Gosport Borough Council (202314200)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314200

Gosport Borough Council

27 June 2024

Amended 15 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at his property.

Background

2. The complainants are joint tenants on a fixed-term flexible tenancy, which commenced in 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow, and the household includes a tenant with disabilities and health issues. The tenants are both referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report.
3. The resident has previously reported damp and mould issues, after which the landlord has carried out works including installation of extractor fans, re-pointing and a roof replacement. The resident subsequently reported from January 2023 that he was struggling to keep high humidity levels and mould under control and could not afford dehumidifiers and heating. The landlord did multiple inspections, provided advice, and completed works for hallway mould washes, loose thermaboard, and some bathroom grouting. The inspections noted some issues including a potentially undersized bedroom radiator.
4. In April 2023, the resident complained. He said there was mould and rising damp in the bedroom and raised concern whether it was safe to sleep there. He requested repairs, replacement of carpet and underlay, and reimbursement for dehumidifier costs and a damaged lamp.
5. The landlord inspected in April and May 2023. It found damp issues near bedroom and lounge windows adjacent to high ground levels where water would not dry quickly, and high moisture readings in the floor slab and a shared bedroom and bathroom wall. It noted actions to apply a floor membrane, inject damp proofing into brickwork, check wall cavities for debris and wet insulation, reduce ground levels adjacent to window areas, replaster the bedroom wall, remove the shower tray and check pipework for a leak, relocate a thermostat to the lounge, and survey if a bedroom radiator was the correct size and output. It noted the resident would need to be decanted for the works.
6. On 10 May 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the issue had gone undiagnosed for some time and the resident’s frustration with delays. It proposed a visit to discuss a plan to address the issues, after which it would provide a written summary. The landlord subsequently met with the resident to discuss decanting him to a nearby property on the same estate.
7. On 13 June 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response, after the resident expressed dissatisfaction. It apologised and detailed actions to address customer service issues and how it responded to damp and mould. It noted he agreed to proceed with temporary accommodation while the works were done.
8. The same month, the resident raised dissatisfaction with communication and a lack of response to some queries. The landlord acknowledged update delays and said staff had been on leave. It explained that works were being done to the temporary accommodation to ensure he was not moved into another damp property. It addressed a number of queries, said it did not consider the property to be dangerous, and initially offered £150 towards costs. It later updated that works to the temporary accommodation would be completed on 10 July, and it would be ready to move into on 13 July.
9. On 10 July 2023, the landlord provided a stage 3 response. It acknowledged that it had not established a clear plan to manage the repairs. It restated a recent update that a point of contact would update the resident, a removal company would assist with moving, a surveyor would visit and update about works, and compensation would be considered by its legal team. It apologised that its service had fallen short, and reassured the resident that his concerns were being taken seriously and it was seeking to urgently resolve the issues and learn from the experience.
10. The resident was moved to the temporary accommodation and raised issues with this which the landlord responded to. The works to the resident’s property were subsequently completed between late July/early August and September 2023. These included addition of works to install a wet room, after the resident queried if one could be installed and an occupational therapist confirmed they were happy to recommend one, and fitting of carpets and tiles at its cost. The checks of the cavities and bathroom pipework were completed, and found that cavities were generally dry, and moisture to the bedroom and bathroom wall was due to leaks from a shower mixer tap fitted by the resident.
11. The resident raised multiple concerns during and after the works, and conducted investigations with equipment he purchased. He raised concern about whether damp proof works, cavity checks, drain works and wet room works were in line with the landlord’s instructions and good practice. He raised concern about pointing, rain breaching the damp proofing, being able to see mould with a USB microscope, lounge walls not being plastered, and whether a wardrobe was removed to fully damp proof areas in the bedroom. He said the landlord was moving him back into a damp home and sought to be put in a hotel while the works remained unresolved. He said he wanted compensation for distress, impact on health, excessive costs trying to keep the property warm, and being decanted into another property in disrepair.
12. The property was inspected by the landlord during the works and in September and October 2023 and February 2024, and by the local authority environmental health in December 2023. The landlord found no evidence of damp, including in areas the resident said were wet, and considered his meter to be low quality and giving false readings. It was satisfied with the works, but it raised further works such as pointing. The local authority found the property habitable, and indicated that humidity readings were within acceptable boundaries, but made recommendations that included mould treatment and consideration of a high level passive air vent. The landlord raised repairs for the recommendations and said it would visit about the possibility of the high level passive air vent.
13. The resident continued to dispute the landlord’s position on the property condition, and from October 2023 it agreed to instruct an independent surveyor. The independent survey was eventually completed in March 2024, before which the landlord faced difficulty obtaining a surveyor out of the area based on the resident’s preference, an inspection by a local authority surveyor was arranged that the resident cancelled, and the resident was offered to be reimbursed if he sourced his own surveyor. The March 2024 survey found many areas to be dry and satisfactory, but there was condensation mould and some water ingress issues by the front door and lounge window which were making the condensation difficult to manage. The report recommended some investigations and repairs to prevent water ingress and help reduce condensation.
14. In April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident about the report findings. It noted that the report found no significant structural issues, detailed its position on each recommendation, and provided timescales for completion of works it agreed. It said a damp proof membrane and course were installed (so would not take any steps to confirm these were in place), but it would take action in respect to door and window areas to ensure there was no possible source of water ingress, including replacement of windows, and monitor and review matters.
15. In the same correspondence, the landlord also updated on the compensation claim, which the resident had continued to add items to, and which it and its legal team had previously responded to. It noted it had previously agreed to compensate £480.81 for some damaged items and out of pocket expenses, in addition to £166.10 it had paid towards dehumidifier costs, and carpets and tiles it had fitted. It noted it still awaited requested information for some items, and bank details for a toilet roll holder and window restrictors it had agreed to pay £28.19 for. It said that the independent survey did not provide any evidence to support a claim for compensation for a wardrobe, so it did not agree to compensate for this. It noted that the wardrobe was carefully removed and reinstated during the works, and it was not responsible for damage from when the resident took the wardrobe apart for his own investigation.
16. The resident continues to have concerns about the property and disagrees with the landlord’s position on many issues on the basis of his own investigations and observations. He is unhappy the landlord is not following all the independent surveyor’s recommendations, including a recommendation to confirm the existence of a damp proof membrane, and he contends the independent report and his own evidence means the landlord should be taking further action than it has committed to. He is unhappy contractors have done mould treatments with bleach-based products when he has stated a preference for bleach-less products due to health issues. He is unhappy that the landlord has not compensated him for all items. He raises concern that the landlord has not met timeframes for actions it detailed in April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

17. The resident has made complaints about other issues and has also raised concerns about the temporary accommodation, during the decant as well as its suitability for permanent tenants, however this investigation is unable to investigate all the complaints the resident has about his landlord. The main focus of this investigation is the landlord’s response about damp and mould at the resident’s property, which was the original subject of the complaint originally referred to us. The resident has the option to ask the landlord to respond to separate issues as complaints, if he has not already, and to then refer the final responses to the Ombudsman for separate investigation.
18. Furthermore, the purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. 
19. In accordance with paragraph 42c, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
20. In this case you raised a formal complaint on 10 May 2023 and while there may have been historical issues from 2020, the Ombudsman’s investigation focused on the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould from January 2023, which is when new issues were reported.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at his property

21. There remains disputes in opinion between the resident and the landlord about current issues and what action is necessary. The resident has clearly spent time and money conducting investigations. The Ombudsman understands how he disagrees with the landlord’s position and contends that his own evidence and a March 2024 independent surveyor’s report shows the landlord should be doing things differently. We should note that it is not in our expertise to make definitive decisions about whether there are damp and mould issues in a property, and our main focus is on how a landlord has responded and whether this is reasonable.
22. The resident has raised concerns about damp at the property since 2020 when he moved in, and the landlord seems responsive to historical reports about damp and mould and carried out multiple repairs. When the resident raised further concerns in January and April 2023, it took steps to schedule works and decant the resident between July and September 2023. The landlord generally demonstrates that it has reasonably considered and acted on repairs identified by its staff and contractors, and has reasonably sought to meet commitments in its complaint response to effect lasting repairs.
23. However, it is unclear that an issue with a bedroom radiator has been reasonably addressed. The resident complained he had never been able to raise the bedroom temperature to a high level without supplementing the radiator with a heater. In inspections in January and April 2023, it was noted that the radiator was potentially undersized, and that contractors would be asked to survey radiators when they moved the thermostat from the lounge to the hall. The intention appears to have been for this to form part of the major works to the property but the works order for moving the thermostat makes no mention of this, nor does any other, and an outcome for a survey of the radiators is not evident. This is not satisfactory.
24. The resident was unhappy that the landlord was satisfied after it reviewed the completed works and his concerns with them. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s experience and investigations, but the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff and contractors, and its consideration of his concerns and first hand inspections show it reached decisions about the works in a suitable way. The landlord was positive to arrange an independent survey when the resident continued to dispute its position. This took 5 months to arrange, but this was not entirely in the landlord’s control. The landlord’s ability to arrange the survey was impacted by the resident’s reluctance to accept a surveyor from the same area, and it explored reasonable solutions during the delays by trying to arrange a surveyor from a local authority, and by offering reimbursement if the resident arranged a surveyor himself.
25. The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord did not agree to action all the independent surveyor’s recommendations. The landlord should give regard to such recommendations, but it is not obligated to strictly follow them and is entitled to decide its own incremental approach based on its own assessment. The landlord has been generally reasonable in respect to the recommendations as it clearly considered the report, confirmed actions it would take and their timeframes, and committed to monitor and revisit matters if necessary.
26. However, there is concern that the landlord declined to follow a recommendation to check that an exterior plug socket and cable did not provide rainwater entry, due to the socket having been installed by the resident. The resident may have responsibility for maintenance of the socket, but the landlord’s responsibility for the structural integrity of the property should have superseded any tenant responsibility in its consideration of this recommendation. This is not satisfactory.
27. The resident questions that damp proofing was fully done as a bedroom wardrobe was not removed. The resident feels he evidenced this, and the local authority noted that flooring under the wardrobe did not match the rest. The landlord decided against the independent surveyor’s recommendation to confirm presence of a damp proof membrane and course. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, but the landlord’s position seems reasonable. This followed consideration of the concerns and first hand inspection during and after the works, and obtainment of photos that show some damp proofing in the bedroom with a significant part, if not all, of the wardrobe removed. It is also not clear that identified remaining issues are directly linked to failings in damp proofing in areas such as the bedroom, therefore at this stage the resident’s desire for works to be re-done does not seem proportionate.
28. The resident raised concern about the impact of the property on health, and asked the landlord to move him to a hotel or reimburse costs if he arranged this himself. The landlord seems reasonable not to have agreed to a hotel, as the property has not been considered uninhabitable by the landlord, local authority or independent surveyor. The landlord was also not in receipt of any medical correspondence that clearly said the property condition made it completely uninhabitable for the resident.
29. The landlord considered information the resident provided and set out its position on his compensation claim. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability and negligence, and the impact on belongings and mental and physical health, although we can take a view. The £480.81, £166.10 and £28.19 the landlord offered for some damaged items, expenses and dehumidifier costs seem fair. It was reasonable to decline to compensate for investigatory equipment, as it was the resident’s choice to buy these without the landlord’s agreement it would reimburse these, and it is not clear these were necessary given the landlord’s willingness to inspect. Its position on the wardrobe also seems reasonable, given the independent surveyor’s report, and there being no clear evidence of significant issues with the bedroom works. It has restated an invitation for further evidence for other items such as claimed utility costs, which shows it will consider further compensation on receipt of further information. This seems proportionate to the evidence.
30. However, it is noted that the compensation focus has been on the resident’s costs, not on any service issues and potential distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its responses between May and July 2023 that frustration was caused to the resident by delays in resolving the damp and in implementing and communicating an action plan. The evidence shows that there have been delays in progress and issues with communication at points, particularly before July 2023, which it would have been appropriate to consider compensation for. This is not satisfactory. It is noted that, at the time of the complaint, there was a 3-stage complaint procedure which did not show how compensation for service issues was considered, and the landlord has since introduced a 2-stage policy which provides some limited detail on how it now considers compensation.
31. Overall, while the landlord’s response has been reasonable to a large extent, the Ombudsman finds a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at his property. The landlord does not evidence that it arranged and reviewed a survey of the radiators to confirm they were an appropriate size and output, particularly the bedroom one, as it identified. The landlord declined to check that an exterior plug socket and cable did not provide rainwater entry, which is neglectful of its responsibility for the property structure. The landlord should also have shown that it considered compensation for service issues it acknowledged such as delays and communication.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at his property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

33. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified. This is in addition to the compensation it previously offered, which it should take steps to pay if it has not already.
    2. take steps to follow the independent surveyor’s recommendation to check that an exterior plug socket and cable do not provide rainwater entry. Following this, it should consider any appropriate actions and write to the resident about the outcome.
    3. liaise with the resident to arrange a radiator size and output survey which includes the bedroom radiator. Following this, it should consider any appropriate actions and write to the resident about the outcome.
    4. review the current status of damp-related actions it agreed to following the independent surveyor’s report, and provide a written update to the resident about the current progress of these.

Recommendations

34. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. ensure it considers if compensation for service issues is applicable when responding to complaints.
    2. review our remedies guidance, other landlord policies and relevant law, and consider implementing a compensation policy.
    3. ensure that its contractors are made aware to use a bleach-less mould treatment at the resident’s property.
    4. continue to review new concerns from the resident about damp and mould and review its actions, where appropriate.
    5. The landlord follow up with the resident in relation to the damaged items and dehumidifier costs, if it has not done so already.