London Borough of Barnet (202346010)

Background

1. The resident previously lived in one-bedroom flat with her 3 children. She explained that she and one of her children have asthma. In March 2022, she reported a draught from the bedroom window was making the room cold and leading to damp and mould. The resident complained to the landlord in March 2023 because she said the repairs it completed did not fix the issue. She moved out of the property in September 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of a draught from the bedroom windows and related damp and mould.
   2. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a draught, damp, and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Draught, damp, and mould

4. The landlord delayed addressing the damp and mould, failed to carry out the necessary repairs to the bedroom windows or a ventilation unit, did not keep the resident updated, failed to keep entirely appropriate records, and its compensation offer did not fairly recognise this.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its responses addressed the resident’s complaint points.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident explained her and her son’s asthma was affected by the issues at the property. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we investigated

7. The resident reported a cold draught from the windows leading to damp and mould in her bedroom to the landlord from 8 March 2022. However, it did not treat it as an emergency as it took 7 working days to initially attend on 17 March 2022 and only assessed the damp and mould and not the windows. It therefore attended this as a non-emergency repair under its responsive repairs policy, which should be completed within 15 working days of the order being raised.
8. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy was only created later on 27 February 2023. However, this says it should investigate to decide if there is an emergency or significant damp and mould hazard within 10 working days of becoming aware of this. The landlord’s initial damp and mould assessment was therefore in line with this timescale, as well as within its above non-emergency repair timescale.
9. The timeliness of the landlord’s initial damp and mould assessment also appears to have been in line with our spotlight report on damp and mould’s recommendations. This says landlords should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. This also says landlords should ensure their responses to damp and mould reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue, which the landlord’s records did not suggest was initially reported as an emergency.
10. When the landlord initially attended, however, it only advised the resident to move the beds slightly away from the bedroom walls and gave advice on condensation but took no other action. There was then a delay in it assessing the windows, as it took 26 working days after the initial report before it visited for this on 13 April 2022, contrary to its above policies and our report. The landlord’s records show the resident repeated the issues with the cold draught and related damp and mould at that point, and the operative noted that an inspector might need to attend, as it could not find any issues with the windows for it to fix. However, it also said there might be an issue with the quality of the windows/glass.
11. The landlord was therefore told in April 2022 that the resident was reporting outstanding problems with draughty windows and damp and mould that might need an inspector to attend. However, there is no record of it arranging for an inspector to attend or for the windows to be fully assessed at that time, or in a follow up visit, as suggested by the operative’s job notes. This was inappropriate.
12. The landlord then failed to update the resident or take any other action for this for another 6 months, until the resident reported damp and a build up of mould in the bedroom again on 23 September 2022. However, there was then another delay, as it took over a month for the landlord to send an operative to investigate the issue on 27 October 2022, who only suggested the beds should be moved away from the radiator. Its attendance 24 working days after the resident’s latest report was not in line with either of its policies’ above timescales. This also failed to include the full window assessment by an inspector recommended by the operative, which was inappropriate.
13. It was almost 9 months after the resident first began reporting an issue with the draughty windows in March 2022 that the landlord noted that works were needed for these and raised a job on 2 December 2022. It recorded that the bottom wooden board for both windows in the bedroom needed to be changed as there was mould. It is not clear when or how that was identified, but it then took more than a month before the landlord sent someone out again on 5 January 2023. This attendance 21 working days after the job was raised was again contrary to both of its policies’ above timescales, which was unreasonable. It is also very concerning that it took so long to raise the window job.
14. During the landlord’s January 2023 attendance for the windows, an operative replaced the silicone around the window, but there is no evidence of the wooden boards being replaced, as had been recommended in its December 2022 job order. By this point there had been extensive delays, as described above, and the landlord had overlooked a repair it had identified as being needed. This was contrary to our report’s recommendations for a zero-tolerance, timely approach to damp and mould that reflected the urgency of the issue, which was inappropriate.
15. The resident reported the same draughty bedroom window issues again on 24 January 2023, but there is no record of anyone attending, which led to her complaining about this almost a year after the problem was first reported on 6 March 2023.
16. The landlord’s job records show it associated the damp and mould with condensation from the number of people living in the property, and particularly to the bedroom being shared by 4 people. It therefore overhauled the bedroom windows for this 3 working days after the resident’s above complaint on 9 March 2023.
17. However, in response to the complaint on 24 March 2023, the landlord accepted it was wrong that it concluded that the damp and mould was only due to the number of people in the home. It accepted it needed to overhaul the windows, carry out a mould wash, and that there were gaps in between the wood around the windows and bricks that needed filling with cement. It therefore agreed to contact the resident to arrange this.
18. The landlord’s job notes from that time, also on 24 March 2023, say that it recognised it was an urgent job and that the window frames, or even the windows, might need replacing. Therefore, it should not have taken the landlord almost 9 months to identify an issue with the wood around the windows, and almost a further 3 months to set out what action it intended to take in March 2023.
19. A mould wash took place on 30 March 2023, which was 4 working days after it set out the above actions and therefore within its damp, mould, and condensation policy’s 5-working-day significant hazard response timescale. However, nothing else was completed for the above actions at the time. This is because the landlord’s attendance on 13 April 2023 could not carry out the above works for the windows outside the building because scaffolding was needed. It therefore rebooked the works to 2 June 2023 and then to 4 July 2023 and 1 September 2023 due to a lack of staff resources.
20. Nothing else was done in the meantime until a surveyor from the landlord’s healthy homes team visited on 29 June 2023. No damp was found but it recommended fitting a ventilation unit to help with condensation, although there is no evidence that was done.
21. The resident has told us that, despite the landlord rescheduling the repair to the bedroom windows for 1 September 2023, it was not done by the time she moved out, in September 2024. The landlord’s job sheet records work being completed for this on 1 September 2023, but not what that was. There is also a lack of evidence showing the resident was kept updated throughout the above period.
22. The only other job recorded by the landlord was a damp inspection on 18 April 2024, which found mould washes were needed at the property at that point. Therefore, this suggests the issue still needed to be addressed over 2 years after it was first reported in March 2022.
23. From March 2022, the landlord’s repairs seem to have been limited to a mould wash and silicone being replaced. The resident has said that, over the winter in 2022 and 2023, she had to have an electric heater running in the bedroom due to the cold draught, which she shared with her 3 children, and that this increased her energy bills. The landlord’s compensation and financial loss policy says the landlord can consider paying compensation for increased heating bills due to repairs. However, the resident did not give it evidence of her increased energy use for those periods.
24. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged the above delays in addressing the repairs, apologised for this, and offered the resident £250 total compensation. This was made up of £150 for the delays and £100 towards the additional heating costs.
25. We acknowledge the landlord accepted there had been failings, that delays meant the resident had to continually report issues, and led to her increased heating costs. However, the £250 compensation offered does not fairly reflect the significant effect this had on her over such a long period in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards from £600 for this.
26. The resident was living in a one-bedroom property and shared that bedroom with her 3 children. She and one of her children also had asthma. Its internal emails show that the landlord understood the resident lived in difficult conditions and was unlikely to be moved for a while. While the suggestion to move beds further away from the walls and radiator was well-intended, the landlord should have recognised that the resident was limited in what steps she could take, with 4 people sharing a bedroom. This should have also prompted it to deal with the matter more urgently.
27. The landlord did not carry out the repairs in a timely way and it should have given more consideration to the resident’s living situation, as there was nowhere else for the resident and her children to sleep. The landlord’s failure to repair the window which may have been causing the damp and mould for so long without offering compensation that reflected this was maladministration.
28. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to apologise, pay the resident its previous offer of £150 for the delay, and a further £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in dealing with the repair for 2 years. This award has taken into account that the landlord’s previous apologies, compensation offer, and partial works for the repair partly put things right.
29. The resident has not provided us with evidence of her increased energy costs from the time of her complaint, but the landlord accepted in March 2023 that a £100 payment towards that after a year would be fair under its policy. Therefore, as the resident spent another year without the repair being completed, it is reasonable to increase that by a further £100, to £200 in total. This is in line with our compensation guidance’s recommended range of compensation for when such failures negatively affect the resident. Therefore, we have also ordered the landlord to pay the £100 it previously offered and another £100 for her increased heating costs.

30. The landlord had a 2-stage complaints policy when the complaint was made. It said it must log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord’s definition of a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about its service or actions or omissions, and its response timescales, were in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
31. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the 6 March 2023 complaint promptly at stage 1 on 10 and 24 March 2023, respectively. Its response addressed the issue raised, acknowledged where there had been failings, and took steps to try and put things right. When the resident escalated the complaint at stage 2 on 10 July 2023, the landlord confirmed her reasons for doing so and again complied with its obligations. This is because it acknowledged and responded to this in line with the timescales set out in its policy on 17 July 2023 and 14 August 2023, respectively. It apologised for there being a delay in carrying out repairs and offered additional compensation to recognise that. The landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable, so there was no maladministration.

Learning

32. The landlord should have given greater consideration to the resident’s living conditions, when creating jobs to address the reported issues. The landlord ought to review how it can ensure a resident’s individual circumstances are taken into account when booking repairs. However, it did take appropriate learning to arrange staff training on damp and mould and make improvements on raising correct repair orders to try and stop its failures in handling this from happening again.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord’s job records were generally clear. However, in its complaint responses, it referred to a key issue being gaps between the wood around the windows and bricks. This was not mentioned on the job sheet it provided before responding to the complaint and it was unclear if the repair was carried out to the wooden boards or to fill in cement between the gaps. There is also no evidence that the ventilation unit recommended by the surveyor was fitted. The landlord ought to improve its record keeping to ensure its job records accurately reflect all the issues identified and action taken.

Communication

34. There is no evidence the landlord kept the resident regularly updated on the progress of the outstanding repairs throughout the period of her complaint. It ought to ensure all unresolved repairs are actively managed and that it keeps residents updated on what work will be done, and when, especially when follow-on work is needed.