Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202016649)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016649

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

28 June 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat. The resident, who is elderly and has health issues, is represented in the complaint by her daughter.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure, where it responds to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it awards compensation for issues that include delays in delivering services and poor complaint handling. It awards up to £700, and over, for time, trouble and inconvenience; up to £100 for complaint handling; between 10 to 25% of the rent for an unusable room (25% for a bathroom); and lower percentages if a room is not completely unusable.

Summary of events

In May 2018, the landlord’s repairs records note that it raised works for a decorator to mould wash and stain block in all the rooms, and report back if further work was needed. The landlord’s records report these works were completed in June 2018.
In September 2018, the landlord’s repairs records note that the resident requested an inspection of the bathroom as she felt a lot of works were required. The landlord’s records note that this was completed the same month, although the outcome is unclear.
In January 2019, the landlord’s repairs records note that the resident requested a damp and mould inspection. In February 2019, an inspection was carried out, and the resident also made a complaint about damp and mould continuing despite the mould washes in Summer 2018. A works order was subsequently raised for identified repairs which, it was noted, followed a leak from a flat above. In a bedroom, there was to be removal of loose paint on the ceiling and removal of wallpaper on 1 wall, and the ceiling and walls were to be washed, mould treated and stain blocked. In other rooms, various areas were to be washed, mould treated and stain blocked. The landlord’s records note that these works were completed in March 2019.
In June 2020, the landlord was in receipt of reports that there were damp issues throughout the property, and WC window was broken and had to be kept locked shut. The records show a repair was raised, but the resident was to be contacted to arrange them when COVID-19 restrictions lifted, as the repairs were not an emergency.
On 26 March 2021, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord to complain about ongoing damp and mould at the property and the associated smell.
1. She detailed the history of the issue, and that a mould wash was carried out after the issue was reported in 2018, and that further works were carried out after a bathroom ceiling leak resulted in damp to a bedroom wall. She said she was told walls needed to be treated, but this was incomplete and the walls and ceiling in one room had been left “partly stripped off” since 2019. She said she was also told radiators needed to be changed to stop damp returning, but not all of these had been changed despite being told this would be done.
2. She said that issues she had experienced included initially being told she would have to liaise with the leaseholder above for the ceiling leak, and contractors not turning up for appointments or turning up unannounced.
3. She said that the issue was now much worse and was becoming unbearable, and she raised concern about her and the resident, a pensioner, living in unhealthy conditions.
Following this, the landlord raised a works order for a surveyor inspection, to identify the cause of reoccurring damp and mould throughout property, and to identify outstanding repairs started by the contractor but not completed, including walls that had been only partly repaired.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted that its contract with its previous contractor had ended and it was working to improve its repairs service. It said it had arranged for a surveyor to visit on 26 April 2021 and would then arrange for any necessary works to be carried out.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection of the property. The landlord does not provide any records for this visit, but has said works were identified to service kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and to carry out bathroom works.
On 26 May 2021, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord and requested an update to the complaint and surveyor’s inspection. She noted that the surveyor had suggested that she send in pictures, and she attached photos that showed areas of walls and ceiling where plaster had come off, as well as areas of walls and ceilings covered by mould and moisture.
In September 2021, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord after contact from the resident’s daughter, saying that she reported that there had been no response to the complaint and the issue remained outstanding. Following this, the landlord referred to its April 2021 stage 1 response and said the case was closed, as no escalation request had been received.
In July 2022, the Ombudsman sent an email to the landlord, which arranged for an inspection on 8 August 2022. The inspection found that condensation mould growth was evident throughout the property, and repairs were raised that included a new extraction system, anti-fungicidal works, thermal boarding, patch re-plastering, and decoration of walls and ceilings.
The landlord then issued a final response on 19 August 2022:
1. It noted that in 2018 a mould wash was carried out. It noted that in 2019, following a complaint, it was decided to install new radiators to improve heat circulation and address the damp problems. It noted it could then see no communication until March 2021, following which an appointment was made for a surveyor to attend. It apologised that this did not happen and that this caused delay to addressing the damp problem.
2. It said the recent inspection had identified a number of required works that had been raised. These included replacement of extractor fans, and mould treatment, in the kitchen and bathroom; renewal of grout, silicone and flooring in the bathroom; and installation of thermal boarding, renewal of skirting, and decoration in 4 bedrooms and the lounge. It said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange these.
3. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the resident had experienced in having the repairs addressed and awarded £900, which comprised £700 for repairs delays from March 2021, and £200 for complaint delays.
In September 2022, the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction with its response. She was unhappy that the landlord had overlooked events prior to March 2021. She stressed that a surveyor did inspect in 2021 (contrary to what was stated in the response) and the landlord had not responded to her request for an update after this. She said that new radiator installations and some works in other rooms were previously left incomplete, despite operatives saying they would return. She noted that her mother was a pensioner with health issues and that it was often difficult to breathe because of the smell. She raised dissatisfaction with the current bathroom condition, and attached photos that showed mushrooms growing out of the ceiling.
In November 2022 and February 2023, the resident’s daughter sent emails to this Service, in which she noted that the landlord’s contractors had made appointments to inspect the damp and mould but she had not heard from the landlord after she had emailed it in September 2022 to express dissatisfaction with their response and compensation. She noted that since the landlord’s response there were four visits from two contractors and she expressed dissatisfaction with communication related to this. She noted that works were booked to start on 17 February 2023, but she expressed dissatisfaction that she had been informed that mould, damp, fungus, leaks and smells at the property were all due to condensation and that two fans would resolve all these issues.
In February 2023, the landlord internally reviewed the case and noted that:
1. the timeframe of the April 2021 stage 1 response did not comply with our Complaint Handling Code, by 11 days.
2. the provision of the April 2021 response after our September 2021 correspondence did not comply with our requests to investigate the issue and communicate with the resident.
3. the timeframe of the August 2022 stage 1 response did not comply with our specified timeframe, by 21 days.
4. there was a loss of oversight of works identified at the April 2021 surveyor visit, when the landlord changed contractors around that time.
5. after September 2022, there was a failure to keep the resident informed and to further escalate the works internally.
6. senior staff were to visit the property, liaise with the resident and the contractor until the works were completed, and revisit compensation.
The same month, the landlord visited the property, after which it emailed the resident. It apologised that issues shown in the property were yet to be resolved, and noted that feedback provided would be discussed internally. It noted that works were due to start on 17 February 2023 and the point of contact for these. It noted that it had reviewed the compensation previously offered, and revised this to £2,600, which comprised £200 for the delay escalating the complaint; £1,150 for works delays and their impact; and £1,250 for the impact on usage of rooms in the property from March 2021 to March 2023 (this equates to £52 per month).
In April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It said it had appointed new contractors to finish the works and apologised that the previous contractor had not carried out works to a standard expected or in agreed timescales. It said works would include a new bathroom and start in accordance with the resident’s preferred timeframe. It revised the compensation previously offered to £3,300, which comprised £200 for the delay escalating the complaint; £1,750 for works delays and their impact; and £1,350 for the impact on usage of rooms in the property from March 2021 to May 2023 (this equates to £52 per month).
The landlord provides information that the resident recently accepted the compensation, and that works were completed at the property between April and May 2023. These included additional works to fully decorate the lounge; carry out extra decoration in two bedrooms; fit a new kitchen worktop; and replace kitchen tiles. The landlord informs this Service that it did not have a process for damp and mould at the time of the complaint, but it has since implemented a specialist team and new call handling processes.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service notes that the resident raised dissatisfaction that the landlord overlooked events prior to March 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will not consider issues that occurred more than six months before a complaint is made, which reflects the Ombudsman’s own approach, and therefore the main focus of this investigation is from October 2020. The resident has made previous complaints about some issues which she had the option to progress through the landlord’s complaints procedure and bring to the Ombudsman, so this investigation does not fully consider these. However, this investigation does comment on historic issues where it is considered appropriate to do so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the property is free from the risk of hazards related to damp and mould. Our spotlight report on repairs complaints, published in 2019, sets out a range of best practice when dealing with repairs and complaints about them, which includes monitoring progress; carrying out works in reasonable timescales; updating residents; addressing all issues raised; and identifying learning to improve future service. Our spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, said landlords should have zero-tolerance to damp issues; deal with them in a timely manner; reduce overreliance on residents reporting issues; manage contractors effectively; communicate clearly and regularly; and,again, identify learning. In this case,it is evident that there were lengthy delays in the landlord carrying out repairs, and a failure to handle matters in line with good practice set out above.
After the complaint in March 2021, the landlord was appropriate to arrange an inspection in April 2021, however there was then no progress, despite the resident chasing for an update in May 2021. There continued to be a lack of progress after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord in September 2021 and said that the resident reported that repairs remained outstanding. The damp and mould works were not carried out until between February and May 2023, around 24 months later, which was a lengthy and inappropriate period of time.
In its August 2022 stage 2 response, the landlord arranged a further inspection; raised works which it said would be progressed by its contractor; acknowledged and apologised for delays and inconvenience in respect to the repairs; and offered £700 compensation for the repairs delays from March 2021 to date (£900 in total). After the complaints procedure, and further delays, the landlord offered £2,400 for repairs delays (£2,600 total) in February 2023, then increased this to £3,100 (£3,300 total) in April 2023. This, along with additional works that have been done, shows that the landlord has now sought to compensate and put right the lengthy delays, and the £3,100 offered after the complaints procedure is within the range that the Ombudsman would order for failings in this case. It is not evident that the property has been unfit for human habitation or that rooms have been unusable, and so this seems to reasonably reflect the repairs delays and the potential impact on the usage of the rooms. However, there are aspects of the landlord’s response which are not satisfactory.
It is understood that the landlord carried out a review of this case alongside other cases involving the Ombudsman in February 2023, and there only seemed to be effective progress in the repair, and a more appropriate compensation offer, after this took place. While this was positive in some respects, it is not satisfactory that it took the review in February 2023 for the landlord to more fully acknowledge issues; take more effective repairs action; and offer more appropriate compensation. The landlord should have effectively addressed the repairs when they were in its formal complaint procedure. The landlord should also have identified what learning it could take from the case in order to improve its future service, but it does not demonstrate that it did this in the timeframe of the complaint or later (although it is noted the landlord says it now has a specialist damp and mould team and new call handling processes).
The information provided advises that some delay was due to the expiry of contractor contracts, and the landlord would be expected to have processes in place to ensure that there is ‘handover’ of repairs during change of contractors; that there is progression and monitoring of existing repairs; and that there is completion of the repairs in reasonable timeframes. While the landlord identified that the contractor change impacted the delays, it should have considered processes it could implement to avoid the same situation occurring in future.
The historic events are not the main focus of this investigation, and it is not clear that the recurrence of damp and mould was due to a single unresolved issue, as there seem to have been different causes such as a leak in one period. However, the landlord should have been more mindful of the repeat nature of the issue, and the distress this will have caused the resident and her daughter. It should have also been more mindful of common themes that were in the resident’s reports and had led to the complaint, such as lack of effective monitoring of repairs. A further example of this is that after the landlord said in June 2020 that repairs would be done when COVID-19 restrictions lifted, it is not evident this happened.
When the landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, it should therefore have implemented an effective plan to monitor the repairs and provide updates to the resident. However, after the August 2022 stage 2 response there were no works or communication from the landlord until February 2023, 6 months later, despite contact from the resident in September 2022. The landlord therefore did not demonstrate that it took the opportunity to learn from the complaint, do things differently, and ensure it met its commitments in an appropriate and timely way.
The original complaint said there were partially outstanding repairs from more than 6 months prior, which the landlord was not obligated to fully investigate, but it should have addressed some of these more than it did. For example, for reports that radiator replacement works were incomplete, it was noted that after a heat loss calculation, there had been 2019 works to improve heat circulation and address damp problems. The implication of the report, that not all radiators had been replaced as they were meant to have been, was that previously identified works for damp were not complete. The landlord should therefore have set out a position on this. Whatever the landlord’s position, the resident’s belief that the radiator works were incomplete suggests miscommunication about the original scope of the works, which it should have taken the opportunity to clarify.
The resident’s daughter has raised concern about the impact of the ongoing issues on her and her mother’s health, and the daughter feels this led to her having some breathing issues. It is not in the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to make definitive decisions about the impact of an issue on health, however it is not satisfactory that the landlord was not prompted to focus on resolving matters in a more timely manner, given the reports in March 2021 raised concern about unhealthy living conditions and the impact on the resident, a pensioner.
Overall, the resident will have been caused significant distress by the landlord’s handling in not following up June 2020 reports; not progressing matters in April 2021; not responding to correspondence in May 2021 and September 2022; and not effectively managing the repair from August 2022. This will have affected the living conditions and enjoyment of the property; undermined trust in the landlord; and led to concern about the impact of the property on health, including on the resident’s daughter’s breathing. The landlord’s handling will therefore have caused additional distress than seems acknowledged by the landlord. This means that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has not gone far enough to acknowledge and remedy its handling, and leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration for its handling of the reports of damp and mould. This would have been a finding of severe maladministration if the landlord had not made its more appropriate compensation award.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord’s response to and progression of the complaint. The April 2021 stage 1 response was 7 working days later than the 10 working day timeframe in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. The August 2022 final response was beyond 5 working days specified by the Ombudsman in July 2022; 11 months after the Ombudsman’s contact in September 2021 which noted that issues were unresolved; and 14 months after the resident’s contact in May 2021 about a lack of update to the repairs and complaint. It is evident that there were unreasonable delays and it should not have needed the Ombudsman’s intervention to progress the complaint. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for complaints delays in its final response and offered compensation, which it re-offered in its offers after the completion of the complaints procedure.
However, it was not reasonable for the landlord to only consider complaint delays. The landlord is expected to identify and acknowledge issues within its complaint procedure and, in complaint responses, set out actions to improve future service which will also have a meaningful impact on the complaint. The landlord should recognise the part that its complaints procedure can play to resolve issues and ensure commitments in its complaint responses are met, but its wider complaint handling missed opportunities and lacked customer and resolution focus. It failed to effectively monitor the April 2021 surveyor inspection, and repairs identified in April 2021 and August 2022. It is not evident that it did enough to avoid the delays of 14 months after the stage 1 complaint in 2021, and the delays of 6 months after the stage 2 response in August 2021. It does not demonstrate that it identified lessons learned, made service improvements, or sufficiently addressed all the complaint issues, and the adequacy of the radiators at the property was left with an inappropriate lack of clarity.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord’s complaint handling was not reasonable and in addition to the complaint delays, the complaints procedure missed opportunities to effectively resolve matters and avoid them becoming so protracted. Again, this will have caused distress to the resident and undermined trust in the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s view therefore, the compensation of £200 for delays in respect to the complaint does not go far enough to remedy the issues identified with its complaint handling. This leads this Service to make a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling, which would have been a finding of severe maladministration if the landlord had not taken the actions it did as part of its complaint review.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

While the landlord has recently offered significant compensation and completed repairs, the landlord should have effectively addressed the repairs when they were in its formal complaint procedure and identified learning from the case to improve future service.
While the landlord acknowledged complaint delays, the complaints procedure missed opportunities to effectively resolve matters to avoid them becoming so protracted, which the landlord did not go far enough to acknowledge and remedy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £600. This comprises:
1. £300 for the issues identified with its repairs handling.
2. £300 for the issues identified with its complaint handling.
The landlord to, within 4 weeks, take steps to review if the radiator works which have been completed at the property are in line with what was identified and raised in 2019. The landlord should then set out its position on this to the resident, and confirm whether it is taking any further action in light of what is established.
The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review the delays when there was a change of contractor, and consider what processes and contingencies can be put in place to ensure that repairs progress, and are not significantly delayed, during any periods of contract expiry and contract transitions.
The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review the delays from August 2022, and confirm its repairs service has processes to ensure that for similar works:
1. they monitor repairs to ensure they progress;
2. they update residents;
3. repairs have an avenue to be effectively escalated if they do not progress appropriately.
The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review its complaint handling and take steps to ensure that:
1. it monitors commitments in complaint responses to ensure that services meet these;
2. further stage 1 correspondence is followed up by services or referred for escalation;
3. correspondence from this Service noting unresolved issues is appropriately processed.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance within each of the timeframes above.

Recommendations

The landlord to review incomplete repairs raised during COVID-19 restrictions, and take action to ensure those with associated risks such as damp and mould are appropriately progressed if they have not been already.