Birmingham City Council (202004581)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004581

Birmingham City Council

22 April 2021


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 response to the resident’s reports of mould at her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 23 December 2019. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The landlord publishes a tenant’s handbook. Section 6 of the handbook notes that tenants are responsible for treating for mould caused by condensation. Section 7 of the tenant’s handbook gives information on how to prevent condensation in the property.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
  4. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The repairs policy notes that it is the tenant’s responsibility to take reasonable steps to avoid condensation causing damage in the property. The policy also notes the landlord is responsible for repairs to the external walls and porches.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that the resident reported mould on her front porch to the landlord in January 2020, and that the landlord subsequently treated the mould in February 2020. In August 2020, the resident reported that the mould had returned, and the landlord subsequently attended on 12 August 2020 and retreated the mould. The landlord has provided this service with its repairs log which also note these attendances.
  2. On 12 August 2020, the resident made a formal complaint. She referred to the above-mentioned reports of mould and also advised that there was heavy build-up of moisture in her property, resulting in further mould which had caused damage to a number of her possessions. She calculated the value of the damaged items to be £430 and subsequently requested compensation. She further noted she had been suffering breathing difficulties and headaches, which she attributed to the mould. She also provided photographic evidence of what appeared to be mould on various household items.
  3. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 August 2020. It advised it found “no evidence of negligence,” as it had carried out treatment following the resident’s reports, in line with its obligations. It further noted that it considered that the moisture build-up as described by the resident was condensation. It referred her to her tenancy agreement and advised that it was her responsibility to “take reasonable steps to avoid moisture building up within the home and causing damage.” It therefore denied liability and as such advised it would not be able to pay any compensation.
  4. On the same date, the resident advised she was dissatisfied with the response and reiterated that the mould was affecting her health. She advised she had opened windows to address the condensation, but it had not helped. She subsequently requested that her complaint be escalated.
  5. On 10 September 2020, the resident contacted this service and advised she had not received a response from the landlord following her request for an escalation. Following correspondence with this service, the landlord provided a further response on 16 September 2020. It advised that, based on the resident’s description of the issue, it considered that the condensation was caused by “failing to ventilate and heat your home sufficiently.” It subsequently gave detailed advice on how to prevent condensation issues. It concluded that its “decision remains the same and no evidence of negligence.”
  6. Following a query from this service as to whether the landlord’s correspondence was its final response under its internal complaints procedure, the landlord provided a final stage two response on 2 October 2020. It reiterated that it had carried out treatments following the resident’s reports to the external mould, and that the resident was responsible for internal condensation, and as such it was not responsible for any damage to her personal property.
  7. On 5 October 2020, the resident reported that her GP was sending her for a lung scan which and that she suspected that the mould in her property was the cause of her health issues. The resident was provided this service with a copy of an NHS letter noting she had a booking for a chest x-ray on 15 October 2020. The resident has advised this service, however, that she did not attend the appointment.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is responsible for treating mould on external walls, including the porch. It is not disputed that following the resident’s reports of mould on her porch, the landlord arranged for treatment, and subsequent further treatment, as per its repair responsibility.
  2. This service has not been provided with the full terms and conditions for the tenancy agreement, however, it is not disputed that the terms and conditions provide that the resident is responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent damage caused by internal condensation. This responsibility is also reiterated in the tenant’s handbook and the landlord’s repairs policy.
  3. Following the resident’s complaints regarding mould in her property, the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe and outlined its position that the internal mould at the property was likely to be due to condensation. Given the resident’s description of the excess water on her windows, along with the photographic evidence, this conclusion was reasonable. It was therefore also reasonable for the landlord to deny any liability and deny her request for compensation relating to any property damage. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is best practice to signpost residents to any insurance policies they may hold in instances such as this, which the landlord did not do.
  4. Following the resident’s reports that she had attempted to open windows to address the issue, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide her with a detailed list of other preventive measures to address her ongoing issues with condensation. Given that the resident continued to report issues with internal mould, however, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have carried out its own inspection of the property to fully understand the cause, as opposed to relying only on the resident’s description of the issue. The ombudsman notes, however, that the resident did not give any evidence to indicate an alternative cause for the internal damage, and so it was reasonable that the landlord upheld its findings in its stage two response.
  5. While the resident has expressed concerns that the conditions in her property have affected her health, this service has not been provided with any medical evidence that demonstrates any connection. Given that the landlord made its position clear that it was not liable for any issues resulting from excess condensation, it was reasonable for it not to request any further evidence on this point.
  6. The Ombudsman also considers it best practice to acknowledge a request for a complaint escalation within a reasonable timeframe. Following the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated, it is not evident that the landlord acknowledged the request, nor that it contacted the resident again until this service requested it do so. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this was not significant enough to constitute service failure in this instance.
  7. Additionally, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to clearly identify where a response is given as part of a landlord’s internal complaints procedure, which the landlord’s stage one response and further response did not do. Again, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was not significant enough to constitute service failure in this instance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould at her property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord appropriately carried out treatments to mould on the exterior of the building, in line with its repair responsibilities. It is not disputed that internal condensation is the resident’s responsibility. Based on the description given by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the issues were caused by excess internal condensation. It also gave appropriate advice on how to address this issue.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to take steps to ensure its responses made under its internal complaints procedure are clearly identified as such.
  2. Given that the resident has continued to report issues with internal mould, the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property within four weeks of the date of this determination in order to determine if there are any other potential causes for the internal mould.