Guildford Borough Council (202343175)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202343175
Guildford Borough Council
23 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. At the time of his complaint, the resident lived in a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat with his partner and two children. The resident has an auto-immune disease, and one of his children has asthma.
- In July 2023 the landlord conducted an audit of its properties that had previously reported issues with damp and mould. The resident’s property was inspected on 6 July 2023, and a small amount of mould was identified on the front bedroom ceiling. The landlord recommended installing ventilation improvements, including kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and a positive input ventilation unit (PIV).
- Works were raised in July 2023. At the same time, the resident advised the landlord that he was speaking to a solicitor regarding a disrepair claim and did not want repairs completed at that time. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2023 and asked for the extractor fans and PIV to be installed. The PIV unit was installed in November 2023.
- On 31 January 2024 the resident complained of persistent issues with damp and mould. He said that the PIV unit was blowing cold air, making the flat extremely cold. Additionally, he stated that contractors arrived without prior notice. Due to the mould, the resident said that he had to replace the bedroom furniture and constantly redecorate. The resident asked for compensation for the stress caused.
- On 16 May 2024 the landlord sent a stage 1 response and apologised for the delay. It explained that a damp and mould inspection was carried out in July 2023, during which some minor damp and mould issues were identified. It was confirmed that there was no extraction method in the kitchen or bathroom, and installing fans and a PIV unit were recommended. The landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the recommended works due to access issues.
- A follow-up visit in December 2023 repeated the previously recommended works and recommended completing insulation works to the bedroom. It noted that the insulation process could be intrusive, so the landlord would plan to work around the resident’s work or temporarily move the family. The landlord mentioned addressing compensation once the work had been completed and providing a Single Point of contact (SPOC) for the resident to discuss repairs.
- The resident responded on 17 May 2024, disappointed with the landlord’s stage 1 response and disputed that the mould was minor. He said that contractors did not arrange appointments and just turned up, and the repairs that had been done were not done well.
- On 1 July 2024 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident was offered temporary accommodation for 2-3 weeks, or the landlord had offered to stagger the work. The landlord partially upheld the complaint because the resident provided photographs showing mould which did not appear minor. However, it noted that the resident had managed the conditions during the investigation by cleaning.
- The landlord acknowledged that it should have responded to the complaint within the specified timescales. It did not fully uphold the complaint because it said it would have been reasonable for the resident to contact the SPOC to arrange repairs, given that 6 weeks had passed since its stage 1 response. The landlord identified learning by developing a tracker to manage repairs more effectively.
- The resident has confirmed that he moved to a new property in August 2024. However, the resident has asked that we investigate the complaint and award compensation for the damage to personal items, the impact the damp and mould had on his health, and the distress and inconvenience caused.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The landlord does not dispute that the resident has been reporting issues with damp and mould for some time. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so the landlord can consider the issues while the evidence is available to reach an informed decision. Therefore, our assessment will focus on events from the landlord’s inspection in July 2023 up until the completion of the landlord’s complaints process in July 2024.
- The resident raised concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on his and his child’s health. We understand the distress this may have caused. However, a court would consider this matter more appropriately, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability but have focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
- The resident has detailed his request for compensation for damages to personal items. Damage to personal property is again a matter of liability and would be more appropriately considered by a court or an insurance company where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability but have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to personal items, and whether it was in line with its policies and procedures.
Policies and procedures
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy confirms that it will correctly diagnose the cause of damp and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of damp rather than just the symptom. It will raise awareness of the landlord and resident responsibilities on tackling damp and mould.
- Where internal conditions within a home, such as overcrowding, are influencing the health and well-being of the occupants or preventing inspections or remedial works being carried out, the landlord will provide support and assistance to review the resident’s options, which may include moving to more appropriate alternative accommodation.
- The landlord’s compensation policy states that all liability claims must be made to its insurance team using the housing liability claim form and are managed outside of the compensation policy.
Assessment
- After the landlord’s visit in July 2023, where it identified some mould on the bedroom ceiling, no evidence of rising damp or penetrating damp affecting the property was found. The landlord noted the absence of extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom and promptly raised an order to install extractor fans and a PIV unit. This proactive response aimed at improving the property’s ventilation.
- The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on 27 July 2023 to schedule a date to complete the necessary work. The resident declined the works, stating that he was in contact with his solicitor regarding a disrepair claim.
- The Ombudsman’s Guidance on the pre-action protocol for Housing Condition Claims and Service Complaints states that if a landlord receives correspondence initiating the pre-action protocol, it is important that it does not disengage from the repair. It highlights the landlord’s responsibility to promptly and effectively address repairs, particularly when vulnerable residents are involved. It states, “Where a solicitor has advised a resident to deny access to complete the repairs, the landlord should consider alternative methods of gaining access, such as seeking an injunction.”
- The landlord’s damp and mould policy aims to raise awareness of responsibilities regarding damp and mould. However, it failed to address the repairs proactively after the resident refused the work or showed that it had made reasonable attempts to complete the repairs. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord highlighted the resident’s obligation to allow access or how it could enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement to complete the work it was responsible for.
- After the resident contacted the landlord in October 2023, the landlord promptly proceeded to install the PIV unit, which was completed on 3 November 2023. Works were initiated in November 2023 to install kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. The landlord also informed the resident of its intention to evaluate the cavity wall insulation and door undercuts. These proactive steps demonstrate the landlord’s commitment to addressing the damp and mould issues in the property.
- On 30 November 2023, the landlord conducted a re-inspection of the property. During the visit, the resident reported that the PIV unit was blowing cold air, causing the property to become cold. The landlord responded by raising a job to turn off the unit. It is unclear whether the resident requested this action. Understandably, the resident was confused because the unit had been specifically installed to help improve the ventilation and combat the damp and mould. The landlord explained that the unit could have a heating element turned on, but the resident declined due to the additional cost. The landlord completed a heat loss survey, confirming adequate heat within the property. This was an appropriate step to reassure the resident that the property was not cold. However, before suggesting that it would turn the unit off, the landlord could have done more to ensure the PIV unit’s effectiveness without cooling the property, such as considering relocating the unit from the front room to another area within the property where the impact of the cold air would be less noticeable.
- On 7 December 2023 the landlord arranged for a roofer to inspect the guttering and downpipe on the left flank wall, where the resident reported a problem with damp and mould. It also arranged for the left flank wall to be insulated. A drainage survey was completed on 5 January 2024, when all the gutters were assessed and cleared.
- The was a slight delay in the window fans in the kitchen and bathroom being installed. The works were initially raised following the 7 December 2023 inspection and fitted on 14 February 2024. However, the delays were not solely the landlord’s fault, as the window glazing had to be adjusted before the fans could be fitted.
- Despite the installation of the PIV, the resident reported in an email to the landlord on 9 January 2023 that mould was still growing. The resident requested reimbursement for damaged furniture due to mould in the property. It would have been helpful if the landlord had explained that the resident could claim on his contents insurance or advised him on submitting a liability claim through the landlord’s insurers, providing the relevant form, as outlined in its compensation policy. The lack of an informative response, other than passing the request to its legal team, was unreasonable and is likely to have added to the distress caused to the resident. This was also not in line with its compensation policy, which says all liability claims against the landlord must be made to its insurance team using the liability claim form.
- In his complaint in January 2024, the resident detailed his auto-immune condition and explained his son’s respiratory condition, which can be affected by damp and mould. There is no indication that the landlord acknowledged his health concerns, considered that the family’s health exacerbated the distress and inconvenience experienced, or considered carrying out a risk assessment.
- Between January 2024 and May 2024, the evidence shows that the landlord completed installing the window fans and raised works to insulate the external wall to both bedrooms. The resident confirmed in a text message in May 2024 that the family could not move into one room for the insulation and redecoration work to be done. In line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord provided support and assistance to review the resident’s options, including moving to alternative accommodation or staggering the works to minimise the disruption caused.
- The resident told us that he refused to temporarily move as it would have caused undue stress to him and his family. The resident told us that the landlord had not explained who would be liable for moving costs or arrangements for their pet while in temporary accommodation. We have not seen any of the landlord‘s correspondence regarding this matter. Still, we expect the landlord to provide clear and comprehensive information to alleviate concerns, so the resident has all the information needed to make an informed decision.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response indicated that the mould appeared minor from the evidence. The resident disputed this and provided the landlord with photographs showing extensive black mould. The lack of dates on the photographs makes it difficult for us to establish when they were taken or whether they were taken before or after the landlord completed some work in the property.
- After reviewing the photographs, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the mould did not appear minor. The landlord carefully considered the options and the potential disruption of works to the resident, making reasonable efforts to offer solutions to ensure the prompt completion of the outstanding works. After the resident declined a temporary move, the landlord missed a further opportunity to assess the potential risk of the family living in the property while works remained outstanding. It should have considered whether it could have taken temporary measures to improve the property conditions, for example, by providing dehumidifiers.
- The landlord’s stage 2 response did not fully uphold the complaint, stating that it was reasonable for the resident to have contacted the SPOC and arranged for the repairs to be completed after it had issued its stage 1 response in May 2024. While we understand the challenge the landlord faced in scheduling repairs around the resident’s work commitments and his concerns about the disruptive nature of the works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken the initiative to contact the resident to arrange the repairs rather than placing the responsibility on the resident. The period of inaction by the landlord in progressing the outstanding repairs identified in stage 1 was concerning, especially considering the family’s health conditions.
- The landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and assured him that it would consider compensation once the work had been completed. It stated that making an offer at an earlier stage would be premature. However, the disruptive works, including insulating the walls, were not completed before the resident moved to a new property in August 2024. While the resident did not experience anticipated disruption, the landlord should have considered its overall handling of the damp and mould and reviewed the compensation for the failings identified. While it apologised and identified some learning from the complaint, it was not proportionate to the failings identified, and did not go far enough to “put things right” for the resident.
- Overall, the landlord took appropriate action at points to address and resolve the damp and mould issues in the property. However, as described in this report, there were also some failings in its handling of the matter, which have not been fully put right. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
- In assessing the level of compensation, we have carefully considered the mitigating factors, such as the challenges the landlord faced in arranging repairs. After reviewing the landlord’s compensation guidance and our own remedies guidance, we have awarded £350 in compensation for the landlord’s delay in completing property repairs between July and October 2023. Additionally, we have awarded £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it appropriately assessed the risk, considered the resident’s vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity, or acknowledged that the distress he experienced was likely to have been exacerbated by his health condition due to how the matter was handled.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
- The resident submitted a complaint on 31 January 2024. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 16 May 2024, which was significantly delayed, totalling 64 working days instead of the standard 10 working days. Despite apologising for the delay, the landlord failed to explain adequately or demonstrate steps taken to improve its complaint-handling process.
- The resident contacted our Service in May 2024 after the landlord had failed to respond at stage 2 of its complaints process. It was unreasonable for the resident to spend further time and effort seeking our assistance to ensure the landlord responded to his complaint. Although the landlord responded within the timescale stipulated by our Service, the response was issued 30 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Once again, the landlord failed to explain the reason for the delay or outline measures to prevent similar delays in the future.
- The landlord’s handling of the complaint constitutes maladministration. The resident had to spend time and effort contacting our Service to get a response, and the complaint extended over 6 months. As a result, we have awarded £100 for the time and trouble, and frustration the resident experienced in pursuing the complaint over a prolonged period.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, comprising:
- £350 for the avoidable delays in the landlord completing repairs.
- £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
- £100 for the time and delay caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord should review the complaint handling in this case and explain what steps it has implemented or intends to implement to ensure that complaints are responded to within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
- If the resident wishes to pursue an insurance claim, the landlord should provide him with guidance on how to submit a liability claim through its insurers.
- Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation, comprising:
Recommendations
- The landlord should ensure that the relevant staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Guidance on the pre-action protocol for Housing Condition Claims and Service Complaints and provide training where necessary.