Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (202222142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222142

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council

15 April 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:
1. Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground floor flat within a block of 4 purpose built flats. She purchased the property on 30 June 2021. The landlord is a local authority and has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident has told this Service that she is disabled.

Landlord’s obligations

The lease says the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, gutters and external pipes. It also says the landlord will make good any defect affecting the structure.
The landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy from June 2022 says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s redress policy from April 2021 says claims involving personal injury and where legal action has commenced are excluded from its policy. It says where a claim relates to property damage or loss its insurance provided would deal with such claims.
The landlord’s complaints resolution policy from 2020 adopts a 2 stage process.
1. Stage 1 – a response will be provided within 10 working days. With an extension of a further 10 working days if agreed with the resident.
2. Stage 2 – a response will be provided within 14 working days.
The landlord’s corporate complaint handling guidance from August 2022 amends the timeframe of a stage 1 response to 20 working days and 15 working days for a stage 2 response.
The landlord has said its Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy would have referenced damp and mould, damages and insurance claims. It say it has been unable to find a copy of its policy and it has since been replaced with another policy from January 2024.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould: it’s not a lifestyle, published in October 2021 made recommendations for landlords. These recommendations included:
1. Landlords should identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping the resident informed.
2. Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident and landlords should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.
3. Landlords should ensure that their response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should have a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.

Summary of events

The landlord has provided a copy of its damp inspection from 22 September 2021. It said:
1. No evidence to show there was a fault with the damp proof course at that time.
2. The existing air ventilator should be sleeved through the internal masonry beneath the ground floor joist. The sub-floor void of the property was substantial and “it was important” that through floor ventilation be provided with replacement of ventilators with 150mm x225mm design.
3. The external inspection found a noticeable gap in the brickwork and said this was “obviously” an area where rainwater penetration could occur.
4. Recommended the removal of the “sparsely” insulated cavity insulation and subsequently install insulation in accordance with the standard at that time.
5. Recommend repointing works be carried out at the base of the walls.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord told the resident that it had raised work after its survey. The work included, amongst other things, air ventilation including floor ventilation, removal of debris between the wall cavity, removal of and installation of new cavity insulation, repointing works, work to elevate sitting groundwater from access path and clearing of gutters. It said it was “confident that the issue of cold bridging and damp would be fully resolved”. It explained that its procedure meant it could not conduct remedial work internally for leaseholders and provided the resident with its insurers’ details. It said the external work would begin within a 20 day period. The landlord’s repair log notes the completion of the work on 29 November 2021.
On 30 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord questions about the work which included, amongst other things, if it would apply a damp course and if work would be done to the chimney. She said that after its email, she felt there was little or no point in pursuing an insurance claim.
On 9 November 2021 the landlord’s repair log noted that it was to inspect the drainage for the front and side of the property. Following this on 23 November 2021 it made a request for a structural survey and said “property appears to have twisted along DPC level” and that the drainage was being investigated for signs of collapse.
A structural inspection report from 29 November 2021 said, amongst other things:
1. The joints above the doors have weathered and require re-pointing.
2. An old repair to a vertical crack extending below a window and work to the damp proof course on the ground floor window had been carried out to a poor standard of workmanship.
3. The area below the floor was dry at the time of inspection.
4. There was no evidence to suggest significant movement of the foundations.
5. Due to the depth of the void beneath the ground floor, the external cavity wall was acting as a retaining wall to the external ground and increasing the thickness of the cavity wall below ground level would help the wall to act as a suitable retaining wall.
6. The concrete benching around the rainwater down pipe to the rear elevation was poor and repairs should be carried out to ensure the down pipe was not leaking.
In December 2021 the landlord attended to investigate the drain issues. The resident has said the landlord identified a broken pipe at that time. Following this, in January 2022 the landlord’s repairs log shows it was discussing work to the drains. The resident has said that it installed vents and completed work to drains and chimney around that time.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord instructed its surveyor to carry out a full cavity wall inspection and property survey. The repairs log shows this was completed on 18 August 2022 and it was allocated a 60 working day timeframe for works.
On 21 July 2022 the resident called the landlord to make a formal complaint about damp and mould in the property and the time taken to carry out works. She told the landlord of the worsening condition of the property. The resident said the landlord completed an inspection that day and told her that the previous work completed was “sub-standard”. She said this meant her flooring would need replacing due to the damage.
On 1 August 2022 the landlord visited the property and on 4 August 2022 it responded to the resident’s complaint.
1. Removal of chimney – it said the delays for this work were due to appeals from another resident. It said the appeal was received in March and once it addressed this, it received another appeal. It said matters had resolved.
2. Damp and mould – it agreed the works carried out at the beginning of the year were not to the level it would expect. It said it had arranged for another contractor to inspect the property and said it completed some work in July 2022. It said the work included clearing the cavity of the insulation fibres, removal of the bonding bead, rubble discovered under the damp proof course and removal and refitting of the air vents. It said once the cavity had dried its contractor would schedule an appointment for it to refill the cavity with new bonded bead. It explained it would then inspect the work and monitor the damp readings to see if the readings had improved.
3. It told the resident to claim compensation for redecorating and replacing flooring through its insurance provider. It said it was not its policy to replace decorations or personal possessions damaged as a result of a delay in carrying out a repair or “resolving an issue e.g damp”.
4. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as it agreed the works done to the cavity wall were not to an acceptable standard. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience and said it was doing everything it could to put things right.
On 15 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and told it that its surveyor was “confident” that the work would “fully” resolve the damp issue at the property. She said December 2021 was when she had started using other rooms in the property. She said the damage caused to internal aspects of the property were due to the landlord’s failings.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord again said that the original work was not completed to a satisfactory standard but had since been completed. It also said that:
1. After the completion of the work its surveys found the damp issues remained at the property. It said that this meant the original works undertaken had not contributed to the issues at the property.
2. Its surveys found the damp readings remained high and it continued to monitor the property.
3. Followings its visit on 24 August 2022 the resident showed the landlord the property and explained her concerns. It said despite the “in-depth surveys and inspections” carried out, it was yet to identify any areas of significant damp.
4. It said further surveys, checks and monitoring would be needed with the possibility of further work being undertaken and it explained it would keep the resident updated.
5. It repeated its previous position on compensation and told the resident to submit a claim through its insurance provider.

After internal complaints process

On 4 January 2023 the landlord provided a copy of its stage 2 response to the resident’s solicitor. It said its response from 26 August 2022 acknowledged the ongoing need for investigation and repairs. It said it had satisfactorily completed external works to the building which included drainage, roof repairs, pointing, investigations, surveys and insulations works. It said there were no known repairs or defects to the fabric of the building. It referred the resident to its insurer for damage to belongings and interior fixings.
On 12 January 2023 the resident disputed the landlord’s position and said the works remained outstanding and that the landlord had not fulfilled its obligations under the lease.
On 1 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and her legal representatives and said:
1. It had almost completed the repointing work and was awaiting the chimney works at the adjacent property to be completed before it finished the last 5%. It said it had decided to complete the repointing work a year ahead as it was working on site. It said the repointing had not caused any of the original damp issues.
2. It had extracted all the cavity wall and was waiting for the wall to dry and said it needed to be left for a few weeks and filled once the weather was dry. It said it had discussed this with the resident.
3. It offered a mould wash to the internal areas of “small…surface mould”. It said it had discussed this with the resident and agreed it would arrange this after the completion of works. It said “the mould is surface and minimal and in small corners where the walls are covered with no ventilation inside”. It added that the property was not ventilated properly, where it was humid inside and added that the resident has accepted she did not have the heating on in the past.
4. Damp readings had come down but said this was a separate issue to the repointing work.
On 24 February 2023 the resident’s solicitor said, amongst other things, that she disagreed with the landlord’s comments that the repointing work had no impact on the damp issued within the property. It quoted the landlord’s email from 23 September 2021 and said its opinion meant the pointing was in fact contributing to the damp issues.
On 5 March 2023 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord about it not fulfilling its repairs obligations and the loss and damage caused to the resident. Here the resident explained the financial loss she suffered due to the work not being completed appropriately by the landlord.
The resident has provided a video recording from 25 April 2023 to demonstrate wet walls within the property.
On 12 May 2023 the landlord provided the resident with an update and said:
1. Some work would be completed once the scaffolding had been removed and it would compare the recommendations with the work it had carried out.
2. It explained the ventilation system.
On 19 and 26 May 2023 the resident said the repointing work remained outstanding and asked when the landlord would do this. She said it had not addressed the issues about the commencement of works to seal the brickwork at the property and said 6 months had passed.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord completed another damp survey of the property. This found:
1. No high readings on any external facing walls and no signs of salt or damp stained wall plaster.
2. Black spot condensation mould growth in the rear bedroom.
3. The completed repointing work looked to be in good condition visually.
4. It recommended an installation of a ventilation unit above the front door to help alleviate black spot condensation mould growths.
5. It recommended an upgrade of the bathroom fan.
6. It also recommended an inspection of the cavity wall insulation and that it investigate the drainage.
From July 2023 onwards the resident continued to report further humidity and damp readings. The Service has been provided with photographs which show staining on the walls.
From March 2023 to November 2023 the resident was liaising with the insurer about her claim. On 1 October 2023 the resident provided the insurer with pictures of damaged belongings which included clothes and bedroom furniture which she said were damaged by damp.
On 12 October 2023 the insurer told the resident that it had been liaising with the landlord to determine the particular defect that caused the condensation and damp issues. On 15 November 2023 the resident received a response about her insurance claim. The insurer said that the scheduled works at the property had been completed and the landlord did not consider the damp issues to have been caused by any of the structural defects. It said the landlord gave “environmental/lifestyle reasons” with the main cause suggested as the property not being adequately ventilated or heated.
On 5 February 2024 the resident told this Service that she could provide witness statements to support that she opened her windows daily. She said she was registered disabled and struggled with heavier chores.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property

The landlord acted reasonably in conducting a damp inspection on 22 September 2021. Here the following recommendations were made:
1. Air ventilation through the floor.
2. Removal of debris between the cavity and constructed walls. Including the removal of sparsely installed cavity installation and to replace this in accordance with the standard at that time.
3. To complete repointing works.
The following day the landlord told the resident of the planned works in reference to the above points and added that it would also elevate sitting groundwater from the access path and clear gutters. Here it told the resident that it was confident the work would resolve the issue of cold bridging and damp within the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the findings of its damp inspection to attempt to resolve the issues at that time.
The landlord’s repair log noted that the property “appears to have twisted” along the damp proof course level and it appropriately completed a structural inspection on 29 November 2021. This inspection found, amongst other things:
1. Increasing the thickness of the cavity wall below the ground level would help the external wall act as a suitable retaining wall.
2. Repairs should be carried out to the down pipe to ensure it is not leaking.
Between December 2021 and January 2022 the landlord attended to investigate the drain issues at the property. It is accepted that it installed vents and completed drain works at that time.
On 29 June 2022 the landlord appropriately conducted another inspection of the property, which it said was for a full cavity wall inspection and a property survey. Despite requests, this Service has not been provided with a copy of this survey report. However, the resident’s complaint from 21 July 2022 explains that the landlord completed an inspection that day and she was told the previous work it completed was “sub-standard”. The landlord’s stage 1 response accepted this and explained the work it had done in July 2022 was to rectify the issue.
However, it took the landlord until its stage 2 response on 26 August 2022 to identify that it still did not know the cause of the damp and mould at the property. The landlord’s failure to identify this sooner was not reasonable.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord said it would continue to investigate the cause of damp and mould at the property. However, it took it until June 2023 to conduct another damp survey. This timeframe of almost a year after its stage 2 response was not appropriate.
In addition to the above, it took the landlord until February 2023 to offer the resident assistance with the mould cleaning within the property. It also took it until May 2023 to offer a ventilation system to help with the management of humidity. It is unclear whether it has completed this work and the evidence shows the resident has continued to provide it with further humidity readings from the property and photographs showing staining on the walls.
While the landlord did initially conduct a survey and inspections of the property to establish the cause of the damp and mould, it is unclear whether it has completed all the work recommended by its surveyor.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to monitor whether the work it initially completed resolved the damp and mould issues. This meant the resident had to tell it of the worsening conditions of the property and escalate the issue via a complaint. It is unclear when the landlord was made aware of the returning damp and mould at that property, the evidence shows that it would have known by no later than July 2022. However, once it was aware the work had not resolved the damp and mould issues in August 2022, it failed to act quickly to identify the complex case at an early stage and took a further 11 months to complete another damp survey of the property.
The resident has said that she relied on the landlord telling her its initial work would resolve the damp and mould issues and redecorated her property. It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some distress in finding out the damp and mould had returned after she had installed new flooring and further by the landlord’s delay in conducting further investigations in to the cause.
The landlord’s actions here were not appropriate and amount to maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s request for compensation

Within the resident’s complaint from 21 July 2022 she told the landlord about her needing to replace flooring due to damage as the previous work it completed to the property was “sub-standard”. While the landlord accepted the previous work was not completed to a satisfactory standard it continued to provide the resident with its insurer’s details in its stage 1 and 2 responses.
It is accepted that the landlord’s redress policy, applicable at that time, explained that claims relating to damage or loss should be directed to its insurer. However, when considering the circumstances of the case, the landlord could have adopted a more flexible approach to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in finding out its previous work was not completed satisfactory.
It is also noted that within the insurer’s response from November 2023 it said the landlord had given environmental and lifestyle reasons as the main cause of mould within the property. While it is not in the Service’s jurisdiction to comment on the merits of an insurance claim, what the insurer has said has been considered here and the comments made by the landlord were not in line with what its damp surveys found at that time. This was not appropriate.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 21 July 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 August 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint at that time and appropriately apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord appropriately treated the resident’s contact from 15 August 2022 as an escalation request and issued its stage 2 response on 26 August 2022. However, its stage 2 response did not say it upheld the resident’s complaint. Instead it said that despite the correction work the damp and mould issue continued, which it said meant the “not satisfactory” work did not contribute to the damp and mould issues.
It was clear that the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s initial work not resolving the damp issues, when it told her it would. However, the landlord’s response did not appropriately address this or explain why it was not “partially” upholding her complaint. The landlord’s failure to explain its decision on the complaint within its stage 2 response has left the resident feeling it did not “partially” uphold her complaint. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of
1. reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to monitor whether the work it initially completed resolved the damp and mould at the property. It then failed to act quickly when it knew the work had not resolved the issues and took 11 months to complete another damp survey. It remains unclear whether the issue has since been resolved.
The landlord told the insurer that “environmental/lifestyle” reasons were the main cause of mould within the property, it said this despite its damp surveys not confirming this.
While the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint within a reasonable time it did not appropriately address the resident’s complaint or explain why it did not uphold it within it stage 2 response, if that was the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,450 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the highlighted failings relating to its handling of damp and mould.
2. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings relating to its handling of the resident’s request for compensation.
3. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord conducts an inspection of the property to assess its condition and decide the further work required, if any. An appropriate specialist should conduct this inspection. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, the landlord should provide a copy of its survey report to this Service and the resident and confirm:
1. If further work is required to the property. If so, it should explain what is required and provided a schedule of work.
2. The measures it will put in place to monitor whether the proposed works remedy the damp and mould issues at the property.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to consider if it needs to clarify the cause of damp and mould with the insurer in light of the findings in this report and to:
1. Provide to the resident and this Service evidence of its clarification to the insurers, or
2. If it decides a referral to the insurer is not required provide an explanation to the resident and this Service, relying upon evidence.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) if the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its approach to damp and mould. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and should be conducted by a team independent of the area responsible for the failings identified within this report. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, including why it took as long as it did to conduct further investigations into the cause of damp and mould at the property.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure, for a period from July 2022 to present.
3. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
  1. The findings and learning from the review.
  2. Recommendation on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
  4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings.
4. Conduct a self-assessment against the recommendations made within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
5. The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.