeping had on this investigation.
The landlord’s repair logs however were inadequate due to a lack of detail. Important information such as who originally raised the repair and their description of the issue(s) were not contained in most records. The reasons for the timescales set for each repair were not given, meaning that it has not been possible for us to assess if the timescales were reasonable. The lack of any written surveyor’s reports was also a record keeping failure, and has impacted our ability to fully investigate this complaint.
In conclusion, due to unreasonable delays, poor record keeping, and by not handling the resident’s complaints in line with the Code, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping. The evidence shows repeated instances of distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that the resident went to as a result of the above failings.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there have been failings which adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right, compensation of over £100 should be considered. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord pay £250 to reflect the adverse effect experienced by the resident, as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In conversations between the Ombudsman and landlord in September 2024, the landlord explained that it had received a number of determinations which had highlighted failings in the landlord’s approach to Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The Ombudsman understands that a draft document relating to the landlord’s future KIM practices is currently ongoing. As such, the Ombudsman has made no further orders with respect to the landlord’s learning in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress and damp, mould at the property, and the resident’s associated request for temporary accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £1,150, made up of:
  1. £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings with respect to its handling of water ingress, damp and mould, and a request for temporary accommodation.
  2. £400 to reflect the time and trouble gone to by the resident for the same failings. The £200 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  3. £250 to reflect the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of compensation to reflect the ‘loss of amenity’ she suffered. This amount is to be equal to 15% of the net rent paid by the resident during the period 21 September 2023 to 16 May 2024. It must clearly evidence its calculations to the Ombudsman.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must instruct one or more independent surveyors to complete surveys of the entirety of the resident’s property. It should ensure the survey(s) take detailed information about:
1. Any sources of suspected or confirmed water ingress.
2. Any factors which may be contributing to damp and mould problems.
3. Any areas identified as being affected by damp or mould and any associated risk.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must produce an action plan, setting out how it will rectify any issues identified by the survey(s). This action plan should include timescales and consideration of whether it is reasonable for the resident to remain in the property during any works which may be required.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider if any steps need to be taken to ensure residents are given appropriate notice prior to attending to complete repairs.