Lancaster City Council (202302122)

Background

1. During May 2022 the resident moved to temporary accommodation as part of the landlord’s redevelopment project. During February 2023 he contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in the property. He had a baby during March 2023. During April 2024 the resident moved to permanent accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Response to reports of damp and mould

4. There was a delay between the landlord’s property inspection and follow on works. Work to fit a storage heater was also unreasonably delayed. The landlord did not always consider the impact on the resident and his household.

Handling of the associated complaint

5. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed. Furthermore, it failed to respond to all points of the complaint. After its stage 2 response it identified some of its complaint handling failures. However, it failed to try to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not investigated

6. In his email to us of 5 March 2024 the resident said he wanted the landlord to waive his rent for the period he lived in temporary accommodation. He also said that the property was still cold and damp. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the change to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to waive his rent during his complaint. There is also no evidence that he raised the ongoing issue with damp and mould with it as a further complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.

What we have investigated

7. The resident’s email to the landlord of 7 June 2023 says that he first reported damp and mould in person in the middle of February 2023. While we do not doubt the resident’s account there’s no independent evidence to corroborate exactly when the issue was originally reported. However, an internal email dated 2 March 2023 requested that a damp inspection be carried out. This is evidence that the resident reported the issues to the landlord before 3 March 2023 as stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 1 August 2023. An internal follow up email to chase was sent on 13 March 2023. The officer said photographs provided to them in person by the resident the weekend before were “very bad”. They added that the resident’s baby was due any day.
8. The landlord carried out a damp inspection on 16 March 2023. Job details for follow on works raised that same day include a note that there was a lack of ventilation and heating in the property. It said this would be resolved by installing a new fan and storage heater. The landlord’s response was in line with its damp and mould policy (damp policy) which says it will inspect and establish the scope of any follow on works within 20 days of a report of damp and mould.
9. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not specify a timeframe for repairs following an inspection. We expect landlord’s to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What’s reasonable will depends on the circumstances and nature of the repair. Considering the resident’s circumstances the landlord’s response was unreasonably delayed. Furthermore, there’s no evidence that it provided any further updates to the resident. This caused him distress and inconvenience causing him to email the landlord on 24 April 2023 to chase. He said there was a draught coming through the balcony door and windows, making it “impossible” to keep the room warm.
10. The landlord replied on the same day to acknowledge receipt of the resident’s email. It moved him to a serviced apartment for a period of 10 days between 9 May 2023 to 19 May 2023. We have not seen any copies of correspondence between the landlord and resident on this matter. However, the evidence says the landlord moved the resident because he was concerned about remaining in the property which was positive.
11. The repair logs show that works to the kitchen, including installation of insulated plasterboard, were completed on 19 May 2023. Works to resolve the draught from the balcony door and “sanitise” the property were carried out on 22 May 2023. While this was positive, it was over 2 months after the issue was first reported and we have seen no explanation for this delay. Furthermore, works to the storage heater and extractor fan remained outstanding. This was unreasonable given they were identified as part of the solution.
12. Given that the landlord described the mould was “really bad” its response was unreasonably delayed. The impact was compounded by the resident’s concerns about the health of his household, including his newborn baby.
13. On 21 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say he was unhappy about the 3 month delay and the lack of compensation for damage to his belongings. The landlord replied on the same day to say it would inspect the property on 24 July 2023. While this was positive it failed to respond to the resident’s request for compensation.
14. An internal email dated 25 July 2023 confirmed the outcomes of the inspection which noted there was no new mould growth following the works in May 2023. However, issues such as fan and storage heater were outstanding. The resident also raised the issue of mould effecting his belongings. By now 4 months had passed since works to the fan and heater were identified. The landlord’s response was therefore unreasonably delayed.
15. The job sheet for the extractor fan and storage heaters shows works were completed on 12 October 2023. We acknowledge there were delays with the heater coming into stock but this does not account for the overall delay of 7 months. The landlord did not explain the cause of the delays to the resident in spite of him saying on several occasion that this was outstanding. The delay was therefore unreasonable.
16. There were delays in carrying out follow on works. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerable newborn baby or the impact on his own health during this time. It therefore failed to comply with its damp policy to consider the risk based on the presence of a person in the household under the age of 14 years.
17. Works to the fan and storage heater were also unreasonably delayed which caused distress and inconvenience. However, we acknowledge that the landlord moved the resident and his household to a hotel for a period of 10 days. When they returned the mould was eradicated and by July 2023 it had not returned. This mitigated the impact on the resident and his household by the delays.
18. The resident reported that the damp and mould had damaged his belongings. However, there’s no evidence that the landlord considered taking an inventory of soft furnishings or clothing showing mould in line with its damp policy.
19. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The £150 compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failings identified in this report. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures in such situations. In ordering £550 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and its initial failure to consider the impact on the household. The landlord may deduct the compensation it offered if this has already been paid.

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint complied with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It said it would acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It would then provide a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
21. On 3 July 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 7 June 2023. This was 18 working days later and 13 working days out of time. The landlord provided its complaint response on 1 August 2023 which was almost 2 months after the complaint was made and therefore, significantly out of time compared to its policy and the Code. Its response failed to acknowledge the delay and did not take steps to put things right.
22. On 7 August 2023 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. The landlord appropriately issued its acknowledgement on 11 August 2023. Its complaint response was issued on 21 September 2023 which was 9 working days out of time, compared to its policy and the Code. The landlord’s response again failed to acknowledge the delay which was inappropriate.
23. The Code requires landlords to demonstrate that they have carried out a thorough complaint investigation by responding to all the points raised by the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses did not address all the issues including his request to be compensated for damaged belongings.
24. The landlord’s letter to the resident dated 3 November 2023 acknowledged these points along with other failures in its complaint handling. It said it was using the resident’s complaint responses as a basis for improving its complaint process which was positive. However, it failed to offer compensation to try to put things right.
25. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and above are appropriate to put right failings in such situations. In ordering £150 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Learning

26. The landlord should review its damp and mould policy to ensure that it contains suitable guidance to meet the requirements of Awaab’s law. This includes setting out specific timescales for how quickly it will complete repairs for damp and mould.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord should consider our spotlight report on knowledge and information management in relation to vulnerabilities. It should ensure it acts on the information recorded on its systems at all times to ensure its response is appropriate.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s concerns for the health of his newborn baby and his request for compensation to personal belongings. It should ensure it provides meaningful responses in line with its service standards.