Islington Council (202302541)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302541

Islington Council

24 April 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:
1. Reports of damp and mould including associated repairs to air vents.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 3-bedroom flat where he resides with his wife. The property is located on the thirteenth floor of a communal building, owned by the landlord, which is a local authority.
The resident is represented by his daughter in bringing the complaint to the landlord and this Service. For convenience, the daughter and the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 22 June 2023, stating that there was damp and mould in the property, and despite visits from the landlord, no action had been taken. He stated that it should repair the air vents, as highlighted in his private surveyor’s report, which were blocked or not working.
In its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023, the landlord stated that an order was raised for a diagnostic surveyor to assess the damp and mould conditions in the property. The surveyor reported that the damp and mould appeared to be condensation related, and consequently there were no works required. The complaint regarding the extractor fan was referred to its major works team who would respond directly.
The resident escalated the complaint on 26 July 2023, stating that the landlord had not considered the private surveyor’s report which concluded that the damp and mould in his home was caused because of the air handling unit’s (AHU) poor performance. This was a wider problem within the block that needed urgent attention as it affected many other residents. The problem had been ongoing for almost a year and the situation was affecting the resident and his wife’s health and they were unable to sleep in the bedroom.
In its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023, the landlord apologised for not considering the resident’s private surveyors report. It listed repairs records and inspections undertaken and its findings. It concluded that the ventilation was working correctly but the extraction was “lower”. It had raised a routine works order to increase the extraction from the communal ventilation unit to ensure the extraction in the bathroom was more effective. It apologised that the resident had to chase for this repair on a number of occasions and offered £292 compensation. It recognised that there were vulnerabilities of members of the household and offered £208 towards mould treatment and redecoration.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He wanted the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to cover the costs of resolving the damp and mould, which he believed to be due to the air vents not working in the property.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised this Service that he and his wife had various health concerns, and the damp and mould had exacerbated their conditions. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of damp and mould including associated repairs to air vents.

The lease, dated 27 November 2000, sets out the repairing responsibilities of both the landlord and resident as follows:
1. The resident is responsible to keep all internal parts of the property in good decorative repair and properly cleansed, painted and papered with good quality materials. To maintain plaster, floorboards, doors and frames of non structural walls, along with plaster to interior faces of external walls, window glass and the internal surface materials of the windows, sanitary apparatus, radiators, cistern tanks, boiler pipes, wired conduits and drains, and other items installed for the purposes of supplying or carrying hot water, gas and electricity to the premises.
2. The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building and in particular the exterior and interior walls for which the tenant is not liable. It is responsible for the roof, foundations, timber joists, chimney stacks, gutters and rainwater soil pipes, and frames of windows. It is also responsible for any communal areas.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states:
1. Initial reports will be received by the diagnostic surveying team who will consider any water leaks or water penetration problems which may cause damp and mould. Having eliminated these, condensation would be considered as a factor contributing to the damp and mould problem being experienced.
2. During inspection it will complete visual inspections and checks to eliminate any potential water leaks or water penetration issues, any broken or defective electric extractor fans or ventilation fixtures or equipment within the property. It will take damp meter readings and record any advice given to the resident.
3. All staff have a duty to report any safeguarding concerns they have about adults at risk or children at risk of harm from abuse, neglect or exploitation.
The landlord undertook a damp and mould survey on 23 November 2022, where it noted that all 3 bedrooms had surface mould due to large furniture up against the walls, lack of ventilation and excessive humidity in the property. Failure to treat or clean the mould had resulted in mould spreading. The living room right external wall was believed to have a leak on the heating pipework which was concealed with boxing at low level. The leaseholder was responsible for the surface mould and for the heating pipe leak as it was not a communal responsibility. The resident wanted the landlord to carry out the work and recharge, however, it advised this was not a service it offered.
It was reasonable for the landlord to undertake a damp and mould inspection to try to identify the cause of the damp and mould. It was also reasonable that the landlord advised the resident that the leak to the pipework to the radiator was his responsibility under the terms of the lease. However, its records did not demonstrate that it had inspected or considered the ventilation fixtures or equipment during its inspection.
The resident’s private survey report, dated 25 January 2023, stated that the property was suffering from mould and condensation, notably in all 3 bedrooms. This was due to inadequate ventilation, high humidity levels and moisture migration. There was an air handling unit (AHU) which was servicing the entire block of 25 floors, however the extract rates were insufficient to deal with the humidity levels in the property. There was a fan fitted through the kitchen window which was redundant and not working. The kitchen cooker hood was recirculating the humidity back into the property. It recommended that the AHU system be investigated so that the extract rates were brought up to a sufficient level for the property, to install a replacement fan through the kitchen window, and to carry out mould treatment and painting of the affected areas. It noted that until the AHU was brought up to sufficient levels there was no guarantee that the work would resolve the condensation and mould issues.
The landlord’s repairs records showed that an order was raised on 13 February 2023 to inspect a communal fan requiring “urgent” attention. A further repairs order showed a call out for a leak in the kitchen on 20 March 2023. It noted that the boiler was over pressurised, and it was the responsibility of the resident to repair his own boiler.
The landlord undertook a second damp and mould survey on 23 March 2023. Its records concluded that there was a condensation buildup from lack of ventilation and thermal transfer. It noted that the resident had their own survey completed and the report findings were the same as the surveyors’. The records, however, did not refer to the private surveyors’ findings about the AHU unit or its recommendations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected its AHU unit at this time and consider the resident’s private surveyors report findings.
The landlord undertook a third damp and mould inspection on 20 June 2023. It referred to mould across the external wall in the bedroom and around the window reveals. The trickle vents were closed and there was no other room ventilation. There was mould on the ceiling and internal walls, high humidity and airborne moisture. It found no leaks of water ingress. It found no building faults and concluded that internal environmental conditions were the cause of high levels of condensation on surfaces. Records noted again that both the landlord’s findings and private surveyor’s findings concluded that the mould was as a result of condensation and stated this was from occupational use and not a building fault. Again, no reference was made in its records of the AHU unit or that this had been considered.
In its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023, the landlord stated that:
1. It had reviewed its repairs records and was unable to see that damp and mould issues were reported to its repairs team. It could see that on 24 March 2023, a plumber attended to investigate a leak affecting the kitchen and reported that the boiler was over pressurised causing the “prv” to let off a leak. The “prv” required replacing and this was the responsibility of the resident.
2. It had raised an order on 25 May 2023 for a diagnostic surveyor to assess the damp and mould in the property. The surveyor attended on 20 June 2023 and reported that the resident had their own inspection undertaken along with another one done by its surveyor over the winter. Both findings concluded that the mould was from condensation. This was from occupational use and not a building fault. Consequently, there were no works required.
3. It was unable to identify any service failure from the repairs team.
4. The complaint regarding the extractor fan had been referred to the major works team who would respond directly.
A further response was sent on 18 July 2023 and the landlord apologised for the lack of care and consideration experienced.
1. It had identified that there could have been some issues causing significant delays in completing communal ventilation works. After liaising with its engineer and the resident, it arranged for a survey to take place.
2. The engineer attended and advised that the communal ventilation was operating as it should. It had confirmed there was a mould issue and asked its contractors to check once more to ensure the assessment was correct.
3. During the complaint the resident advised of the issue in relation to damp and black mould and that it had been raised with other teams but was refused based on the resident being a leaseholder. On 19 June 2023 it had emailed its damp and mould team with the complaint and requested if anything could be done to assist with the ongoing issue and for that team to make contact.
The landlord’s repairs records showed that on 19 July 2023 a works order was raised for a contractor to inspect the ventilation system to ensure it was working correctly, as outlined in the response above. A further works order was raised on 17 August 2023 for a contractor to proceed with identified work to install air valves and clean ducting.
In its stage 2 response on 15 August 2023, the landlord stated:
1. It outlined its stage 1 response and findings. It was sorry that it had not referred to the private surveyor’s report in its stage 1 response. The complaint was received, via this Service, and the report was not mentioned in the complaint and the responder at stage 1 was therefore unaware of it.
2. Whilst it may review and consider private reports, there was consideration given to the commissioned company’s benefit from paid work as a result of their finding. Its diagnostic surveyors were also professionals in their field, understood its obligations for resolving issues pertaining to damp and mould, and would ensure that any defects it was responsible for addressing were followed up. Therefore, it relied on its own surveyor’s reports.
3. It had not identified any defects within the building or the resident’s property that it was responsible for. However, it understood that he had requested the installation of “insulation”, and this was referred to its major works team following the investigation of the stage 1 complaint. A copy of the private surveyor’s report was also passed on. On 19 July 2023 an order was issued to arrange attendance to confirm the ventilation was working. This was allocated to one its contractors and they made arrangements to attend on 8 August 2023.
4. It was sorry that the resident considered that the problem was affecting numerous other properties and confirmed that this was not evident from its repairs records, nor the report produced following its contractors visit.
5. It had checked repairs records from January 2022 linked to the resident’s address and provided detailed descriptions of its responses to those works.
6. It had undertaken a number of damp and mould inspections and provided details of its findings.
7. On 13 February 2023 a works order was issued on a 24-hour priority. The works order description stated that the resident had reported a communal fan requiring urgent attention. It was issued to its contractor who attended on 13 February 2023 and although they stated that they had sent details of the works they proposed, the quotation was not received. It was sorry he had to chase for updates on 27 February, 6 March and 22 May 2023. In accordance with its compensation policy, it awarded compensation for the inconvenience caused in having to chase for updates of £292.
8. The only other works order was from 19 July 2023. While it considered that the ventilation was working adequately, the extraction was “lower”, so coupled with other problems, the boiler repair and lack of ventilation from closed windows, its contractor was asked to attend. Its contractor came to the same conclusion, and it was agreed that a routine works order would be issued to increase the extraction from the communal ventilation unit to ensure the extraction in the bathroom is more effective. At the time of responding it had not had details of the works order but expected the repair to be completed by the end of September 2023. It stated that the kitchen extractor fan was the responsibility of the resident.
9. It was mindful of the vulnerability of members of the household and with this in mind, although it was under no obligation to do so, it had sought approval to contribute £208 towards the cost of mould treatment and redecoration.
10. It had also asked its tenancy services team to arrange a wellness home visit to the family to see whether it could be signposted for other support that may assist. Its tenancy services team had advised that they had tried to make a referral, on the resident’s behalf to the access team, however the resident did not wish for a referral to be made to social services.
11. It concluded that the damp in the home was not caused due to water penetration that it would be responsible for. It noted that the communal ventilation system was not working in the bathroom as efficiently as it should. As the ventilation system was for extraction in the bathroom, any effects of this were minimal and would not affect the other rooms in the home.
The landlord’s responses were appropriate in advising that the leaking pipe to the radiator, boiler repair and kitchen window extractor were the responsibility of the resident as a leaseholder.
The landlord demonstrated empathy for the resident’s situation. It showed that it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and referred to its tenancy services team to make a wellness home visit and any appropriate referrals. This was in line with its damp and mould policy which refers to flagging any safeguarding concerns. It also offered a contribution toward the damp and mould treatment given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its own surveyor’s findings, it should have considered the resident’s private surveyor report findings with regard to the AHU, which it was aware of in March 2023 according to its damp and mould survey records. This was not considered or inspected until July 2023 where it determined that the ventilation system was working as it should be, but deemed the extraction to be “low”, and subsequently raised an order in August 2023 to its contractor.
Following its contractors visit in August 2023, the contractor submitted a report on 19 September 2023, which referred to work undertaken and its recommendations. It stated:
1. Having attended the property to replace existing grills in the bathroom and toilet, it removed metal casings that secured the “punkah grill” to the wall. The metal that was supposed to be removed to install new 125mm fire related grills was part of the duct work which ran through the wall, so this made the job “undoable”. No grilles were replaced.
2. It used “fb keys” to open up a cupboard where it found the ductwork behind the wall. Duct work was 76mm and had a join that could be separated.
3. Changing and replacing the grill would not make a difference in the amount of air getting extracted from the property. It believed the issues would stem back to the original duct work installed.
4. It could cut out all the old ducts and re-join closer to the wall, but still did not believe this would improve it. It believed a camera inspection should be carried out on the ductwork from where the extract fan started to see if the overall condition of the ductwork. It believed new fans had been installed on the roof.
5. Replacing or changing the duct work would be a days work. It would have to angle grind the duct, core drill through the walls and find a way of joining the 76mm duct to at least 100mm metal before installing a new grill.
6. It concluded that replacing the grill would not improve airflow. It had unblocked duct work as best as possible. It suggested that the landlord attend the property due to the amount of mould build up on the bedroom wall. The wall backed onto another flat or communal area and there was no condensation in the property when the engineer attended.
7. It advised an endoscope camera of all the duct work in the building and believed all duct work in the property would have to be changed.
This Service is unable to conclude whether the delay in completing the bathroom extraction repair or issues with the ventilation system would have been the sole cause of the damp and mould in the property. The evidence suggests that the kitchen hood extractor, kitchen window fan, leak to the boiler, leak to pipework in the living room, and furniture being placed against walls could have been contributing factors to the damp and mould. All of which would have been the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder to resolve.
While the landlord appropriately offered compensation for delays from February to September 2023 and apologised, it failed to consider the private survey report or inspect its ventilation system at an earlier stage. Given the recommendations made by its contractor following its visit in August 2023, which was following the stage 2 response, it is evident that there are issues with the ventilation system. Had the landlord inspected this in March 2023 when it was aware of the private survey report, and as outlined in its damp and mould policy, it would have identified the issue sooner and been able to consider resolution at an earlier stage.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its repairs records and contractors findings, that other residents were not impacted, it could have considered undertaking a survey or inspecting other resident’s homes. Having found that the resident’s bathroom extraction was low, it is reasonable to assume this may be the case in other properties.
For the reasons set out above, this Service finds that the landlord has not made reasonable redress to the resident and finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated air vent repairs.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised the complaint, via this Service, on 22 June 2023 and the landlord responded on 10 July 2023, 18 calendar days later and 8 days later than its published complaints policy timescale. However, this Service had requested a response by 13 July 2023.
The resident escalated the complaint on 26 July 2023 and the landlord responded on 15 August 2023, 20 working days later in line with its policy timescale.
The landlord’s records demonstrated that following contact from this Service on 22 June 2023, it had investigated whether it had previously received a complaint from the resident. Its internal emails of 23 June 2023 showed that it had noted that there was a record on its call log system for 27 May 2023 regarding ventilation in the bathroom, damp and mould but did not note any request for a complaint. Reference was also made to checking its complaints “backlog” but finding no record of a complaint being made previously.
This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould including associated repairs to air vents.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for its failures in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs to the air vents. (this is in addition to the £500 offered in its stage 2 response).
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an update on its proposed actions in relation to the ventilation in his property following its contractor’s recommendations and findings. It should provide details of any proposed work and timescale for these.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider undertaking a survey of its properties in the block to ascertain whether other residents may be affected by low extraction of the AHU.
The landlord should pay the resident £500, offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.