Harlow District Council (202336937)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336937

Harlow District Council

25 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Reports of pests in the property including mice, slugs, woodlice, and silverfish.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a two-bedroom ground floor flat. She is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 16 December 2019.
  2. The resident lives in the property with 2 young children. The resident has asthma, epilepsy, obsessive compulsive disorder, and is under the care of mental health services. She explained to the landlord that her children are frequently unwell, and her youngest child has anxiety.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 November 2023. She said:
    1. The landlord did not make her aware of any problems with damp or mould when she moved into the property.
    2. Within 3 months of moving in, she had severe mould which damaged her personal possessions.
    3. She could not get through to anyone at the landlord for help as it was during the pandemic. A housing officer came out in 2021, but the landlord had not taken further action.
    4. She was still experiencing problems with damp and mould. Additionally, there were mice, slugs, woodlice, and silverfish in the property.
    5. Her children were regularly unwell.
    6. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 November 2023. It said:
    1. The resident submitted a damp and mould self-assessment to the landlord.
    2. Following the self-assessment, a damp survey took place on 7 November 2023. The landlord was currently reviewing the details within the report.
    3. In the interim, it made an appointment to treat the mould on the internal walls on 1 December 2023.
    4. It requested a ventilation survey from a specialist.
    5. It spoke to the resident on 22 November 2023 about making an insurance claim for her damaged possessions. It emailed her the same day explaining how to contact the landlord’s insurance team.
    6. The resident can provide copies of medical letters or other correspondence concerning her worries about the impact of the mould on the health of her children for it to consider.
    7. A pest control appointment had been made for 11 December 2023; however, the landlord had contacted its contractor to see if this appointment could be moved forward.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2023. She said:
    1. Contractors attended on 1 December 2023, but they could not do the mould works due to the mice.
    2. The ventilation survey took place on 5 December 2023 and the surveyor informed her that previous work within the property had not been done correctly.
    3. She had sent medical records to the landlord but had not received a reply.
    4. The landlord had not addressed the issues in her property. As a result, she had uprooted her children and was living on the floor in her disabled mother’s home.
    5. Both the resident and her children were experiencing troubles with their mental health.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 January 2024. It said:
    1. It had spoken with its contractor who confirmed damp treatment was postponed on 1 December 2023 due to the presence of mice in the property.
    2. Pest control attended on 11 December 2023 and 20 December 2023. Pest control would attend again this week and once signed off, the damp treatment work would be rescheduled as quickly as possible.
    3. It had received the ventilation report which said there were issues with the ventilation system in the property. The landlord was waiting for a quotation for the repairs. Once received, this would be authorised for the earliest available appointment.
    4. In addition, the landlord had arranged for other works including:
      1. The removal of vegetation to the front and side elevation.
      2. Drainage improvements.
      3. Repairs to the lintel above the second bedroom.
    5. It offered hotel accommodation (including breakfast) for the resident and her household while it undertook the pest control and initial damp treatment. It also offered a £20 per person per day food allowance.
    6. The threshold for a management move was not met as the works required in the property were not of an extensive nature and should be completed quickly.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. Throughout January 2024, the pest control contractor reported to the landlord that they were attending weekly and had caught a few mice. They said that although it was unpleasant, it did not appear to be a huge problem.
  2. In March 2024, the landlord contacted the resident again regarding its offer to move to temporary hotel accommodation.
  3. In May 2024, the pest control contractor signed off the job and noted there had been no further contact from the resident or landlord.
  4. In July 2024, several work orders were raised for repairs to the property, including a mould wash and the garden works referenced within the stage 2 response.
  5. In September 2024, the resident told this Service that the mice infestation had been rectified, however the damp and mould problem was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted the health of her and her children. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of an occupant. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
  2. Within the complaint to the landlord dated 20 November 2023, the resident referred issues with damp and mould in the property within 3 months of her tenancy starting in 2019. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about this, completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) or referred the matter to this Service for support in engaging with the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be conducted and for informed decisions to be made.
  4. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme (that was in force at the time of this complaint) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  5. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 20 May 2023 onward. This is 6 months before the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord on 20 November 2023. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 2 January 2024. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its tenanted properties.
  2. The landlord offers an enhanced repair service under its vulnerable persons policy. It sets out that:
    1. Emergency repairs would be attended within 2 hours with the aim to rectify/make safe within a day.
    2. Urgent repairs would be dealt with in under 3 working days.
    3. Standard repairs would be handled within 15 working days.
  3. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action or whether it requires a specialist damp survey.
  4. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a damp survey and a ventilation survey within an acceptable period. Once works were identified, evidence shows the landlord raised work orders for some of the repairs within a timely manner. It also offered to decant the resident to temporary hotel accommodation. In the circumstances, this was fair and reasonable.
  5. The Ombudsman is concerned that although some work orders were raised in November 2023, they were later raised again in July 2024, more than 7 months after it had issued its final complaint response. While the landlord has evidenced that some of its subcontractors would not work internally while there were mice in the property, it has not demonstrated why external repairs were not progressed at the earliest opportunity.
  6. The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s record keeping, since the records provided do not evidence what happened with these repairs and why they did not progress as promised as part of the resolution to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s lack of clarity over the actions of its contractors and surveyors indicates there were shortcomings in its record keeping and oversight of repairs.
  7. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of concise evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations or that it communicated effectively with the resident throughout.
  8. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare.
  9. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow its policy as it should regarding damp and mould. It did not resolve the substantive issue within its internal complaint process and failed to agree with the resident when it would be remedied. Had the landlord adopted best practice as per our spotlight report, it could have avoided the failure in service.
  10. Overall, the main failures within this case were poor communication and lack of active repair management. Additionally, the Ombudsman identified record keeping failings. At the same time, the Ombudsman recognises the landlord offered temporary hotel accommodation and a food allowance to the resident and her family. After considering the evidence available, it is determined that the shortcomings identified constitute a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the property

  1. The tenancy agreement states the resident must take reasonable steps to keep the property free from rats, mice, insects, and other pests.
  2. The landlord offers free pest control services for infestations of pharaoh ants, bed bugs, and cockroaches. It offers a “paid for” pest control service for infestations of wasps, mice, rats, and fleas.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably following reports of mice in the property. It took the resident’s concern seriously and attempted to bring forward the initial pest control appointment.
  4. The landlord has provided copies of correspondence with its pest control contractor. This shows the landlord was proactive in its approach and sought regular updates.
  5. While the pest contractor felt the infestation of mice was not a huge problem, considering the resident’s circumstances, the Ombudsman finds it was fair and reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident temporary hotel accommodation until the matter was resolved. This demonstrates the landlord had a fair and empathetic approach in its decision making and considered the vulnerability of the members of the household.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show whether the resident accepted or rejected the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation when it was initially offered. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord presented this as an option within its final complaint response and reoffered it to the resident in March 2024.
  7. It is noted the landlord only responded to the resident’s report of mice in the property and it did not comment on her reports of slugs, woodlice, and silverfish. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is minded that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out its position regarding these. Its omission to do so was a failure in service.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests in the property, including mice, slugs, woodlice, and silverfish.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
      2. £50 for its failure to respond to the resident’s concern about slugs, woodlice, and silverfish in the property.
    3. Write to the resident setting out an action plan with timescales to remedy the repairs identified within the damp survey and the ventilation survey (if not yet completed). It should use its best endeavours to complete the repairs within a reasonable period.
    4. Write to the resident to set out its position regarding her reports of slugs, woodlice, and silverfish in the property.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers whether any further compensation is due to the resident to reflect any avoidable delays in completing repairs from the date of its stage 2 response in January 2024 up to the date it completes the repairs.