Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202346699)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346699

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

24 September 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 concerns about damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He has lived in the property, a studio flat, since January 2023. The resident has vulnerabilities, including asthma.
3. Between January 2023 and December 2023, the landlord carried out repairs to address damp in the resident’s property which included unblocking the drains, replacing the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and repointing brickwork. The landlord also completed mould treatments in the bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen.
4. The resident complained in February 2023 that some repairs should have been completed before or soon after he moved into the property. The landlord accepted that there had been delays and offered compensation of £300. It also agreed to complete repairs, including replacing an external door thought to be contributing to damp and mould in the property. It is not known if the resident escalated this complaint and completed the landlord’s 2–stage complaints process.
5. In mid-February 2024 the resident complained that damp and mould had been an ongoing problem since he moved into the property. He also complained that contractors either cancelled or failed to turn up to appointments. The resident said there was a problem with condensation on his windows which was contributing to the damp. As an outcome, he said he wanted the windows to be replaced.
6. The landlord said in the stage 1 response of 15 February 2024, that an appointment had been made for a specialist damp and mould surveyor (the specialist surveyor) to attend the following week. It explained that it would prioritise the treatment of mould and then focus on repairs. The landlord apologised that the resident had cause to complain and offered £100 compensation.
7. The resident then escalated his complaint on the same day as receiving the initial response because he said his concerns had not been addressed. He also said he believed he had been discriminated against. He specified that he did not want compensation and was seeking only for the conditions in the property to be improved.
8. In the stage 2 response dated 14 March 2024, the landlord apologised that the specialist surveyor’s appointment had been missed and confirmed it had been rescheduled for April 2024. It acknowledged that the resident was not seeking compensation but offered £375 for the distress and inconvenience of delays and the missed appointment.
9. After the complaints process ended, the landlord carried out repairs in late-May 2024. Shortly after, the resident reported a damp smell, following which the property was inspected in August 2024 and a problem was found in the hallway. The landlord advised that it had contacted another resident about investigating whether water was coming from their property.
10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was not satisfied the root cause of the damp and mould had been identified and resolved. He said his health had been affected from prolonged exposure to damp and mould. The resident is seeking a permanent solution to the problem and additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident advised that his personal belongings had been damaged by mould and he wants compensation for this. He also said that there was recently a gas leak from his boiler and his radiators had to be changed. It is of concern that the resident has experienced different, subsequent issues since those that led to the complaint referred to this Service. As these matters did not form part of the original complaint, the resident would need to raise these separately to give the landlord the opportunity to first investigate and respond to the allegations. If he remains dissatisfied, could then refer it to the Ombudsman for investigation. This decision is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not usually consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
12. The resident explained to this Service that living with damp and mould worsened his asthma and caused his blood pressure to rise. This must have been distressing for him. It is however outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on his health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Rather, consideration is given in this investigation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings identified on the part of the landlord.

Damp and mould

13. The resident’s first complaint from early 2023 was about delays in completing repairs before he moved into the property. While the majority of these had long been resolved before he made a second complaint, there was an issue – the renewal of a failed UPVC back door – which was outstanding at the time of the second complaint. According to the landlord’s March 2023 stage 1 response, this had been agreed shortly after the resident moved in and a works order for this had been raised. However, the repair log shows that a specialist window contractor was appointed in September 2023, around 6 months after the landlord’s response suggested it would be.
14. It is likely that replacing the door fell under the planned works timescale of 60working days, based on the descriptions in the repairs policy that the landlord uses to categorise works. As the title suggests, such work often requires planning and budgeting for because of the costs and nature of it. In cases where work is likely to take longer, the landlord’s repairs handbook stated that it would keep residents updated. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord giving the resident timescales or keeping him updated, which is a service failing.
15. When the resident complained on 13 February 2024, he said damp and mould had been an ongoing problem and was making his asthma worse. In its stage 1 response of 15 February 2024, the landlord said there were delays and awarded £100 compensation. It gave no explanation of what repairs were delayed and how long they had been outstanding, so its reason for the decision was unclear. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), which as a member of this Scheme the landlord should follow, stated that all complaint responses should be clear, and reasons for decisions explained at all stages. The quality of the landlord’s response then fell short of the standards of the Code.
16. In the stage 1 response, the landlord said that its process for handling damp and mould had changed, and a specialist surveyor would inspect the property for solutions the following week. It was not clear when its procedure changed from the undated process map the landlord provided. It was appropriate though for the landlord to appoint a specialist surveyor considering the recurrent problems the resident had been experiencing. The Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould recognised that the causes can be complex and can require multiple investigations to identify and resolve. As the report points out, there are occasions where there are several causes, as was the case in the resident’s property. It was therefore not an indication of a failing that damp and mould reoccurred.
17. In cases where the cause of mould is not clear, the landlord would be expected to look for interim solutions to improve the conditions for residents. This was particularly important because of the resident’s asthma, which can be affected by damp and mould. The records demonstrate that the landlord completed mould treatments in March 2023 and December 2023, within 20-working days of it being reported, which is in line with its routine repair timescale. The only time it failed to treat mould within its timescale, was following an inspection in January 2024. The report from this inspection recorded mould from condensation in the bathroom and bedroom, which it recommended was treated. However, no works were raised prior to the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable because the landlord’s records show it was aware the resident had asthma and other vulnerabilities that might make living with mould more harmful or distressing.
18. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it would prioritise the treatment of mould because it was important to do this “as quickly as possible”. As explained, this approach was in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It was also in accordance with the landlord’s 2-tier damp and mould process, the first of which involved removing mould and the second was completing repair works. The resident was also signposted to information on the landlord’s website about how to manage condensation. It was reasonable to direct the resident to information about how he could reduce the humidity in his property as this was found to be causing mould at the last inspection. Nothing in the reports the landlord obtained from before or after its stage 1 response, suggested that the windows needed to be replaced. However, the resident had specifically stated that he wanted the windows to be renewed to resolve his complaint, so it would have been fair to respond to this specifically.
19. While the landlord’s complaint response was poor, it did acknowledge the delay and offered a remedy. This is in line with both the landlord’s complaints policy, and section 6.1 of the Code. The latter states that: “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Remedies can include acknowledging errors, providing an explanation, apologising, improving policies, or giving compensation. The landlord did then take appropriate actions to attempt to put right its earlier failings.
20. The lack of detail in the landlord’s response, however, likely contributed to the resident escalating his complaint because he felt his concerns had been dismissed. What was unclear was the reason the resident believed the landlord had discriminated against him. The landlord though reassured the resident, in the stage 2 response dated 14 March 2024, that it had taken his reports seriously and had followed an equitable repairs process. This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord treated the resident less favourably because of his health issues. Rather, the records support that the landlord did act on the resident’s reports of recurrent damp and mould, which was in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and relevant legislation (such as the Housing Act 2004) to keep the property in a liveable condition.
21. The appointment with the specialist surveyor did not go ahead on the date the resident was told it would because an administration error meant it was booked on a later date. This must have been frustrating to the resident, who was not able to be notified in advance. The landlord apologised for its mistake, as it should have done. It also advised that a new appointment had been made in April 2024, which was the earliest it could offer due to capacity reasons.
22. As the missed appointment caused a further delay and inconvenience, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £375. While it is understood the resident had informed the landlord that he was not seeking compensation, it was both in line with the landlord’s approach to remedying a service failure and the Code’s recommendations to do so. The amount offered was also consistent with what the landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay for cases where there has been “considerable service failure…[and] no permanent impact”. It is also within the range that the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends for a case, such as this, where maladministration over an extended period and caused distress and inconvenience but is not expected to be lasting. For this reason, no further compensation with be ordered.
23. After the complaints process ended, the landlord completed further mould treatments in the property in late-March 2024. The specialist surveyor also attended in early April 2024 and identified several repairs to address the problems, mainly in the bathroom. These were completed the following month while the resident was temporarily rehoused. This included the renewal of the back door. It is understood from both the available records and from the resident’s account that a new area of damp was more recently identified in the hallway to the resident’s flat, and that this was being investigated. The resident advised that he is not reassured that the landlord has taken sufficient action to identify and address the root cause of the damp. It is understandable that the resident is frustrated by the fact that the problem has reoccurred. However, the evidence shows the landlord has taken appropriate actions to resolve the issues, in line with its damp and mould process. It is also continuing to look for a solution to the most recent occurrence of damp in the hallway.
24. The cause of damp and mould can sometimes be challenging to identify and resolve, as was the case here. However, the landlord failed to progress some of the repairs and communicate effectively with the resident, as they should have done. Understandably, the resident was caused additional worry and inconvenience which has eroded his trust in the landlord. Nothing in the evidence though indicates that the reoccurrence of the problem is due to any specific lack of action by the landlord. The landlord also clearly appreciated the seriousness of the issue and the impact on the resident, as shown by its apologies and offer of an appropriate level of compensation.
25. Providing an inadequate level of detail in complaint responses is consistent with this Service’s findings from other investigations into the landlord, which were shared in the Ombudsman’s February 2024 special report. This report also found that the landlord repeatedly failed to meet its repair timescales. The landlord responded positively to this Service’s recommendations to improve its repairs and complaints services. This includes reducing the time its residents are waiting for repairs and ensuring its complaint responses meet the standards of the 2024 version of the Code, which it is now by law required to follow. It has though recognised there is still work it needs to do which it has committed to undertake. As the landlord has taken action to improve and is still actively seeking to address its failings, this report makes no orders around service improvements, but asks that it takes learning from the resident’s complaint.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord has offered redress to the resident, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.

Recommendation

27. If the compensation has not been paid to the resident, the landlord should reoffer it as this recognised the genuine aspects of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.