Bristol City Council (202402691)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in her kitchen in March 2024. She then complained the damp and mould was recurring and the landlord was ignoring her report. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

4. The landlord inspected the mould and advised the resident it was minimal and she was responsible for managing it. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.

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 have not investigated

6. The resident also told us the damp and mould affected her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

7. In her complaint of 21 March 2024, the resident said the landlord was ignoring her 8 March 2024 report of damp and mould. In its stage 1 response of 23 April 2024, the landlord acknowledged its response was delayed. However, it confirmed there was an appointment in place to inspect the extractor fans and inspect damp and mould when the resident raised the issue. It said it had called to make an appointment, but the resident had not answered due to a previous injunction regarding communication at the time. It said it had not ignored her request, but it should have explained that it was not urgent. This was an appropriate understanding that it should have managed the resident’s expectations better.
8. The landlord appropriately explained why it believed mould was occurring. This was due to condensation forming when heat from electrical appliances met cold surfaces in the kitchen. It offered advice on how to manage the condensation in the kitchen. It believed the resident was not heating the kitchen, based on a heating survey it had recently completed. It suggested heating the room could alleviate condensation. The resident disputed that her radiator was permanently off in her escalation, other than for a 3-week period. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it was trying to offer help to reduce condensation, which was an appropriate approach.
9. The landlord told the resident it had reviewed the photos of the mould and found it to be minimal and not high risk. It explained that it could not manage this. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy at the time, which confirmed the resident was responsible for cleaning minimal mould. Despite this, it confirmed its operative inspected the mould following her complaint. It found no mould, and no treatment was required as the resident had already cleaned it.
10. In her complaint escalation, the resident said the landlord was not qualified to review disputed the damp and mould at her property. She said it had not inspected mould behind her kitchen units, why water was leaking from her fire alarm or why her wallpaper was peeling. She also said the newly installed extractor fans should be replaced.
11. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that the resident was responsible for cleaning any minor mould in accordance with its damp and mould policy. As such, it said the resident was responsible for the mould behind her units. It took this further, agreeing to attend to any further reports of mould that presented a risk or the resident was unable to manage. It also offered to install a remote sensor to monitor condensation. This was a reasonable step to further manage the issue. There is no evidence that the resident agreed to this or reported the situation worsening at this time.
12. The landlord provided an appropriate response to the resident’s other concerns as follows:
    1. it stated its operative was suitably qualified to assess damp and mould as they were assessing the kitchen ventilation. The operative found the extractor fan to be working on 2 separate inspections. The landlord offered to upgrade the fans to ones it could monitor, which was a reasonable step. There is no evidence the resident responded to this
    2. it found no evidence of mould on the wallpaper. It said the resident was responsible for managing the wallpaper coming away from the wall. This was in accordance with its repairs policy
    3. it said there was no evidence of a current leak, and everything at the property was dry
13. In summary, the landlord apologised for the way it managed the resident’s expectations when she reported damp and mould. However, there were mitigating factors to this, which it explained. It advised her she was responsible for managing the mould it believed was minimal, in accordance with its damp and mould policy. It managed her expectations regarding internal decoration and the leak. It offered further steps to manage condensation in the property, but there is no evidence the resident responded to this.

14. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. It took 17 working days to provide its stage 1 response from its acknowledgement. It exceeded its timescale for response by 7 working days. There is no evidence that it updated the resident about the delay, as its policy suggests it should. It apologised for this delay in its stage 2 response. This was an appropriate remedy to the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delay.
16. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. However, it provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days, which was in line with its complaint policy.
17. In summary, we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its delayed stage 1 response due to its apology in its final response. Despite not acknowledging the resident’s escalation, it provided its stage 2 response within the timescale in its policy and the Code. We have suggested a learning point for this.

Learning

18. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. The landlord should ensure it acknowledges all complaints in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation into the complaint, which helped us understand events that had taken place.

Communication

20. Communication through the period of the complaint was limited to contact through the landlord’s solicitor due to an injunction in place at the time. The landlord acknowledged a failure to manage the resident’s expectations following a damp and mould report. However, it was attempting to appoint a mediator during this period to improve communication between the two parties.