City of Wolverhampton Council (202208586)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208586

Wolverhampton City Council

30 October 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bedroom.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured resident of the landlord and has lived at the property since October 2017. The landlord is a local authority, its housing stock is managed by an arm lengths management organisation (ALMO). Both the local authority and the ALMO will be referred to as ‘the landlord’ in this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to make the distinction between the two. The property is a 1 bed first floor flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 4 February 2021, the resident reported an issue with damp and mould in her bedroom. The landlord inspected the property 7 working days later and identified that fungi treatment was required. It said it completed the work on 17 May 2021, however the resident disagreed and said to the landlord that the work was done in November 2021.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 8 May 2022. The complaint was about the landlord’s handling of her report of damp and mould in her bedroom. The resident also shared details of the damage caused to her belongings and expressed frustration at the landlord telling her that the damp and mould werecaused by her lifestyle. The evidence shows that the landlordreplied to the resident’s email complaint on 16 May 2022, to book an inspection of the damp and mould.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the damp and mould in the bedroom on 6 June 2022. It applied ultratherm and skimmed the bedroom window wall. and then completed the repairs by 26 August 2022. The landlord also identified that some external repairs were required and carried out those by 12 September 2022. The resident informed this Service that the landlord’s actions in 2022, had resolved the damp and mould in the bedroom.
Between June 2022 and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord twice requesting an update to her complaint and compensation for her damaged belongings. On 30 June 2022, the landlord signposted her to its website for information on making a compensation claim. The resident made a claim to the local authorityon 1 July 2022.
On 15 August 2022, and after the intervention of this Service, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint but did not explain which element of the complaint it applied to. It also acknowledged that the resident’s insurance claim was pending and offered £200 compensation to the resident to “prevent further distress”. It explained that if she accepted the offer of compensation, her insurance claim would be closed and she would not be able to pursue the matter further. The resident rejected the offer because she felt it did not cover the cost of replacing her damaged items.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 April 2023. It confirmed that in keeping with its complaint policy, it could not consider a complaint which was being dealt with as an insurance claim. It explained that, whilst the repairs reported in February 2021 and August 2022 were completed within its published timeframe of 90 days, the repairs reported in May 2022 were not. It apologised for its failing and partially upheld her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service to raise a complaint about her landlord. She said the complaint was about its handling of her reports of damp and mould, the associated repairs and the level of compensation offered. The resident is seeking a level of compensation which reflects the inconvenience she experienced as a result of the issue.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles require landlords to:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her and her partner’s health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
Additionally, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident said the damp and mould had damaged some of her belongings and she made a compensation claim against the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts.
The Ombudsman also recognises that the resident was dissatisfied with the handling of her claim by the insurer. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions of an insurer. Complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Reports of damp and mould in the bedroom

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents. In this case, the resident said that in 2017, she experienced an issue of damp and mould in her living room. While this was not part of the resident’s complaint, it offers some context. In February 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom. She said this caused her some distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. It is recognised that the Spotlight report was published after some of the resident’s report of damp and mould. Nevertheless, the good practice, principles and processes to manage damp and mould, applied prior to spotlight report’s publication. In February 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom. In keeping with its repairs policy and the Ombudsman’s recommendations, the landlord attended 7 working days later to inspect the bedroom. It identified the work required and raised an order to complete the job. This was reasonable, it showed that the landlord took the issue seriously and prompt actions once it received the resident’s reports.
However, while the landlord said it completed the repairs within its set timeframe of 90 working days, the resident disagreed. She said the work was completed approximately 182 working days after the landlord inspected the property. Whilst she shared this with the landlord, it failed to demonstrate that it had challenged her version of event and she was mistaking. Therefore, without evidence to dispute this, it is reasonable to consider the resident’s records as accurate.
As mentioned above, the landlord said it completed the repairs it had identified in February 2021. It said that, in accordance with its repair policy, it completed the repairs within the 90 working days timeframe. However, its policy states that it will complete any damp and mould remedial work within 20 working days of an inspection. In this case, the landlord completed the repairs 162 working days outside its published timeframe. It did not show that it discussed or explained the delays to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated and to resolve the issue in accordance with its policy. The landlord’s failing to do this, caused some distress to the resident. She expressed concerns for her health and reported some damage to her belongings.
The landlord acknowledged that following an inspection in June 2022, it identified that further remedial repairs were required to address the damp and mould in the bedroom. It recognised, in its stage 2 response, that it failed to complete the repairs within its published timeframes. While it apologised to the resident for its failing, it did not identify that it also failed to keep the resident updated and explain the reason for the delay. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, especially as the landlord repeated the same failings as the previous year. This impacted the resident and landlord relationship. The resident lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the issue.
Additionally, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties, such as risks from damp and mould. Under HHSRS, damp and mould are considered as “category 1 hazards”, which can have a severe impact on health. The landlord should be aware of its obligations and that it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
However, in this case, the landlord did not show that it monitored and measured the humidity, looked at the building and the neighbouring properties or considered whether a specialist surveyor was required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out further investigative work into the damp and mould. In doing so, it would have had a better understanding of the root cause. This would have also reassured the resident that it had fully investigated the issue and applying fungi treatment and ultratherm would resolve the matter. This was especially important to the resident, who had experienced re-occurring issues of damp in her property. It would have also shown that the landlord was sensitive to that fact.
Furthermore, the evidence seen shows that the landlord concluded that the resident’s lifestyle caused the damp and mould. It did not explain how it came to that conclusion. It failed to demonstrate that, in keeping with its policy to adopt a ‘fabric first approach’, it initially assumed that the issue was a property related cause. As mentioned above, it did not show that it fully investigated the matter. It was unreasonable for the landlord to assume the resident’s lifestyle was the cause of the problem without a throughout investigation. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident why it thought that her lifestyle was causing the problem. This caused some distress to the resident who said she was unfairly blamed for the damp and mould in her property.
The landlord’s website states that if a resident has suffered a financial loss or personal injury because it made a mistake, it might agree to pay the resident compensation. It states that all claims for compensation are managed by the local authority.
The resident informed the landlord at her stage 1 complaint that some of her belongings had been damaged by the damp and mould in her bedroom. The evidence shows that in June 2022, the landlord informed her that she could make a compensation claim to the local authority. While these were reasonable actions from the landlord, it did not explain the delay of approximately 2 months to advise the resident on her options. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to clarify her options when she first raised the issue. The landlord failed to recognise how distress the resident was that her belongings had been damaged.
It is acknowledged that in June 2022, the landlord signposted her to its website for information on how to make a claim. However, the evidence does not show that the landlord discussed with the resident the process for making a claim or that the local authority would manage the claim. In June 2022, it also failed to explain that in keeping with its complaint policy, it could not consider a complaint which was being dealt with as an insurance claim, until the outcome of the claim was confirmed. The evidence shows that it explained this to the resident approximately 11 months later, in its stage 2 complaint response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide timely and relevant information to the resident. It would have also helped manage the resident’s expectations and clarify who was responsible for what.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord identified and apologised for some of its identified failings during the internal complaint process. For example, it accepted that it had not completed some of the repairs in accordance with its published timeframe. While this was in keeping with its complaint policy to acknowledge mistakes made, the evidence shows that it also failed to identify some of its failings. For instance, it did not identify its failings to communicate effectively with the resident in regard to making a claim to the local authority and the delays to complete the repairs.
Additionally, it did not identify its failings to adopt “a fabric first” approach as per its policy. At stage 2, it also failed to apply its own policy timeframe for the completion of remedial work when damp and mould are present. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the requirements for landlords to effectively respond to residents’ complaints. The Code says that Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. In this case, the landlord did not show that it reviewed its actions against its policies. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify the additional failings, put measures in place to prevent those from re-occurring and rebuild trust with the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not show that it worked in accordance with its repair policy. It failed to demonstrate that it had carried out investigative work to determine the underlying cause of the damp and mould. It did not show that, prior to concluding that the problem was due to the resident’s lifestyle, it took steps to determine whether it was related to the fabric of the building. It also failed to communicate effectively with the resident, explain its conclusion or provide updates on the delays to carry out the repairs. Therefore, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her bedroom.
The Ombudsman recognises that in keeping with its compensation policy, the landlord offered £200 discretionary compensation payment to the resident. It offered this payment in relation to damage to her personal belongings. It said it was to prevent the resident from experiencing further distress about the damage to her belongings.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance and determined that the compensation was too low. The offer did not go far enough to put matters right. It did not appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord’s failings caused significant distress to the resident, who was worried about the impact of damp and mould on her health because she used the bedroom as an office and spent long period there. She also expressed her frustration at having some of her belongings damaged.
When considering all circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determined that a fairer amount of compensation is £875. It reflects the accumulative effects of the landlord’s failures and that the resident felt blamed for the issue without a proportionate investigation into the matter. It also acknowledges that as the result of the delays in completing the repairs, the resident lived with damp and mould in her bedroom for longer.

The associated complaint

Effective and timely complaint handling is essential to convey that residents are heard. It also helps landlords to rebuilt trust when residents have lost confidence in their ability to address an issue. It is also an opportunity for landlords to quickly identify failings and put measures in place to prevent repeating them.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it is committed to handling complaints fairly, to put things right and make improvements to its service based on what it learnt. It also states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. In this case, the resident made a complaint in May 2022. While the evidence shows the landlord was aware of the complaint within a day of the resident making it, it did not show that it logged the complaint at that time. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to log the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policy.
Additionally, the landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and to a stage 2 within 20 working days. It also states that if it can’t respond within those timeframes, it will contact the resident to explain why, and agree a new date.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 58 days outside its published timeframe on 15 August 2022 which was unreasonable. When the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord failed to provide a stage two response. The landlord argued that it did not believe the resident escalated the complaint to stage two; therefore, it did not provide a stage two response to the complaint.
It is correct the resident did not expressly escalate the complaint to stage two; however, in her email response to the landlord dated 15 August 2022 and in subsequent emails, she expressed dissatisfaction with the stage one complaint response and challenged some findings. Within the stage one response, the landlord detailed that ‘Damp and Mould in Bedroom: A works order was raised 1896443/1 to insulate and plaster the bedroom window wall and this has now been completed’. The resident’s response on 15 August 2022 outlined that ‘As I’ve expressed I am unsure the damp and mould issues have been resolved. Just to note the back wall of the bedroom has been insulated and plastered not the window wall. However, I do have mould growing around my windows and window sill (which has been continuously reported alongside the back wall)’.
While the resident did not expressly state she wanted to escalate the complaint, the landlord should have queried whether this was an escalation request because the resident had challenged some of the findings within the stage one response. Ultimately, the resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage one response and the ongoing issues (particularly regarding the compensation claim) resulted in her subsequently raising a second complaint to the council a few months later.
Furthermore, while the resident made a compensation claim on 1 July 2022, the response to her stage 1 complaint was due a month earlier. Therefore, the delay in responding to her stage 1 complaint, cannot be explained by having the complaint and the claim running concurrently.
After considering all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is unclear whether this affected the resident’s outcome, the evidence shows it caused her inconvenience, time and effort in seeking a resolution to her complaint. In this case, the Ombudsman determined that it would be suitable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation to reflect the impact of its failings. The Ombudsman has considered our remedies guidelines, which are published on its website and concluded that an appropriate level of compensation is £525. The compensation reflects the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation of £1,400 directly to the resident. This is made up of:
  1. £875 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused by the landlord’s failings in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £525 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of her complaint.
3. Review the case to identify learning and measures to prevent those failings from reoccurring. The review should include, but not be limited to, effective communication, responding to report of damp and mould in line with the policy and complaint handling. The outcome of the review with actions, timescales and conclusions are to be shared with this Service.