Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202127081)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127081

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 August 2022


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 handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her toilet bowl.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a terraced house.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 January 2022, she said that she had phoned and spoken with one of the landlord’s officers regarding “white mould beneath the water in [her] toilet bowl”. The resident explained that she had asked to schedule an emergency appointment as she had researched the type of mould and wanted to discuss what she saw and the possible effects on her health. She said that the landlord’s staff responded in a rude and inappropriate tone, stating that he was not entertaining her reading from the internet and declined her request for an emergency appointment. The resident explained her health conditions and noted that she believed the type of mould that grew in her toilet bowl was harmful and had affected her health. She said that she was not averse to cleaning the toilet, but that she was unwilling to do so because she believed it would negatively impact her health. She believed the mould should be treated as an emergency due to her health.
  3. According to the landlord’s records a work order was raised and its contractor attended on 1 February 2022. The contractor reported that it had cleaned the mould and had advised the resident to monitor. A further appointment was scheduled by the landlord on 2 February 2022 to assess the mould in the resident’s bathroom. Internal emails between the landlord and its staff in early February 2022 show it advised that the resident’s report of mould did not qualify as an emergency even with the health conditions as the mould could be cleaned to remove immediate danger. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 February 2022. It apologised for the for the language used and the lack of empathy expressed towards the resident. The landlord advised that was not the level of service it expected its residents to receive, and noted it would address the matter internally with its officer, along with training on its call handling. The landlord recalled its actions taken following the resident’s complaint in January 2022. It explained that its policy for emergency repairs was to raise when there was an immediate risk to the health and safety of the resident, or if it posed an immediate risk to the building. The landlord advised that the resident’s report did not qualify for an emergency order to be raised.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 February 2022 explaining that there were still remnants of mould beneath the water in her toilet bowl. She suggested that it may have been because the contractor did not have the correct tools. The resident said that a sample should be taken from the toilet to ascertain the type of mould as a matter of urgency. The resident said she did not believe that training would work as she was aware that there had been regular complaints about the officer. The resident emailed the landlord on 18 February and asked that her email on 9 February 2022 be treated as her escalation request as she had not received a response.
  5. A further appointment was scheduled by the landlord on 28 February 2022 to inspect the resident’s home and assess the mould in her bathroom. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 March 2021 and advised that it was unable to investigate the resident’s complaint further. It explained its decision was because the mould she described and that which had been inspected by its contractor was not an issue it would normally address under its complaint process. The landlord said that it had recognised the issue was distressing but that it was satisfied its contractor was able to assist in removing a substantial amount of mould. It provided contact details for this Service if the resident was dissatisfied with its complaint response. The resident passed her complaint to this Service on 11 April 2022 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to escalate her complaint. She raised similar concerns as in her formal complaint in January 2022.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has said she was concerned that the type of mould in her toilet bowl was harmful and had affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The resident has said that its officer’s conduct was rude and inappropriate and did not believe that training would work. The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. The Ombudsman, when investigating a complaint about a member of the landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.  In short, we can look at staff conduct as part of the landlord’s overall service, but we cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould growing in her toilet bowl

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook set out 20 working days for routine repairs and 24 hours for emergency repairs. The landlord also has a responsibility under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Mould growth is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. The resident reported mould in her toilet bowl on 28 January 2022. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 February 2022 and arranged a further appointment on 2 February to assess the mould in her bathroom. The landlord has demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the mould and to resolve the issues in a timely manner. It acted appropriately by attending the resident’s property, cleaning the mould and arranging an inspection of the property to assess the mould.
  3. The resident asked that the landlord treat the mould issues as an emergency. The landlord advised that the resident’s report did not qualify for an emergency order to be raised. It explained that its policy for emergency repairs was to raise when there was an immediate risk to the health and safety of the resident, or if it posed an immediate risk to the building. The Ombudsman recognises that some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by the landlords’ actions or inactions than others. Nothing in the evidence indicates the landlord was aware of any health issues or vulnerabilities of the resident prior to her reports in January 2022. There is no denying that mould in the toilet bowl would be frustrating and confusing for anybody. However, nothing in the information provided demonstrated that there was an immediate risk to resident’s health and safety or to the building. Therefore, the landlord’s attendance in two working days was appropriate in the circumstance. The landlord’s records showed that the mould was cleaned and assessed within its timeline.
  4. The resident explained that there were still remnants of mould beneath the water in her toilet bowl in February 2022. The landlord could have advised the resident how to reduce and prevent the growth of mould. Nonetheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further appointment in late February 2022 to inspect the resident’s home and address any further mould issues in the bathroom. 
  5. The resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint on 18 February 2022. The landlord advised the resident that it was unable to investigate her complaint as the mould she described was not an issue it would normally address under its complaint process. The ombudsman encourages landlords to use every stage of the internal complaint procedure as a genuine opportunity to resolve a dispute with a resident. Where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint it should provide an explanation to the resident, make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord has done so in this case and so its decision not to escalate the resident’s complaint was in accordance with these requirements, even if the landlord failed to take every opportunity to try and repair the landlord tenant relationship.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her toilet bowl.