Lambeth Council (202401512)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202401512
Lambeth Council
30 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which started on 2 October 1998. The property is described as a 4-bedroom terraced house.
- The resident told this Service that she has depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress syndrome. The landlord was also made aware of the resident having mental health conditions during the period of the complaint. It is noted that the resident was represented by Shelter, the housing charity, when she made the initial complaint to the landlord. The resident is no longer represented.
- The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident on 15 February 2023 to arrange a convenient appointment to inspect the property. An appointment was arranged for 11 April 2023.
- The inspection on 11 April 2023 identified that there was relative humidity in the kitchen with water ingress to the external wall and mould growth to the kitchen wall and ceiling. The inspection recommended that the hopper be cleaned and the kitchen painted. Cracks to the ceiling were identified in the main bedroom and mould to the external wall in the second bedroom. Repair of the cracks and mould treatment was recommended as a resolution.
- A damp inspection was carried out on 14 July 2023. The inspection notes state that the resident would only agree to the inspection of the kitchen and identified defective rainwater goods to the rear of the property. High moisture meter readings were taken at the rear elevation wall in the kitchen. All of the other kitchen walls were found to be dry and within the required limits. At the time of inspection, it noted that black mould was not present in the property and a schedule of works were drawn up. This outlined the following works:
a. Prepare for the injection of a chemical damp proof course with the removal of the skirting board and plaster to a specified area.
b. Carry out re-rendering/plastering work to full height.
c. Apply dual purpose preservative to skirting boards before fitting.
d. Apply salt neutraliser to brick surface before applying scratch render coat.
e. Supply and fit new skirting boards to match existing.
f. Carry out works to the adjoining walls to prevent additional moisture migration.
g. Remove and reinstate the kitchen units, floor coverings, tiles, radiators, sockets and any other obstructions or pipework.
h. Inspect and repair the defective external rainwater goods.
i. Redecorate the kitchen.
- On 28 September 2023, the resident’s representative complained to the landlord that since January 2023, the resident had been living with disrepair. A summary of the concerns raised were:
a. The ongoing leak to the property had caused damp and mould.
b. The delays were affecting the resident’s mental health.
c. The resident did not have running water in the kitchen, resulting in her having to wash food and plates in the bath which was unhygienic.
d. The landlord had agreed to carry out repairs which were rescheduled to take place in March 2023. After the surveyor’s visit in April 2023, the resident was informed an external contractor would carry out the work in the summer holidays as the landlord was aware that the resident worked in a school.
e. In May 2023, some works were completed. However, the main repair to resolve the leak remained outstanding.
f. It was agreed that the repairs would be completed in August 2023 but they were still outstanding. On more than 8 occasions, the resident reported that she had no water in the kitchen with no action taken. An appointment had been arranged for 5 October 2023 for the contractor to attend.
g. The resident’s preferred outcome was for the outstanding repairs to be completed. She requested that the repairs take place during the October half term and that the water be restored to the kitchen.
- The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 2 October 2023, advising that it would respond by 26 October 2023.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 10 November 2023. The landlord apologised for its delay and stated that:
a. It had raised an order to its contractor on 14 February 2023 for a mould wash to be completed on 23 February 2023. It acknowledged that its contractor did not act until the resident made contact on 9 March 2023 and an appointment was made for 30 May 2023.
b. A further works order was raised on 18 April 2023 to carry out various repairs. An appointment was agreed for 21 July 2023 to repair the cracks in the bedroom.
c. On 30 May 2023, the internal cracks in the bedroom were filled and the guttering and a portion of the flat roof were cleaned and cleaned.
d. An operative attended who advised that black mould was not present in the kitchen. However, an appointment with a damp specialist was arranged on 4 July 2023 and it had received their report on 18 July 2023.
e. A new works order had been raised to its contractor to complete the specified repairs to the property.
f. It recognised that the resident had chased for information which had not been supplied before the complaint was received.
g. Its contractor was trying to obtain an appointment from its sub-contractors since 2 October 2023 and had been unable to do so. As the subcontractors arranged their own appointments, they would make direct contact with the resident.
h. The complaint was upheld.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord confirmed on 19 January 2024 that it would respond by 12 February 2024.
- The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 12 February 2024. It apologised for the delays experienced and recognised that this resulted from miscommunication between the resident and its contractor. It explained that it had spoken to the resident in January 2024 who requested that the works be carried out at the end of March 2024 – during the school holidays. Its contractor advised that it was waiting for the resident to supply her availability so it could confirm the appointment.
- The landlord recognised the lack of progress in resolving the complaint, apologised for this and advised that it would take action to prevent further delays. The landlord set out the agreed schedule of works to be carried out and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It repeated that its contractor would complete the repairs in the school holidays as requested. The landlord concluded that the complaint had been upheld and awarded compensation of £450 for the time and trouble experienced by the resident.
- The landlord’s records show that it carried out a mould wash to the kitchen cupboard on 23 July 2024.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this Service. The resident advised that her preferred outcome was for the repairs to be completed and to be compensated for the 15–20 appointments that were agreed and cancelled, causing her inconvenience after taking time off work. The resident added that she is a carer for her mother and experienced disruption after emptying her kitchen cupboards as instructed by the landlord yet the work remained outstanding.
Assessment and findings
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
a. be fair;
b. put things right;
c. learn from outcomes.
- This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
Damp and mould.
- Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property (including drains, gutters and external pipes) in repair. The landlord’s repair obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is responsible.
- As part of the Ombudsman’s investigation, we made requests on several occasions for the landlord to provide evidence of its contact with, and repair reports made by, the resident regarding the damp and mould in the property – namely on 18 July 2024, 9 September 2024 and 19 September 2024. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not provide a full account of its contact with the resident or its understanding of the resident’s health. The landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme requires landlords to provide this Service with requested information within a reasonable timescale. It is of concern that the landlord has been unable to meet the obligations required of it by the Scheme.
- Landlords are required to keep and maintain accurate records showing the reports that it receives and the actions that it has taken in response. This helps it to effectively manage any repairs raised by a resident as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. The Ombudsman’s investigation into this complaint has been hampered by the landlord’s lack of records. This is unreasonable as this may potentially cause unfairness to the resident as her concerns cannot be fully investigated. It also affects our ability to determine whether the landlord properly followed its published policies and procedures, including the management of its contractor.
- This Service’s Special Inspection Report into the landlord in January 2024 identified that it did not have a robust process for tracking repairs and failings in its contractor management. This can be evidenced in this case as the resident experienced an unacceptable delay in getting the identified damp to the kitchen acknowledged and addressed.
- The landlord’s records show that in February 2023, it identified that damp works were needed to the resident’s kitchen and her daughter’s bedroom. Some of those repairs remain outstanding, over 18 months later. This is not reasonable. There were faults in the communications between the resident, landlord and contractor, leading to appointments being made and cancelled. This contributed to inconvenience caused to the resident – for example, she advised of the disruption that she experienced when clearing her kitchen in anticipation of works starting only for those repairs not to be progressed.
- The landlord arranged for two inspections to take place regarding the reports of damp in the property. The first was on 11 April 2023 and the second was 65 working days later on 14 July 2023. The landlord’s records do not explain why it arranged for a second inspection. While it may be appropriate to obtain a second opinion, there is no evidence that the landlord acted with any urgency in arranging this. This was unreasonable as it resulted in the resident experiencing a further delay before any remedial work was carried out to the property despite the initial inspection recording water ingress and the presence of mould.
- The report on 14 July 2023 noted that the resident would only allow for an inspection of the kitchen. This is disputed by the resident who informed this Service that she had no reason to restrict access to the property as she wanted the repairs resolved throughout the property.
- Nevertheless, the inspections identified that there was damp in the kitchen, caused by defective downpipes, gutters and hoppers. The landlord’s records show that works to the guttering were completed on 30 May 2023. However, that is contradicted by the finding in the July 2023 report as this recommended the inspection and repair of defective external rain water goods.
- The resident has informed this Service of her vulnerabilities and her representative advised the landlord that she had mental health conditions from at least as early as September 2023. There is no evidence that these have been considered in the landlord’s organisation of repairs. The landlord’s actions did not demonstrate sufficient empathy and it failed to ensure works were progressed at times that were suitable for her.
- The landlord is aware of the resident’s work commitments and, as she works in a school, it was agreed that the repairs should take place in the school holidays. Initially, the works were arranged to take place in the Easter holidays in April 2023, but they did not progress. The resident requested that the work take place in the October 2023 half term. Again, the works did not take place without an explanation being offered to the resident. Landlords are expected to operate a customer centric approach, arranging convenient appointments for residents where possible. While the landlord appears to recognise that the school holidays would be more suitable for the resident, it did not act to ensure that the repairs outlined in the schedule of works were completed during the relevant dates.
- The July 2023 schedule of works to remedy damp to the property remain outstanding despite the landlord identifying that the rear kitchen walls were damp (and affecting internal decorations) with mould in the bedroom occupied by the resident’s daughter. This Service’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould (‘It’s not lifestyle’) in 2021 set out that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to eradicate damp and mould in their properties. The landlord did not take such an approach in this case and did not prioritise the repairs even after noting its failings when it investigated the complaint. This is unreasonable.
- The Ombudsman’s January 2024 findings through our Special Report into the landlord identified that it did not have a process for closing complaints and putting things right for residents. This is demonstrated in this case as the landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 February 2024 and the resident’s living conditions remain unchanged, nearly 7 months later. This is inappropriate as the landlord has an obligation to resolve any outstanding repairs and ensure that any hazards evident in the property are removed.
- Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord is responsible for carrying out property repairs and cannot delegate this responsibility to its contractors. It is required to carry out effective contract management for the repairs it is responsible for to ensure that such works are completed within its published repair standards of 28 working days. In its final complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that while it was aware of the delays she had experienced, it had been unable to contact its contractor to confirm when the works would commence. This was unreasonable as the landlord should be able to retrieve information from, and direct action by, its contractors.
- Where a landlord is unable to carry out repairs within its published timeframes, it should liaise regularly with the resident to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations. The landlord has not evidenced to this Service that it did so. There is no evidence that the resident was kept informed of the progress of the repairs and for prolonged periods of time she was not informed of the action that it was taking or provided with pro-active updates.
- The landlord upheld the complaint in February 2024 and made a compensation award of £450. The landlord’s offer of redress is not considered proportionate for the service failures identified in this report. There was a significant delay in the landlord progressing works to resolve the kitchen damp problem that it was aware of from at least as early as April 2023 and it remains unclear when the landlord intends to bring this to a resolution. This is inappropriate even with the mitigation of the resident requiring works being completed during school holidays. The level of compensation offered by the resident was insufficient given the circumstances of the case and works being outstanding more than 7 months later indicate that it failed to learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint.
- Overall, the landlord has not acted with the required urgency to resolve the damp and mould in the property which remains outstanding. There is no evidence that the landlord had regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and it did not fulfil its repairing obligations. Given the landlord’s multiple missed opportunities to resolve the damp, its poor record-keeping and the likely impact on the resident’s household, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord’s corporate complaint procedure states that, at both stages of the complaint process, it will provide its responses within 20 working days. The timescale at the first stage of the complaint process was not compliant with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code and this was addressed in the January 2024 Special Report. In response, the landlord reviewed its complaint targets in April 2024 to prevent future failings and its complaint handling target timescales are now compliant with the Complaint Handling Code. Residents should now receive a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days.
- The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 28 September 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s complaint within 2 working days. It informed the resident that it would respond by 26 October 2023 but did not meet its complaint handling target as it took 31 working days to respond to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to request a complaint response extension.
- The resident’s complaint to the landlord contained a report that she did not have running water in her kitchen, consequently she was using the bath to carry out kitchen functions such as washing dishes. The resident informed this Service that this element of her complaint related to ongoing problems that she had with her boiler, which resulted in this being replaced in April 2024. The landlord’s records do not show the multiple boiler failures that the resident informed this Service of. Neither do the landlord’s records, or its complaints responses, show that it considered or addressed these concerns or the impact she reported. This is not reasonable as complaint response should address all issues raised by a resident.
- This Service has no reason to dispute the information provided by the resident about the inconvenience and disruption that she experienced for a significant period of time due to lack of running water in the kitchen. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not use the opportunity of the complaint to investigate these concerns, offer any reassurance to the resident, consider why the water was not running or offer to put this right.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 February 2024, within 16 working days. This was reasonable as the response was offered within its complaint handling timescales.
- In its review of the complaint, the landlord apologised for the delays experienced by the resident but it did not offer specific redress for this. It also failed to acknowledge that it overlooked the concern about kitchen running water. As referred to elsewhere in this report, the landlord did not ensure that it followed up after the final complaint response to complete works to the kitchen. This was despite it assuring the resident that the contractor would aim to complete works in March 2024. Given the above failures, a finding of maladministration has been made in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
a. Contact the resident and agree a mutually convenient appointment to carry out the repairs outlined in the schedule of works drawn up in July 2023.
b. Write to the resident to:
i. Apologise for the service failures identified in this report. The apology should be from the Chief Executive or a member of its senior management team.
ii. Confirm the agreed dates for the works with a plan of which repairs will be completed on which dates.
iii. Provide a single point of contact who will oversee the outstanding repairs and offer regular updates to her until works are complete.
iv. Commit to a new damp inspection of the property once the outstanding works are complete in order to ensure that those repairs have successfully resolved all damp and mould.
c. Pay the resident compensation of £2,150 (inclusive of the £450 it offered through its complaint process), broken down as:
i. £1,900 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property;
ii. £250 for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failures.
- The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.