Islington Council (202306224)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306224

Islington Council

21 May 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority at the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat of a building owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has physical health conditions affecting her mobility. However, it told this Service it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On and from 4 June 2021 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord completed a survey on 9 July 2021 and raised a work order. The landlord tasked its contractor with washing and treating mould in the bathroom, renewing the sealant to the bathroom floor and renewing the skirting in the bathroom. Due to delays in completing the work, the landlord reassigned the work from the contractor around 25 August 2021. In error, it cancelled the outstanding work. The resident raised further reports of damp and mould on 25 August, 6 and 14 September 2021.
  3. On 22 September 2021 the landlord arranged a further survey of the property. It completed this on 28 September 2021 and raised a work order. This was to wash, treat and paint mould in the bathroom, living room and hallway. It next attended the property on 12 January 2022 to assess what work was needed. The landlord’s records show it commenced treatment on 13 April 2022. However, the resident disputes this, stating the operative had “insufficient time to complete the work” on 13 April 2022 and left with the work incomplete. The resident states the first work to treat mould by the landlord was on 8 June 2022. It completed a further survey at the property on 29 July 2022. It raised further work to complete the outstanding repairs to the bathroom first raised on 9 July 2021. It later completed these on 25 November 2022. It completed further treatment of mould on 8 August 2022.
  4. On 4 October 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 19 September 2022. It told her the following:
    1. It acknowledged from 19 July 2021 it had failed to complete treatment in a timely manner or complete the repairs raised in the bathroom. It offered £25 compensation for each of these issues.
    2. It acknowledged it had failed to progress any treatment at her property from 28 September 2021. It offered her £25 compensation for this.
    3. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused to her and £50 for time and effort to complain. In total it offered £175 compensation. It stated it upheld her complaint.
  5. Following this the landlord cancelled appointments at short notice on 14 November and 2 December 2022. The resident reported further damp and mould at the property on 13 December 2022. The landlord surveyed the property on 10 January 2023 and completed further treatment on 31 January 2023. The resident reported further damp and mould at the property on 25 March 2023. The landlord surveyed the property on 30 March 2023 and found no further evidence of damp and mould. It raised further mould treatment to the bathroom ceiling.
  6. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 2 November 2022 and the landlord rejected this internally. It failed to inform the resident of this. She raised her escalation again on 13 December 2022. It told her on 15 December 2022 it had rejected her escalation. However, on 15 March 2023, it accepted she had cause to escalate her complaint. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 31 March 2023. It told her the following:
    1. It apologised it had not responded to all her reports of damp and mould and was uncertain why. It said a shortfall in staff members caused appointments to be cancelled. It offered her £25 compensation for each of the cancelled appointments, £50 total. It acknowledged its repairs were not carried out in a timely manner which caused anxiety to the resident.
    2. It said it was aware of the resident’s reports about the impact of damp and mould on health. It said it was aware of the Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould. It said it had set up a team to target damp and mould issues. It said it aimed to carry out work to identify and eliminate damp and mould and had a pilot program for remote sensors in properties. It said in the resident’s case the repair was not straightforward and it required trial remedies. It said the resident had not reported damp and mould at the property since December 2022. It provided her with two previous survey reports completed at the property as requested.
    3. It advised its insurer had rejected the resident’s public liability claim for damage to her belongings. It offered her £700 compensation. This was based on her receipts totalling £616. It rounded the remaining amount up to £700 for the time and trouble the resident encountered in pursuing her insurance claim.
    4. It offered her further compensation of £167 for the shortfall in compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. It also offered £50 compensation for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response. In total, the landlord awarded compensation of £967.
  7. The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 20 February 2024. She said the following: There was “7 years of historical damp and mould at the property” and communication from the landlord “could have been better”. The landlord had made short-term fixes, but none were effective. She believed the landlord failed to investigate the “root cause of the issue” including “considering ventilation” or “using better materials”. She believed the landlord should have considered placing her in temporary accommodation. She felt the landlord should have also reimbursed her for the cost of disposable dehumidifiers.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

  1. The resident completed a public liability insurance claim for her personal possessions which had been damaged due to damp and mould at the property; however, this claim was declined by the landlord’s insurer. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to raise a public liability claim and its overall approach to the matter. It is noted however that despite the refusal of the insurance claim the landlord agreed to pay compensation in excess of the sum the resident had claimed for damaged belongings in consideration of this aspect of the case.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence, she has referred to historical issues of damp and mould at the property for 7 years. In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Given the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events before 4 June 2021. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 19 September 2021.

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

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms the resident must give the landlord notice of disrepair as soon as possible. Its Housing Repairs Guide confirms it aims to maintain homes to a “reasonable standard”. It also aims to do the following:
    1. Complete repairs in one visit, whenever possible.
    2. Arrange and keep appointments to inspect or carry out routine works.
    3. Set high standards for the quality of work carried out.
    4. Keep mess, dust and disturbance to a minimum and tidy up afterwards.
    5. Provide an enhanced service to vulnerable residents less able to maintain their home.
  2. The guide confirms the landlord is “responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues affecting the home.” It will provide information on how to manage condensation where this is the “reported cause of any dampness.” The landlord will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It notes some “some jobs will need an inspection first.”
  3. The resident reported damp and mould on 4 June 2021. The landlord completed a survey on 9 July 2021 at the property and determined treatment for the mould was required. The landlord’s records show it completed the first course of treatment on 13 April 2022. However, the resident disputes this and said an operative did attend on 13 April 2022 but left “as they did not have time to complete the job.” The resident said the first course of treatment took place on 8 June 2022. The landlord’s records show it completed treatment on 8 June 2022. This suggests a potential error in the landlord’s record keeping.
  4. The time for the landlord to complete treatment was equivalent to 221 working days if using a completion date of 13 April 2022. If using a completion date of 8 June 2022 this was equivalent to 257 working days. Both of these exceeded the landlord’s timescale for completion of 20 working days. Between 4 June 2021 and 8 June 2022, the landlord was responsible for the following failures which caused the delay in treatment:
    1. It completed a survey at the property on 9 July 2021. However, it failed to raise treatment work for the mould until 19 July 2021. It could have raised this earlier to bring forward the treatment and not prolong the issue.
    2. A contractor assigned to complete the treatment work failed to complete any treatment. The landlord did take appropriate action in removing the work from the contractor around 25 August 2021. However, after taking this action, in error the landlord cancelled the job and failed to rebook the work. It failed to explain this to the resident until 4 October 2022 when it provided its stage 1 complaint response.
    3. It completed a survey on 28 September 2021 finding further mould treatment was required. It did not follow this up until 12 January 2022 when it attended at the property to determine what action was required. It is uncertain why it was delayed in completing this.
    4. Following this, there was another unexplained delay as the landlord did not attend again until 13 April 2022. It is not disputed that the landlord attended at the resident’s property on 13 April 2022. However, as previously stated there is dispute over whether the landlord completed treatment on this day.
  5. Following this the resident reported further damp to the landlord on 9 June 2022. It did not attend until 29 July to complete a further survey. This was equivalent to 37 working days and exceeded its timescale for response by 17 working days. The landlord attended to complete further treatment on 4 occasions at the property between 9 June and 3 October. The resident has since raised concerns about the quality of the work completed in this period. However, there is no evidence of the resident raising this with the landlord at this time. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the resident made further reports, it was appropriate for it to take no further action on this matter at this time.
  6. The landlord cancelled appointments for 15 November and 2 December 2022 with less than 24 hours’ notice. It recognised this in its stage 2 response and offered £25 compensation for each appointment. This was an appropriate response to address the resident’s concerns.
  7. The resident reported further damp and mould at her property on 13 December 2022. The landlord completed a survey within 20 working days on 10 January 2023 and completed treatment within an appropriate timeframe on 31 January 2023. She reported further damp and mould on 25 March 2023. The landlord attended on 30 March 2023 and found there was no damp or mould at the property. Confusingly it ordered mould treatment to the property which it completed on 3 April 2023. It is uncertain why this treatment was carried out if it believed there was no mould present. It had the opportunity to explain this in its stage 2 response but failed to do so. As such it failed to explain its findings to the resident and why it had considered further treatment. This left the resident uncertain of the outcome and what the resolution was.

Repairs to the bathroom

  1. On 19 July 2021 as well as raising mould treatment work the landlord also raised repairs to the bathroom to “renew the sealant around the floor” and “remove and renew skirting between the door frame and shower”. This work was arranged to be completed by the landlord’s contractor with the damp and mould treatment in August 2021. However as previously stated, in error, the landlord cancelled and failed to rebook this work.
  2. The landlord completed a further survey at the property on 29 July 2022 and found the repairs to the bathroom were still outstanding. At this point, the repairs were outstanding for a total of 263 working days. This exceeded the landlord’s 20 working day target by 243 working days. It prolonged the resolution of the issue causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is also unclear why the landlord was unable to identify this work was outstanding in its previous survey of 28 September 2021. Had it done so it may have been prompted to resolve the issue much sooner.
  3. On 29 July 2022 the landlord raised works to complete the repairs to the bathroom. By its stage 1 complaint response of 4 October 2022, this work was not complete. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised in its stage 1 complaint response. However, it only recognised the delay from 29 July 2022 when the work was raised again. It failed to recognise the work was outstanding from 19 July 2021. It told the resident it had passed the work to its repairs team to “arrange a suitable appointment.”
  4. The landlord completed the repairs to the bathroom on 25 November 2022. This was 85 working days from the date the work order was raised again on 29 July 2022. In total, the repair was outstanding for 347 working days. It exceeded its timescale for response by 327 working days. The delay in completing the repair caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It also prolonged the resolution of the overall issue as the repairs were linked to the damp and mould issue in the bathroom.

Communication

  1. Throughout the complaint there is evidence of the landlord acting in a reactive manner rather than approaching the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a proactive way. Its reaction when it responded was to send a surveyor to the resident’s property. Other than the complaint responses there is no evidence of the landlord explaining its approach to the resident. There is also no evidence of it proactively monitoring the situation at the property and communicating with the resident about this. The landlord’s Repairs Policy does not suggest when or how often it should communicate with a resident. This omission stifled its communication with the resident and made her feel she was dealing with the issue on her own.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 25 August, 6 September, and 14 September 2021. The landlord failed to respond to the resident on these reports. This caused her to believe it was not taking her seriously or that it would resolve the issue. It failed to acknowledge it had not done this in its stage 1 complaint response. In doing so it failed to address the resident’s concerns or offer a worthwhile explanation or resolution.
  3. In her escalation the resident raised that the landlord had not responded to all her reports of damp and mould. She highlighted an email she sent on 22 November 2022 as the most recent. This Service has seen evidence of the email from the resident and cannot see that the landlord replied. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident it “had not received clarification of whether her email was received or if it was unanswered”. This response was inadequate and the landlord should have completed a sufficient investigation to address this point. Its failure to acknowledge it had failed to respond to reports in August and September 2021 suggests it did not complete a thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns. This left the issue unresolved for the resident causing distress and uncertainty to her.
  4. In correspondence with this Service on 21 December 2023 the resident said she had no further correspondence from the landlord about the damp and mould issue at the property. After the landlord’s final complaint response of 31 March 2023, the resident reported damp and mould on 6 April 2023. There is evidence of the landlord attending to complete treatment on 25 April 2023. However, there is no further evidence of the landlord contacting the resident to inform her of what action it would be taking and why.

Identification of the root cause of the damp and mould issue.

  1. The evidence shows the most severe mould growth was on the bathroom ceiling and was consistent throughout the complaint. In her complaint escalation of 2 November 2022, the resident raised that the landlord had not resolved the “root cause of the issue.” The landlord explained in its stage 2 response of 31 March 2023 it the repair was “not straightforward” and “required trial remedies.” It said it had completed several surveys to seek the root cause. The landlord explained delays in treatment caused the mould to grow. It failed to explain what the initial cause of the mould was. It is uncertain if it was confident on what the reason was.
  2. The landlord told the resident there were no further reports of damp and mould at the property in its stage 2 response. This was not correct as she had reported this on 25 March 2023. The survey completed by the landlord on 30 March 2023 said there was no evidence of damp or mould at the property. It is uncertain why mould washes were arranged for 3 April 2023 if this was the case as the landlord’s actions suggest the damp and mould issue was still present in the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s position in its stage 2 response, that the issue was resolved was not supported by the actions it had taken. It made the resident believe she was not being taken seriously.
  3. The landlord completed further treatment to the ceiling on 25 April 2023 and this is the last evidence of this. The resident told the Ombudsman in January 2024 the situation with her bathroom was “still the same” which suggests the issue has recurred as was the case consistently throughout the complaint. The landlord informed the Ombudsman on 15 March 2024 that it was completing a further survey of the property on 23 March 2024. It said it would raise any treatment work as necessary. It is uncertain what the outcome of this is.
  4. Surveys completed at the property by the landlord on 28 June 2021 stated condensation was the cause of mould in the bathroom. All further surveys could find no cause for the surface condensation at the property. The resident told the landlord in her escalation of 2 November 2022 a contractor told her the damp and mould was due to poor ventilation in the property. There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair logs or survey reports of considering ventilation at any point during the internal complaints process. The landlord failed to respond to this point in its stage 2 complaint response. This caused uncertainty for the resident on whether the landlord had considered ventilation as the root cause of the damp and mould at the property. There is no evidence it chose to investigate whether ventilation was a root cause of the damp and mould issue at this time.
  5. A further survey completed by the landlord on 6 March 2024 identified the property has “a ventilation issue”. It stated the “fan in the bathroom was removed when double glazing was installed”. It suggested this should be installed in the bathroom. It is uncertain if this has been completed. It is of concern that lack of ventilation was not considered or raised as a concern in the previous 5 surveys completed by the landlord at the property. It is uncertain why the landlord planned a further survey for 23 March 2024 when it had completed one a few weeks previously.
  6. The landlord’s Repairs Policy provides information about the potential causes of damp and mould, including condensation. The policy links to its website with further information a resident can make to manage condensation in their home. The policy states when the landlord identifies condensation as a cause of damp and mould it will give advice on how to manage it including providing a copy of a damp and mould leaflet. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord provided advice on managing condensation or that it provided a leaflet to the resident or directed her to its website. In failing to do so it did not take a holistic approach to explore all options for improving the resident’s situation.
  7. The landlord will be ordered to complete a full investigation of the damp and mould at the property by an independent surveyor. Consideration should be given as part of this whether ventilation would mitigate the issue. It must provide the resident with its findings and take any appropriate action as a result. It must also provide the resident with any relevant information about managing condensation in her property.

The impact on the resident’s health.

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms the resident is responsible for “moving items at risk of being damaged away from areas its operatives need to work”. Its Repairs Policy confirms it can support disabled residents with repairs and decorating. There is no provision for the moving of a disabled resident’s furniture to allow for a repair. The landlord was aware of serious mobility issues affecting the resident. Included with the resident’s original tenancy agreement are details relating to a condition affecting her spine. There is no evidence throughout the complaint of the landlord considering or offering support in moving her furniture. This was a failure to consider and offer a reasonable adjustment and support the resident’s needs in adherence to the Equality Act 2012. The impact of this will be further assessed further in this report.
  2. The landlord said the resident had “refused access to the bedroom” on 14 September 2022. It is unclear the reasoning for this. However, on 3 October 2022, the landlord attended at short notice at the resident’s property. It stated it was “unable to access the bedroom as the resident had furniture that needed to be moved.” She told the landlord “she needed help moving the items in the bedroom”. The resident later clarified she was unable to move the items herself. Before 3 October 2022, the landlord failed to consider the impact on the resident in attending at short notice. It failed to consider if she needed support in moving her furniture or give her advance notice to allow her to move her furniture. Its failure to do either of these things meant it was unable to complete any treatment in the bedroom and prolonged resolution of the issue. It failed to offer an “enhanced service to a vulnerable person” in accordance with its Repairs Policy.
  3. From 4 June 2021 the landlord took appropriate steps in noting its repair notes that the resident needed additional time to answer the door due to her health. It continued to do this until 22 September 2021 and then stopped doing this. It is unclear on the reason for this. Between 2 March 2022 and 9 June 2022, and 6 February 2023 and 11 April 2023, it was aware of an issue with the resident’s intercom. As such it noted its repair notes to call the resident when attending at her property. Although the landlord did not take this step to support the resident with her health and answering the door, this did support her with this. Therefore, between 4 June 2021 and 28 February 2024, it failed to note its records relating to 12 appointments at her property. It failed to support her with a reasonable adjustment in doing so and failed to prioritise her individual circumstances. Again, it failed to offer an “enhanced service to a vulnerable person” in accordance with its Repairs Policy. An order will be made for the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the resident and her property. It should update its records to reflect its findings.
  4. The resident first raised her concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her health in her complaint escalation of 2 November 2022. The landlord was delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response until 31 March 2023 when it addressed this. It told the resident it had “set up a team to target damp and mould”. It could have clarified what action the team would be completing to provide further reassurance to the resident. It also said the landlord had not reported damp and mould since December 2022. This was not correct as the resident had reported damp and mould to it on 25 March 2023. It had found on 30 March 2023 no evidence of damp and mould. It should have explained this in its response to ensure the information was accurate and the resident was clear on what had happened.
  5. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 17 May 2023 and 30 January 2024 the resident stated she was impacted by her mental as well as physical health. It is noted there is no evidence of the resident reporting mental health issues to the landlord. However, in supporting the resident it should consider the resident’s mental health as part of the risk assessment the Ombudsman will order the landlord to complete.

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.

  1. In her complaint escalation of 2 November 2022, the resident stated her awareness of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. This was published in October 2021. Landlords were asked to take appropriate learning in line with the report and its recommendations within 4 months. Two of the key findings of the report were:
    1. Overreliance on residents reporting damp and mould.
    2. Lack of overall responsibility for ensuring complaints are resolved.
  2. Both of these were key themes in the resident’s complaint. There were errors in managing the resident’s complaint escalation. This will be assessed in ‘complaint handling’. There is no evidence of the landlord proactively monitoring damp and mould at the resident’s property or communicating with her directly about the issue. It was reliant on her reports in determining what action it should take. In its stage 2 complaint response it “noted the resident’s concerns it should be proactive, not reactive.” It said it would review its cyclical works for repairs and redecoration. It also said it was piloting a system for sensors to monitor damp and mould at properties remotely. These were appropriate actions to ensure the landlord can manage damp and mould in properties proactively in future. This Service has not yet seen evidence of putting these service improvements in place thus far. An order will be made for the landlord to provide evidence of this.
  3. In October 2023 the Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord regarding its response to damp and mould. This was published after the completion of the internal complaint procedure for this case. One suggestion in this report was to create an action plan to establish communication with the resident. From October 2023 the resident reported further damp and mould. The landlord arranged further surveys as a result of this. However, there is no evidence of it speaking with the resident about this or creating an action plan. There is no evidence of this suggestion being included in the landlord’s Repairs Policy. Moreover, there is no evidence of it completing a risk assessment that factors in vulnerabilities, as suggested by the report. This was key in the resident’s complaint where her health issues were often overlooked. This makes it unclear if it is “committed to improving services and conditions for its residents” as its response to the special report stated.

Raising of public liability insurance claim.

  1. The resident asked the landlord to forward her public liability claim on 18 October, 9 November 2021, 10 January, 10 August, 27 August, 20 September and 1 November 2022. The landlord did not reply to any of these requests. There is no evidence it forwarded her request to its insurance team for consideration. This was inappropriate and caused uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  2. On 10 October 2022 the landlord did reply to the resident’s email request of 5 October 2022. Its complaints team said her insurance concern was a “separate matter”. It said if she submitted an insurance claim it would provide all relevant evidence including its complaint responses. This was unhelpful and is evidence of the landlord failure to collaborate across its business in its response to the resident. It could have forwarded her concerns to the insurance team for response. However, there is no evidence it did this at this point.
  3. It is uncertain when an outcome on the resident’s insurance was made by the landlord’s insurer. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response of 31 March 2023 her claim had been rejected.
  4. On 18 January 2023 the landlord offered the resident £616 compensation in relation to her public liability claim. This was actual financial loss for the damage to the resident’s belongings, which she had provided receipts for. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it will not consider compensation until all insurance claims, including home contents or public liability, are settled. The landlord’s award was therefore appropriate as it suggests the resident had no home contents insurance. The award was also a reasonable approach as the tenancy agreement states residents should “arrange their own home contents insurance.” Furthermore, the landlord provided the resident with a home contents insurance “preferred supplier” as part of her tenancy agreement.
  5. The landlord added £84 compensation for the time and trouble the resident had in raising her insurance claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the time and trouble the resident had in raising her insurance claim. However, the amount it offered for this was not in accordance with its Compensation Policy. The policy suggests awards of £100 to £300 for time and trouble.

Compensation

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered total compensation of £175. This was £25 each for 2 missed appointments, £25 for failing to complete the shower room repairs and £50 each for inconvenience and time and effort to complain. This was a total of £175 The compensation offered at stage 1 was insufficient as it failed to consider the following:
    1. It did not complete any treatment for 314 days. This meant the inconvenience suffered was prolonged. The Compensation Policy does not provide suitable amounts for an award of inconvenience.
    2. It failed to recognise repairs to the resident’s bathroom were outstanding and were outstanding from 19 July 2021 and not just 29 July 2022 as it had stated.
    3. It did not consider any distress caused to the resident. Its Compensation Policy states it can award between £100 to £300 for distress.
    4. It failed to acknowledge or consider compensation for its failure to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould between 25 August and 14 September 2021.
    5. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it should offer between £500 and £2500 for disrepair complaints.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response appropriately acknowledged it failed to offer sufficient compensation in its stage 1 response. The landlord offered a further £167 for the “shortfall in its stage 1 complaint response”. It also offered £25 each for the 2 appointments it cancelled at short notice in November and December 2022. The total compensation at stage 2 was £217. The compensation offered at stage 2 was insufficient as it failed to consider the following:
    1. It did not consider any distress caused to the resident. It failed to consider as part of this the impact of the outstanding mould treatment for 314 working days and the outstanding bathroom repairs for 347 working days, on the resident.
    2. It failed to fully investigate all reports from the resident in August and September 2021 and whether it had failed to respond appropriately. It failed to fully address its failure to communicate with her about its approach or monitoring of the issue throughout the complaint.
    3. It failed to consider reasonable adjustments for the resident in moving her furniture throughout the complaint. It failed to consider reasonable adjustments to support the resident in answering the door on 8 occasions.
    4. It failed to explain what the additional £167 was specifically for. It could have broken this down to make this clear to the resident. It is uncertain if this is related to the inconvenience it caused her. As previously mentioned, the amount offered at stage 1 for inconvenience was insufficient.
  3. In total the landlord offered total compensation of £476 as a gesture of goodwill and £616 for actual financial loss, for damage to the resident’s belongings. The £476 was made up of £175 at stage 1, £217 at stage 2, and £84 for the delay in raising her insurance claim. Compensation of £1850 has been awarded to the resident. This includes the £476 and £616 (total £1092) previously awarded by the landlord. This is because the landlord acknowledged some points and attempted to put things right. However, its offer was not proportionate to the findings identified in this investigation.
  4. In summary the landlord failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy for the initial mould treatment and bathroom repairs required at the resident’s property. It was delayed in taking respective action for 314 and 347 days which far exceeded the timescale for completion on each. There is no evidence that the landlord reacted proactively to damp and mould at the property and was reliant on the resident reporting the issue. Its communication was insufficient throughout and there is little evidence of it keeping her updated. It also failed to respond to a number of reports of damp and mould from the resident altogether. There is no evidence it fully established the root cause of damp and mould at the property. It ignored the resident’s concerns about ventilation which would have supported its investigation. The landlord failed to consider consistent reasonable adjustments for the resident to support her with her health. It also failed to refer her insurance claim to its insurer for a prolonged period, for unknown reasons.
  5. The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in repair the resident’s structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. Compensation of £1850 has been awarded as the landlord failed to “maintain the property to a reasonable standard” and failed to communicate and support the resident. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of its approach to damp and mould and repairs at the property. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms it is committed to dealing with complaints impartially, objectively, and professionally. It aims to put things right where possible and apologise when necessary. It is committed to learning from complaints and using them to improve its service. It operates a two-stage complaints procedure as follows:
    1. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged in 3 working days and responded to within 10 working days of registration. Stage 1 complaints are investigated and responded to locally by the service area responsible.
    2. The landlord must clarify why a complainant wishes to escalate a complaint. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
    3. If the landlord is unable to meet a complaint deadline it must send a holding response explaining the delay and provide the next expected due date.
  2. The resident raised her initial complaint on 19 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 3 working days in accordance with its policy. It responded to the complaint on 4 October 2022. This was equivalent to 10 working days and therefore made in accordance with its timescale for response in its policy.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 2 November 2022. The landlord failed to contact her to clarify the full reasoning for her escalation in accordance with its policy. It also had a breakdown in communications as its Chief Executive team rejected the escalation. It believed further resolution could be given at stage 1 of the complaints process. It asked its complaints team to consider this providing advice on what to consider. There was no further response provided to the resident at this time. This caused her uncertainty and confusion about whether her complaint was being progressed and the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. The resident, exasperated with the landlord’s failure to reply, asked for her complaint to be escalated again on 13 December 2022. The landlord responded to this request in an appropriate timescale on 15 December 2022. It told the resident it could only accept an escalation “if all work was complete”. It said it would contact her “urgently” with an update on the matter. However, it failed to do this at this time and there is no evidence of it progressing the complaint. This caused further uncertainty, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. The landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request of 2 November 2022 on 15 March 2023. This was equivalent to 93 working days from her initial escalation request. It said in its stage 2 response it accepted the resident’s escalation request as she had reported further damp and mould on 13 December 2022. However, this contradicted the landlord’s response to the resident on 15 December 2022 that it had rejected the escalation. This caused further confusion for the resident.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint on 31 March 2023. This was equivalent to 105 working days from the resident’s escalation request of 2 November 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s timescale for response by 85 working days. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 complaint response and offered £50 compensation. It said the amount offered was for the “late response of its stage 2 reply.” It failed to acknowledge as part of this, the, impact the delay had on the resident and the uncertainty it caused to her. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. This suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where there has been service failure which has adversely affected the resident, with no permanent impact.
  7. A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £150 compensation has been ordered. This includes the £50 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact to the resident throughout that period.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2000 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
      1. £1850 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
      3. The above amounts include the £1142 previously awarded by the landlord.
    3. The landlord will be ordered to complete a full inspection of the damp and mould at the property by an independent surveyor. Consideration should be given as part of this whether ventilation would mitigate the issue. It must provide the resident and the Ombudsmanwith the outcome of this inspection. It must also take appropriate action as a result of the findings of the inspection.
    4. The landlord must complete a risk assessment of the resident and her property. It must ensure any further appropriate action is taken as a result, including recording any vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments on its records. It must also provide the resident with appropriate information to manage condensation in her property.
    5. The landlord is to provide evidence to the resident and the Ombudsman of how it is or will be proactively managing damp and mould at the resident’s property. This includes its suggestions around reviewing its cyclical works and its pilot system for sensors remotely monitoring damp and mould.