South Kesteven District Council (202127106)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127106

South Kesteven District Council

14 May 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. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Provision of keys for the windows in the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an introductory tenancy. The tenancy started on 28 February 2022. The property is a two-bedroom, semi-detached bungalow, constructed in 1967. The landlord is a local authority. It has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures

The landlord has a repairing obligation under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling house in good repair.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The landlord’s damp and mould protocol stipulates that it will:
1. Within 14 days, conduct and log an inspection to assess severity.
2. Provide information on managing condensation.
3. Arrange any initial works within 28 working days.
4. Signpost residents to relevant agencies.
5. Decant where appropriate.
6. Advise residents of the completion of investigations and works and reaffirm any guidance.
The landlord’s void policy says it will ensure properties are bought up to the landlord’s current void quality standard (VQS) prior to being let. The VQS includes the following requirements on the landlord:
1. Check window locks are working and provide keys.
2. Install 24-hour trickle fans or a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit, depending on property requirements.
3. Ensure an exhaustive inspection whenever damp or mould is present and undertake whatever works are needed.
The VQS states that all properties will be let ‘damp free’. It notes that not all repairs will be carried out prior to re-letting. A new resident would be advised of any outstanding work during viewing and/or sign-up. The resident will be asked to sign to confirm the property is of an acceptable standard, with any repairs due after re-let clearly noted.
The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy sets-out 3 categories of repairs:
1. Emergency: The landlord will attend and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent: Within 5 working days.
3. Routine: Completed by appointment.
The landlord has told this Service that contractors make their own appointments with residents. The landlord does not document the rescheduling of repairs.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. All formal complaints are acknowledged within 3 working days. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where the landlord is unable to meeting these timelines, it will contact the resident to explain and set a date, which should be no later than a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

The void inspection report dated 8 November 2021, gives the ‘general condition of property’ as “poor”, and describes it as a “mouldy bungalow”. The works identified include:
1. ‘Mould treatment to appliance space’ in the kitchen.
2. ‘Undercoat/emulsion all walls following mould treatment.
3. Fit PIV. There are no extractor fans in the property.
On 2 February 2022 an internal landlord email sought confirmation that a ‘pre-works’ viewing could go ahead. On 3 February 2022 an email said snagging works were finished. The void property inspection was recorded as complete on 4 February 2022.
The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 17 February 2022, it indicates:
1. The ‘window locks and keys’ were not available at the viewing.
2. The question “have you been informed of safe and secure works and that any other works required will be undertaken once you move into the property”, is noted as, ‘no tba’.
On 22 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord to urgently address some issues with the property, as they were exacerbating his disabilities:
On 28 February 2022 the landlord completed ‘second stage works’, which it listed as:
1. Refix 2 loose drawers next to cooker space.
2. Reseal door trims to glass on back door.
3. Check lock as very temperamental.
4. [Lift] front door.
On 6 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord what was happening about the extraction units in the kitchen and bathroom, as they were supposed to be part of the snagging process.
On 7 March 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint, stating:
1. The property was not ready for occupation. He was told that all ‘snags’ would be dealt with immediately, but this had not happened.
2. Other ‘snags’ were not recorded. The windows could not be opened, and the shower had a dirty shower curtain and broken rail.
3. There were no extractor fans, resulting in moisture, damp and mould.
4. The property was cold and many of the storage heaters did not work.
5. There were too few cupboards in the kitchen.
6. The property had no carpets or curtains.
7. The electrics were unsafe.
8. The resident had disabilities and the issues in the property and delayed repairs were affecting his mental health.
On 8 March 2022 the resident told the landlord he was at work the next day, but could leave a key, which he asked the landlord to contact him about.
On 18 March 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 response, noting:
1. The offer of the property was made after matching with the resident’s circumstances and preferences was completed.
2. The landlord always offered properties during the void period.
3. The property was checked on 31 January 2022, when some snagging work was identified, which the landlord listed.
4. The resident viewed the property on 3 February 2022 and signed to say he was happy to accept the property ‘once ready to let’.
5. On 4 February 2022 the resident said he would like to move into the property as soon as possible and was happy for outstanding works to done while he was living there. It was confirmed that some second stage works would be completed when the resident was living there.
6. On 11 February 2022 the resident asked if the ‘snags’ had been completed. The housing officer was unsure what the ‘second stage snags’ were, but as the keys ‘were with lettings’, it was assessed that the works could be done with the resident in the property, as was standard practice.
7. The landlord had referred the resident to the household support fund and the resident would receive vouchers and a discretionary payment.
8. On 17 February 2022 the resident had a second viewing and signed the paperwork. The tenancy commenced on 28 February 2022.
9. On 24 February 2022 the resident reported a broken shower.
10. On 28 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that a new kitchen was required, the heating system, the toilet seat was broken, the shower rail was broken, the shower curtain needed replacing and extractor fans were required in the kitchen and bathroom.
11. On 28 February 2022 the ‘second stage works’ were completed.
12. The property had an electrical test as part of the void process.
13. The property may be due a heating upgrade. The landlord could help the resident set up the current system.
14. The shower curtain was replaced during the void process and the landlord had a photo to demonstrate this. It would look at fixing the curtain rail.
15. Extractor fans were missed during the void specification. The landlord would contact the resident to arrange an appointment for fans or a PIV to be installed. In the interim, the resident was asked ensure the bathroom and kitchen windows were opened to all any moisture to escape.
16. The kitchen was installed in 2017 and was not due an upgrade.
On 18 March 2022 the resident asked for his complaint be reviewed at stage 2 and the landlord responded to say it would escalate the complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 26 April 2022, reiterating the points in its earlier complaint and noting:
1. It had offered help with the heaters in the property, but the resident had not taken up this offer. The landlord was exploring options ‘to retrofit the heating system’, however the current heaters were working.
2. The landlord was scheduled to attend the property on 8 March 2022 to address the issue with the front door, however there was no one at the property. The repair was yet to be rebooked, as the resident had not contacted the landlord.
3. It apologised for the issue with the windows being missed in the stage 1 response, however it did not have any record of the issue being reported prior to the complaint. The landlord had now raised a repair and the resident would be contacted to arrange an appointment.
The landlord sent a further stage 2 information letter on 26 April 2022, saying:
1. It apologised for not covering the damp and mould element of the resident’s complaint. This was because the landlord had already told the resident it was proposing to install a PIV fan to deal with the issue.
2. This work had yet to be completed due to supply shortages, but the work had now been scheduled for 31 May 2022.
3. This element of the complaint was partially upheld, due to the delay in its ability to complete the work.

Events following the completion of the internal complaints process (ICP)

On 6 May 2022 the landlord installed an air source heat pump (ASHP).
On 20 May 2022 the landlord’s records show a ‘suspended’ appointment, which had been to look at the windows to ensure they opened. The appointment was rescheduled to 23 May 2022.
On 23 May 2022 the landlord inspected the windows at the property. It said no repairs were raised for the supply of window keys, however following contact by this Service it arranged for all window handles to be replaced for new, with keys left at the property. It booked the appointment for 2 August 2022.
On 24 May 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to provide the resident with a response to the issue of damp he had raised by 31 May 2022.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord recorded a job to install a PIV. No completion date is recorded. On 31 May 2022 the landlord attended to fit a PIV. The landlord’s notes say a voicemail was left advising the resident of the appointment date. When the landlord attended, no one was at home and a card was left asking the resident rebook. The landlord has said that following contact from this Service, it rebooked the appointment for 2 August 2022.
On 25 July 2022 the landlord recorded a job for ‘window handles need replacing’. No completion date is recorded.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord’s records show a ‘suspended’ appointment for “lockable handles throughout the property”. The ‘suspend reason’ was recorded as the resident not being aware of the appointment.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord visited the property, signed off installation of the ASHP and said it should aid with any issues of damp and mould.
On 16 December 2022 the landlord completed a mould and damp check. The ‘visual checklist’, noted:
1. There was a ‘musky’ smell in the property.
2. Window(s) were ‘streaming’ with water.
3. Window(s) had mould around the frame.
4. There was mould in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and hallway.
5. There was a flat roof over the backdoor porch that could be contributing to damp.
6. There bathroom did not have a working extractor fan.
7. The property did not have a working PIV.
8. The windows did not have trickle vents.
9. The gutters were not clear from vegetation and without signs of leaking.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord’s records state the resident was concerned the fans were not working properly. The landlord has commented that looking at the pictures of water running down the walls, the resident could be correct.
In December 2022 and January 2023, the resident sent images of mould in the bedroom.
According to the landlord’s records a ‘loft mounted extractor fan’ was installed on 21 April 2023.
On 15 December 2023 the resident told this Service that the issues with damp and mould were unresolved and had spread to the living room. The resident said the landlord was unresponsive and did not return phone calls. He said the ASHP did not work correctly and was subject to a separate complaint. Extractor fans had been installed but did not work.
The landlord told this Service on 9 January 2024 that there were no outstanding repairs.
On 25 January 2024 the landlord told this Service that “the fans had been working all along however, flexi hose has been used in the loft instead of solid plastic hose, which makes the system less efficient”. The landlord said attendance to upgrade to solid plastic pipe, “is in hand” and a compensation payment of £50 had been authorised to be paid to the resident. The landlord provided a certificate of work to a circuit in the loft dated 4 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

On 6 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord about extractor fans, which were part of the ‘snagging’ process. On 7 March 2022, the resident complained that their absence, was causing moisture, damp, and mould. The landlord acted reasonably, in acknowledging the failing and saying it would arrange an appointment for fans or a positive input ventilation (PIV) to be installed.
The next communication from the landlord was on 26 April 2022, when it said the installation was delayed due to supply shortages but was now scheduled for 31 May 2022. It is recognised that supply issues are outside of the landlord’s control, however on both occasions updates on the PIV installation were prompted by a complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not adopt a proactive approach both to the installation and the communication about it.
The landlord was unable to access the property on 31 May 2022. An appointment was rebooked for 2 August 2022, but the resident was unaware, and it did not go ahead. According to the landlord’s records, on 19 December 2022, the fans appeared to not be working correctly. A subsequent record states that the a ‘loft mounted extractor fan’ was installed on 21 April 2023. On 25 January 2024 the landlord told this Service that the fans had been working all along, however there was an issue with the hose. It is unclear when and how the extraction issues were diagnosed and resolved. Effective knowledge and information management (KIM) is essential to enable a landlord to fulfil its repairs obligations. The landlord’s KIM did not support the swift and efficient resolution of the issues in this case.
The landlord attended the property on 8 August 2022 and said the ASHP should help with any damp and mould issues. It did not however conduct an inspection to see what those issues might be. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord conducted or considered conducting an inspection, prior to the nine-month tenancy check on 6 December 2022. Considering the voids report that described the property as ‘smelly’ and ‘damp’, the delays in installing a PIV and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, this was unreasonable.
It is noted that although the landlord’s damp and mould protocol stipulates that inspection reports should be logged on the repairs system, it does not indicate when an inspection should be considered or the triggers for conducting one. This is an omission and means there is not a robust and consistent process for deciding when an inspection is required.
The protocol notes that mould does not present the same risk to all tenants and that some are particularly vulnerable. It is concerning that in correspondence to the landlord on 22 February 2022 the resident said that issues with the property were exacerbating his disabilities. That email did not refer to damp and mould, but it did suggest the resident could be vulnerable.
The mould and damp check on 16 December 2022 recorded a number of issues, including the presence of mould in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and hallway. It is unclear from the evidence seen by this Service, what, if any remedial action has been taken by the landlord to address these issues. On 15 December 2023 the resident told this Service that issues of damp and mould were unresolved and had spread to the living room.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged the fans were missed during the void process. It did not however offer an apology, nor did it compensate the resident. As such, the landlord did not offer redress. Furthermore, as set out previously, it is not clear that the landlord has put things right and there is no evidence that the landlord has derived learning from the case.
Therefore, taking all factors into consideration there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Provision of keys for windows in the property

The QVS requires the landlord to check all window locks are working and provide keys. Although the tenancy agreement indicated the window locks keys were unavailable, this was reasonable as QVS states that not all repairs will be carried out prior to re-letting.
However, the QVS also stipulates that in the event of outstanding repairs, the acceptance form will clearly note what repairs are due. In answer to the question about whether the resident had been informed of works to be undertaken, the response entered on the form was, “no tba”. The landlord acted inappropriately in not providing writing notification of the works to be carried out once the resident moved in.
The landlord addressed the windows issue in its stage 2 response. It apologised for not including this at stage 1, saying it had no record of the resident reporting a repair. The landlord’s explanation was unreasonable and seems to misunderstand its obligation. The landlord was responsible for providing the keys when the resident signed the tenancy agreement. As the landlord did not do so prior to the resident moving in, it was responsible for providing written notification and for resolving the issue thereafter.
The landlord was scheduled to inspect the windows on 20 May 2022, this was rearranged for 23 May 2022. No repairs were raised, but following contact from this Service it arranged for the window handles to be replaced and the keys left at the property. An appointment was booked for 2 August 2022, but ‘suspended’ as the resident was not aware of the appointment. It is unclear from the information seen by this Service, if or when the work was complete.
Taking all factors into consideration, there was service failure in the landlord’s provision of keys for the windows in the property.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 7 March 2022. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 March 2022. This was within its target response time. On 18 March 2022 the resident asked for his complaint to be reviewed. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 26 April 2022. This was 6 days after the landlord’s target response time of 20 working days.
The landlord did not use the complaints process to affect a lasting resolution to the issues raised by the resident:
1. The stage 1 response did not address the issue with the window locks. The landlord said this was because the resident had not raised a repair was unreasonable, as it was the landlord’s responsibility to address the issue as part of the voids process.
2. The stage 2 response did not address the issue of damp and mould.

The supplementary stage 2 response provided by the landlord explained this omission as being because it had already communicated about the PIV. However, the installation of the PIV was a legacy requirement of the voids process. It was unreasonable of the landlord to assume that this would resolve an issue that it had not accessed.

The landlord did not consider if the resident was vulnerable, despite the resident having said previously that issues with the property were exacerbating his disabilities.
Therefore, taking all factors into consideration there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Contrary to the requirements of the void inspection, the landlord did not install extractor fans or a PIV until after the resident submitted a formal complaint. It failed to act on the resident’s reports of damp and mould and did not conduct a check or inspection for 9 months. The landlord’s KIM did not support an effective or efficient resolution of the issues, which the resident has told this Service remain unresolved.
Although the landlord was not obligated to complete all works prior to the resident moving into the property, it was required to provide written notification of those outstanding, which it did not do. This included provided working window lock keys. The landlord did not address this until the resident submitted a formal complaint. It is unclear from the information provided by the landlord, if or when the issue was resolved.
The landlord did not use the complaints process to affect a lasting and enduring resolution to the substantive issues of this complaint. The landlord did not consider if the resident had vulnerabilities that would impact its handling of the complaint or the issues the resident had raised.

Determination (the decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect to the landlord’s provision of keys for the windows in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

Apologise to the resident.
In addition to the £50 paid by the landlord to the resident after completion of the ICP, the landlord must pay the resident a further £450 compensation. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not a rent or service charges account. This comprises:
1. £300 for the time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £100 for the time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings in the landlord’s provision of keys for the window locks.
3. £50 for the time and trouble, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
Write to the Ombudsman to confirm it has provided keys to the window locks, or setting out how and when it will do so.
Write to the Ombudsman to set out how and when it will survey any damp and mould in the property.

Within 2 weeks of the completion of the damp and mould survey (as above), the landlord is ordered to:

Provide a copy of the survey to the resident and Ombudsman.
Set out the actions it will take to effect a lasting resolution to the issues identified in the survey, together with a timeline for the associated works (should issues be identified within the survey).

Within 3 months of the date of this report:

The landlord must review its damp and mould protocol so that it includes:
1. A robust and transparent process for assessing when an inspection should take place.
2. The process for documenting and recording that consideration for assessment.

The landlord should provide a copy of the updated protocol to this Service, set-out any resulting changes to working practise and identify any training needs that arise from this.

The landlord must review its voids processes, with specific attention to the works identified during the voids inspection. The landlord should write to this Service setting out how it will:
1. Ensure clear and transparent documentation of any works outstanding when a resident moves in.
2. Ensure residents know when and how these works will be addressed.
3. Ensure it has oversight of the works, including those undertaken by contractors, so that the landlord proactively monitors completion of works in accordance with the timelines provided to residents.