Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Southwark Council (202344871)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344871

Southwark Council

31 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould at the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a ground floor, 2 bedroom flat with her family of 5. The resident has 2 children under the age of 11 and a child who was under the age of 1 at the time of the complaint. The property has a long history of damp and mould since the start of the tenancy in 2018. The evidence shows that this was severe, and suggests it may have caused or exacerbated health condition(s) in the property, as reported by the resident. The resident and landlord settled a disrepair claim in late 2022. A number of damp proofing works identified by a surveyor were concluded in April 2023.
  2. In December 2023 the resident reported that mould had returned. She complained on 7 December 2023 that despite numerous rounds of works over 5 years, the recurring mould issue at the property had not been resolved.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 December 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint that works had not been effective and raised an inspection for 21 December 2023. Following the inspection jobs to complete a mould wash and replace some extractor fans were raised.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 February 2024. She emphasised the adverse effect caused by the recurrent mould, including that she was using a portable heater and incurring costs. The resident added details about why she believed overcrowding in the property was contributing to the damp issues.
  5. The mould wash and replacement of extractor fans was completed on 9 February 2024. The resident chased the landlord on 24 February 2024.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 March 2024. It outlined the works that had been done in response to the resident’s complaint.
  7. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 7 March 2024. She said that the long term health impacts of the recurring mould on her and her family had been significant. She said that she had thrown away large amounts of personal items that had been affected. The resident wanted the landlord to complete a detailed survey of the property (and complete any recommended works), compensate the resident for the disruption and damage, and move the radiator in one of the bedrooms to a different wall.
  8. On 2 July 2024 the landlord completed a survey of the property. It noted that mould had returned in both bedrooms, the bathroom, kitchen and the living room. It made a number of recommendations and outlined possible causes. The resident reported that on an unknown date after this, the landlord attended and completed a further mould wash and some additional works. The resident reported in October 2024 that mould had begun to come back in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident explained that the issues complained about in this case date back to 2018. The resident reports having completed the internal complaints procedure (ICP) on a number of occasions previously. Paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) however states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s ICP. The resident first approached the Ombudsman in March 2024, meaning that complaints which were concluded prior to March 2023 are not included in this report..
  2. 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.
  3. In correspondence with both the landlord and this service, the resident indicated that she wished to be moved permanently into a different property. The Ombudsman is unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have a higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Guide states that non-urgent repairs, which includes damp assessments, should be completed within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report that mould had reappeared in the property on 7 December 2023 by arranging an inspection for 21 December 2023. During the inspection however, the landlord noted that there were non-functioning extractor fans at the property, which the Repairs Guide categorises as an urgent repair which should be completed within 3 days. It is understandable that there may have been some short delays due to the festive period. However, the delay until 9 February 2024 in completing these works was a failing.
  3. It is unclear what happened after this point, though it appears that the resident reported that the mould returned on an unknown date, leading to the landlord completing a “Condensation Assessment” on 2 July 2024. This survey found that the kitchen extractor fan was not working. It is unclear why this happened so soon after it was replaced, but there is no evidence of any failings in the initial works being the cause of this. The resident advised that the kitchen extractor fan was replaced or repaired, but it is unclear when this was.
  4. The survey also noted that changes to/replacement of the extractor fan in the bathroom was required. It also highlighted that damp in the bedroom was possibly a result of failed insulation. Internal emails following the previous survey conducted in December 2023 also highlighted the need to investigate insulation/boarding at the property, however there is no evidence this was done. While the resident reported that the landlord did again respond by completing a mould wash and repairing the extractor fans following the July 2024 survey, there is no evidence that the landlord has sought to further investigate the possibility of failed insulation at the property. This was a failing. The landlord’s ‘Focus on Damp and Mould’ document advises its residents that it will “always be thorough in [its] investigations and complete a full survey of your home and block” which includes “looking properly at the ventilation points, windows, doors and the walls/build” to make sure nothing is missed. An order to complete a survey of the insulation at the property has been made below to ensure this is put right.
  5. There is also evidence that the property being overcrowded may be contributing to the damp and mould problems. This is partly to be expected, because people produce moisture for example when breathing, cooking, or washing clothes. With more occupants in a home, the property has more moisture to contend with. It was also however advised by the resident that there are a lack of suitable places to store clothes for a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom flat. As a result, one of the bedroom radiators has been blocked by the resident’s wardrobe, as the resident reports it is the only suitable place it can be put. This was also noted by a surveyor on 2 July 2024.
  6. The resident reported that she asked the landlord to move the radiator to another wall, so that the room could be better heated to prevent damp as advised by the landlord. The resident reports that the landlord declined this request. The landlord’s policies and procedures do not offer any guidance on this, and so any decision not to move the radiator cannot be said to be a failing. The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence of the landlord’s considerations regarding this request, or a floor plan of the property, so the landlord may have good reasoning behind its reported decision.
  7. However, given the reported health conditions of the resident’s family and the reported vulnerabilities where damp and mould is concerned, alongside the long history of mould recurrence, it is important that the landlord takes a holistic approach to tackling the damp and mould issues. It is understood that the resident is trying to secure a permanent move to a new property, but it is likely this could take significant time to complete. As such, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation that the landlord take the time to assess the way in which the resident’s personal circumstances may be contributing to the damp and mould issues at the property, and consider any changes or adaptations it may be able to implement to reduce this. This should include considering (or reconsidering) moving the radiator in question to an alternative location.
  8. In conclusion, due to some short but unreasonable delays in completing works, and a failure to act upon multiple suggestions that the insulation at the property warranted further investigation, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. The evidence shows that this contributed to distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, including health anxiety for her children and frustration in dealing with repeating issues. The resident also reported that the issues at the property have impacted her chances of success in securing a mutual exchange. While the Ombudsman has seen no direct evidence of this, it is clear that securing a mutual exchange while mould is present would be challenging and limit the likely success of this option. The evidence also shows that the resident has gone to repeated time and trouble over these matters. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance states that where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident, compensation of over £100 should be considered. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £350 compensation in respect of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused.

Handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the landlord’s expectations when responding to a resident’s complaint. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made” and stipulates that landlords should “respond to all elements of a complaint”. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to respond to some elements, for example about the resident’s damaged items & health concerns. Although the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, it again failed to provide a response beyond this. This was a failing which caused frustration to the resident. The Ombudsman has not investigated if the landlord should have taken any action in response to these reports, because the damage mentioned was historic and not related to the period assessed in this investigation. However, the landlord is recommended to respond to these concerns in line with its policies and procedures. This may be for example by advising the resident of the process to make a claim against the landlord’s insurance, or against her own contents insurance, if appropriate.
  2. The landlord also did not appear to respond to the resident’s complaint about the costs of running a portable heater. It would have been appropriate to consider this element, and to check its policies and procedures in case there was reason to consider contributing to or covering these costs.
  3. In conclusion, by failing to respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint, there was a service failure in complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance states that where there has been a service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint, as in this case, compensation of over £50 should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 for the overall disappointment caused by this element of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
      1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble, caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould.
      2. £50 for failures in complaint handling.
    2. Instruct a surveyor to attend the property to conduct an in-depth survey of the insulation throughout the property, to ensure this is suitable and effective, and send a copy of the report to both the resident and the Ombudsman. If any works are required, it should also produce an action plan, setting out what works will be completed and within what time frames.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay consideration to the way in which the resident’s personal circumstances, such as overcrowding, may be contributing to the damp and mould issues at the property. It should consider if there are any changes or adaptations it may be able to implement to reduce the likelihood of these circumstances causing or contributing to the recurrence of damp and mound. This should include how to better heat and circulate air in the bedroom, for example by considering moving the radiator to an alternative location.
  2. The landlord should respond to the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould caused damage to property, person, or belongings, as well as incurring costs because of the need for a portable heater, in line with its relevant policies and procedures.