London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202014048)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014048

Barking and Dagenham Council

23 May 2023

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:
1. Remedial work to the resident’s property following reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 July 2017. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low rise, three- storey block.
The resident lives with his partner and two young children.The eldest child has asthma and the youngest child has eczema.
The resident has given permission for an advocate to act on his behalf. For the purpose of this report, I shall refer to both the resident and his advocate as ‘the resident’.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
Under the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property (including drains, gutters and outside pipes), and maintaining the installations in the property for the supply of drinking water, gas, electricity, heating and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and toilets). This is in line with its statutory obligations under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord does not have an up to date management transfer policy in place. The policy provided by the landlord is an old policy, however the landlord has said that the principles within this policy still apply. The policy says that a management transfer would apply when a property is in need of major work that cannot be reasonably carried out with the tenant in occupation. The tenant’s individual circumstances will determine if they can be expected to occupy the premises whilst the works are carried out.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 30 working days.

Summary of events

Although the first formal complaint was made by the resident in 2020, the landlord’s records show that the resident first reported mould in one of the bedrooms in February 2018. There is no evidence of any work being carried out by the landlord following the report.
On 6 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report damp and mould in the property. The landlord inspected the property on 4 February 2020 and issued a schedule of work. This included mould treatment to the bedroom, renewal of undersized radiators in the bedrooms, and the installation of thermal insulation board to the bedroom walls.
On 19 February 2020, the resident made a stage one formal complaint (Complaint 1) to the landlord. The resident said:
1. There had been ongoing issues with mould, damp and freezing bedrooms since 2018.
2. Following a recent inspection, the landlord said that the radiators in the bedrooms were too small and the walls needed cleaning and plastering. The landlord also said that the flats were very old and the windows needed replacing.
3. They had two young children, one with severe asthma and one with eczema. The family were all sleeping in one bedroom as the mould was particularly bad in the other bedroom. The living conditions were affecting their eldest child at school as he was tired and always ill.
4. Clothes had to be thrown away as they were full of mould. A family member was doing the family’s washing as nothing dried properly in the flat.
5. The situation was affecting the resident’s mental health and the family wanted to be moved. The resident said that they were unhappy with the service from the landlord as it was not treating their situation with any urgency.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response on 9 March 2020. The landlord said:
1. It apologised for the difficulties experienced and for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. It had inspected two bedrooms due to reports of damp and mould. Following the inspection, it had agreed to replace the radiators in both bedrooms and to carry out damp and mould treatment to help prevent the damp and mould from reoccurring.
3. The work to replace the radiators was deemed ‘out of scope’ and subject to approval from landlord services, which sometimes led to a delay in carrying out the work. Appointments had been made to install the radiators on 2 March 2020 and complete damp and mould treatments on 13 March 2020. The engineers arrived on 2 March 2020 but were unable to complete the work as they found two holes behind the radiators. The holes had been repaired and the radiators were due to be installed on 11 March 2020.
4. An appointment to make good the external walls had been scheduled for 16 March 2020.
5. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the level of service received from landlord services and it apologised for the delay. It said that as the complaint had been allocated to the repairs service, it was unable to comment on the concerns raised about landlord services, however it would pass on the resident’s concerns.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 March 2020 and 16 March 2020 to carry out the work agreed in the schedule.
On 28 March 2020, following the first national lockdown in response to the Covid 19 pandemic, government guidance advised landlords to only access properties “for serious and urgent issues”.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the stage one complaint and on 2 April 2020 he requested that the complaint was escalated to stage two for review. The resident said:
1. When the property was inspected in 2018, the landlord said that there was nothing wrong with the flat. This was incorrect as a recent inspection had highlighted numerous problems with the flat.
2. It was difficult to communicate with the landlord and required several telephone calls to various departments to get a response.
3. Work was still outstanding, and the landlord did not consider the repairs as an emergency. Even though the effects of damp and mould could cause problems, especially to young children, in later life.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord sent the resident a stage two response. It said:
1. Work had commenced on 16 March 2020 to carry out damp and mould treatments, though officers were unable to complete all works on that day.
2. The work was due to be completed, although due to the government restrictions it was unable to appoint the work as it was not classed as an emergency.
3. A programme for insulation works was also on hold due to the restrictions. As soon as it was possible to start the work, the team would be in contact.
On 1 June 2020, landlords were advised that they could now “carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs”. The guidance also acknowledged that some landlords would have a back log of repairs so it might take longer than normal to carry out non-essential work.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 October 2020 to report severe damp and mould all around the property. The landlord inspected the property on 10 November 2020 and issued a schedule of works to treat the mould to the bedrooms, hallway and bathroom caused by condensation. The landlord also issued a job to clear the rear gutters and renew damaged soffit board to the block.
On 9 December 2020, the resident made a further formal complaint (Complaint 2) to the landlord. The resident said:
1. There was outstanding work to be completed in relation to damp and mould. The landlord had not completed any work since February 2020. An inspector had visited the previous month, as the repair job had expired, and said that the flat was not habitable. There had been no follow-up contact.
2. The painted wall was peeling and the resident had thrown bedding and clothes away due to mould damage. The family were mostly sleeping in the front room.
An internal email dated 29 January 2021 confirmed that, on inspection, the walls of the property were found to be extremely wet and covered in mould. It said that one room had been insulated, but water droplets were still evident on the ceiling, so a dehumidifier would be delivered to the resident. The walls had been washed down with a mould wash and the landlord confirmed that internal insulation work would be carried out once the possible leak had been resolved and the affected areas had dried. The email also said that there were signs that there was, or could have been, a leak externally that had aggravated the damp and mould issues to the main bedroom. The email said that the resident and his family could not use the bedrooms.
The landlord visited the resident’s property again on 11 February 2021. The landlord found:
1. There was a condensation issue in the bathroom and damp issues in both bedrooms. The walls had been wiped down and one had been treated with mould paint. There was mould/discoloration in the bathroom surrounding the toilet, below the window, and to the ceiling. The radiator was rusted at the bottom, which was consistent with evidence of condensation damage. The extractor fan was working, and the window vent was clear.
2. In the main bedroom, the personal items and wardrobes had been removed from the walls. There was mould/discoloration to the walls and it appeared that they had been washed or treated. There was mould on clothes stored in a box.
3. In the children’s bedroom, the walls had been treated and painted. There was mould/discoloration at the joint between the ceiling and wall.
4. There was no water coming from the overflow pipe, although there was a vague historic white mark below it. The guttering to the roof was blocked and could cause water to be pushed back into the roof space.
5. The block would benefit from a damp specialist survey.
On 12 February 2021, the resident contacted this Service as he was unhappy with the level of service he had received from the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 16 February 2021 and asked to be placed in temporary accommodation whilst the work to address the damp and mould was carried out.
On 17 February 2021, the resident sent a further email to a senior manager of the landlord as he had not received replies to emails and telephone calls. The email gave a full timeline of events since the resident moved in in July 2017, including issues of the damp and mould and antisocial behaviour. The landlord responded on the same day and said that, as the resident had already made a complaint, it had copied in the complaints team so that a review of the service received could be considered as a stage two complaint.
On 18 February 2021, the resident sought the assistance of a local councillor. The resident informed the councillor of the ongoing issues with damp, mould and antisocial behaviour. On 22 February 2021, the councillor contacted the landlord and asked to be provided with an update.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email of 16 February 2021on 24 February 2021 and told the resident that temporary accommodation was not necessary, as the mould treatment works could be carried out whilst the family were in occupation.The landlord said that there was no evidence of water ingress and the overflow pipe did not appear to be causing the mould. The landlord said that the resident had previously been advised that the cause was condensation, as the property was not ventilated properly. The landlord said that the resident had recently refused further work as he believed that the outside wall was saturated and he wanted the source of the mould issues to be resolved.
The resident responded on the same day and said that he felt let down by the landlord as they still had dripping walls, mould, damp and the bedrooms were cold. The resident said that the dehumidifiers had been running for a month but had not made any difference. The resident also referred to an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) that had been issued by the landlord in relation to the damp and mould.
On 2 March 2021, this Service contacted the landlord to advise of the resident’s complaint. The landlord responded on 3 March 2021 and said:
1. The work was due to resume on 11 January 2021, however the work was stopped and dehumidifiers were provided, as the walls were too damp to apply paper.
2. It was of the opinion that remedial works could be carried out with the tenants at the property.
3. An inspection of the block took place in late February 2021 and several defects were identified. This included blocked gutters and staining on external parts of the fabric. A surveyor would inspect and raise any additional remedial work.
4. The complaint had been escalated to stage two for a further review. The tenants had enquired about new windows, but the landlord had not been made aware of any specific faults. An inspection had been requested and any required remedial repairs would be added to the schedule of works.
5. A new front door had been ordered and officers had been asked to review the records and address any delay.
An internal email dated 3 March 2021 confirmed that the landlord was aware that other residents in the block had also reported problems with damp and mould since 2018. The landlord’s opinion was that it was not in a position where it could conclude that all possible sources of the damp affecting the resident’s property, and other properties, had been eliminated.
The landlord requested an external inspection of the block and an inspection of the loft space and pipework serving the communal water tank. The landlord also requested that the condition of the communal balcony was checked for any issues that could cause water ingress.
The landlord sent the resident a stage two final response on 7 April 2021. It said:
1. Its operatives attended on 19 March 2021 to make good the painting that had been carried out on 15, 16 and 17 March 2021 and it had applied a thermal insulation to the bedroom walls.
2. An inspection to the loft area would be carried out on 15 April 2021 to check for leaks and any identified repairs would be arranged.
3. An inspection of the communal walkway outside the flat directly above the hallway would be carried out on 13 April 2021 to eliminate any leaks from the balcony that could be causing damp to the property.
4. A front door was on order with the supplier and would be available in three weeks to be installed.
5. In relation to temporary accommodation, it did not dispute that it did consider offering accommodation based on the initial advice received from repairs and enquiries were made about the temporary use of a flat. It was then decided that the works could be completed with the resident in occupation, although with some disruption. It considered that this would be less disruptive than moving out on a temporary basis and then moving back in. It said that decisions to move residents into temporary accommodation were only made in exceptional circumstances and the works in this case did not meet the threshold.
6. A harassment case had been dealt with by the police and the perpetrator was due to appear in court in 2022. The next stage of action would depend on the outcome at court. Support was ongoing and it had not been made aware of any further incidents. The noise nuisance team had issued a noise abatement notice.

Events since the stage two response

Between 13 April 2021 and 16 April 2021, the landlord completed an inspection of the block, attended the resident’s flat to carry out work to the windows, confirmed that there were no leaks to the tank in the loft space and no related plumbing issues, and inspected the resident’s toilet cistern. The landlord confirmed that no leaks were found.
On 16 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that the paint was peeling again.
The situation continued and on or around 8 July 2021 the landlord provided the resident with an update. It said that the roof and balcony works were still outstanding and awaiting an appointment date. It added that a specialist engineer would be attending to inspect the damp within the resident’s flat, and the completed mould and decoration works would be checked on 20 July 2021 and made good if necessary.
On 5 August 2021, a damp survey inspection was carried out by an independent building pathologist. The report advised the landlord to complete damp and mould treatment, and thermal insulation works, to the property.
On 14 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed that the situation remained the same with him and his family still living in a property that had suffered from damp and mould since 2018. The resident said that he was still waiting for a copy of the surveyor’s report and for the works to be completed. The resident added that the family were sleeping in the living room again due to the condition of the bedrooms. The email also said that the antisocial behaviour and harassment involving the downstairs resident was continuing.
On 15 December 2021, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord after receiving an email from the resident. The MP asked the landlord to investigate the concerns raised by the resident and take the required actions.
On 8 February 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s flat and found mould on the ceiling of the children’s bedroom and peeling paint on the internal wall. There was no evidence of external issues but the landlord said that it planned to erect a scaffold and remove a small number of bricks to check for any issues within the cavity. The landlord said that it would also repair an area of soffit and confirmed that, in its opinion, the issue was condensation. The landlord subsequently found that the external walls were of solid construction, and therefore there was no cavity to inspect.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 February 2022 and confirmed that remedial work would start on 7 March 2022 and would last approximately 3 weeks.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 March 2022 in relation to the extent of the damp and mould works. The landlord responded on 16 March 2022 and said that the resident’s email had been considered at stage two of its complaint process. The landlord said:
1. It apologised if the resident was not given sufficient warning about the level of dust that would be created by removing the plaster.
2. The resident had been offered temporary accommodation in a local hotel; however, this had been refused by the resident on the basis that it was an unsuitable location for the children. The landlord did not agree that the hotel was unsuitable and it reoffered the same temporary accommodation to the resident.
3. There was a revised schedule of works in place and works would be complete after the painting works scheduled for the 19 April 2022.
4. The landlord could not compensate the resident for personal belongings damaged by the mould as it was the resident’s responsibility to insure the contents against damage.
5. The resident should reinstate the kitchen door within four weeks of the completion of the work, to ensure the best chance of success. It was also a health and safety requirement.
6. The fan in the kitchen had been replaced and the rainwater goods had been inspected and cleared in 2021.
7. It apologised that dust sheets had not been laid. Officers would inspect the carpet for water stains once the work was complete.
8. Issues with materials had caused delays and affected the original schedule of works. It wished to apologise for the additional inconvenience caused and offered the resident £100, which included a contribution towards the running costs of a portable heater.
On 25 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and queried why he had received a further stage two response. The resident said:
1. He was unhappy that he had not been made aware of the level of work that would be undertaken, such as removing the plaster back to the bare brick. The resident had not prepared for this type of work and his partner, and three year old child, were present in the property at the time.
2. The kitchen fan had not been looked at. The damp and mould were still a problem.
3. The landlord’s communication had been unprofessional and unhelpful and the resident felt that they were a burden on the landlord.
4. The compensation offered of £100 was insufficient.
5. The work had been very disruptive. The resident wanted a safe environment for their children. The rooms were still freezing at night, and the heating could not be on 24 hours a day. The children were constantly ill and there was still an underlying, unresolved, problem.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It clarified that the response was a follow up to the stage two response issued in December 2021, and that it had used its discretion to complete a review. The landlord said that a new series of appointments had been arranged to complete the works and the works would be completed by early May 2022. The landlord accepted that lines of communication could have been clearer, and so increased the offer of compensation to £150.00.
On 12 December 2022, the resident issued the landlord with a letter of claim under the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims.
On 21 April 2023, the resident told this Service that the plasterboard put on in April 2022 had not rectified the damp and mould issues. The resident also said that the landlord had refused their request for a managed move. The landlord said that it acknowledged that repairs were required, however, they did not reach a level which would require decanting and so the management transfer request had been refused. The landlord agreed that once the repairs had been completed, it would replace the carpets and provide financial assistance to the resident to purchase wardrobes.
The resident also provided this Service with a copy of the housing disrepair report from an inspection that took place on 20 February 2023. The report concluded that the ingress of rainwater, via defective pointing and rainwater goods, had exacerbated the existing issue of condensation. This was said to have provided the perfect environment for mould to grow and spread throughout the dwelling. The report highly recommended that repair works were undertaken as soon as possible to limit the effect of mould on the family, specifically the children within the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of remedial work to the resident’s property following reports of damp and mould.

It is not disputed that the resident and his family have been living in a home that has suffered from severe damp and mould for a prolonged period of time. This has resulted in damp and mould damaging the resident’s decorations and belongings and the family being unable to use at least one or both bedrooms for a significant period of time. The landlord has sought to comply with its repairing obligations by investigating the cause of the problem and it has taken a number of remedial actions, including the instruction of a specialist survey. However, these actions have failed to remedy the problem and, as a result, the resident and his family have continued to live with damp, mould and wet walls and ceilings for around five years.
In its final complaint review response, the landlord did recognise that the situation had caused some inconvenience to the resident and his family, and it offered £150 in compensation. This amount fails to recognise the severity of the situation, the length of time that it has been ongoing, the distress and inconvenience this has caused to the resident and his family, and the length of time that the family had no alternative but to all sleep in the living room.
The resident has been reporting concerns since 2018. He was entitled to expect that the property would be repaired within a reasonable period of time. As the damp and mould still remains a problem five years on, it is difficult to conclude that the landlord remedied the problem within a reasonable timescale, even though it took some steps to try and resolve the issue. This left the residents living in a very challenging and unpleasant situation for an unreasonable period of time, and the landlord’s offer of compensation fails to fully recognise this.
It was unfortunate that the national lockdown in response to Covid-19 impacted the landlord’s repairs service before the work started on 16 March 2020 was complete. It is acknowledged that landlords faced an unprecedented challenge in responding to the pandemic and managing their repairing responsibilities in accordance with the relevant government guidance at the time.
However, given that the landlord had been made aware that the resident’s children had asthma and eczema and that he had reported the mould in the children’s bedroom, it is of concern that there is no documentary evidence of the landlord considering whether the works were in fact urgent so as to fall under the exception in the government’s guidance. The guidance was clear that visits could still be made for urgent health and safety issues. The Ombudsman would expect to see some evidence of the landlord assessing or deciding whether this was the case at the time.
Where appropriate, landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This will ensure that residents are not left living in unsatisfactory conditions for months or years before a decant is considered. This is particularly important with respect to vulnerable residents and children.
In this case, the resident asked to be placed in temporary accommodation whilst the remedial works were carried out, given that there were two young children at the property who had medical conditions that could be exacerbated by dust, the level of likely disruption and the lack of space to move their belongings to facilitate the works. The landlord considered the request but refused on the basis that the work could be completed ‘room by room’.
The landlord was aware at the end of January 2021, following an inspection, that the bedrooms were uninhabitable. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide temporary accommodation at this point. The landlord’s decision around temporary accommodation seems to have been solely based on the extent of the works required and it did not take into account the conditions in the property or the impact on the family.
It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to recognise the significant impact that the works would have on the family and only reconsidered the resident’s request for temporary accommodation in March 2022, almost four years after the first reports of damp and mould, and two years after the resident had reported that the family were all sleeping in the living room. The landlord also failed to consider alternative options for the family when the resident expressed concern that the hotel offered by the landlord was unsuitable for his children. This was unreasonable in the circumstances, given the extent of the required works, the length of time the issues had been ongoing, and the concerns raised by the resident.
It is noted that the landlord was aware of other residents within the block reporting issues with damp and mould from 2018. This should have alerted the landlord to consider that the resident’s issues were part of a wider problem. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord to have proactively managed the situation, putting in place a programme of works to assess the block as a whole, rather than dealing with each property on an individual basis.
The landlord did instruct a specialist building pathologist to undertake a full survey of the resident’s property in August 2021; however, this was completed during the summer months when the resident said that the issues were less evident. Consequently, the full extent of the problem was not seen by the specialist, which would have affected the outcome of the report and proposed remedial works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to request a specialist survey during the winter months, when the damp and mould was at its worst.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, taking into account the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance. The order takes into account the resident’s current weekly rent of £94.21. The property comprises five rooms – two bedrooms, bathroom, living room, and kitchen – and the order has been calculated accordingly.
The landlord concluded that both bedrooms were uninhabitable from approximately January 2021. The bathroom and hallway were also affected by dampness for a period of this time. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay 40% of the rent for the period of January 2021 to March 2022, to address the lack of use of the bedrooms. This is a period of 65 weeks and compensation of £2449.20.
In addition to this, the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s complaint of damage to his belongings was unfair. The damage to belongings was caused by the landlord’s delay and failure to act, and therefore it should have either considered compensation or referred the resident to its insurers. Given the length of time that has passed since the issues were first raised, the Ombudsman acknowledges that there may be limited evidence of the damaged items, and the resident has lost the opportunity to claim, however an order has been made to address this issue as far as possible.
The communication between the landlord and resident has been poor at times throughout the complaint. The resident has had to make frequent contact with the landlord for updates and responses. The landlord did not follow up or keep the resident informed after the government restrictions had eased, even though it said that it would in its stage two response in April 2020. The resident felt that he had to seek the assistance of a councillor and his local MP to express his concerns to the landlord. The resident wanted a safe environment for his two children, however there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took the resident’s health concerns for his two children seriously. On occasion, the landlord treated the resident in an unsympathetic and inappropriate manner, which the resident said left him feeling that he was a burden on the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was asked to sign an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) in early 2021 asthe landlord had concluded that some of the problems relating to the damp and mould were being caused by the behaviour of the resident and his family. The landlord asked the resident to sign an ABC so that once the repairs had been completed, the condition of the property would not deteriorate again. This approach was heavy-handed and placed the responsibility for the damp and mould issues onto the resident. Acceptable behaviour agreements are usually a tool for managing antisocial behaviour and should not be used for managing issues involving condensation, damp and mould.
In summary, the landlord did not recognise the urgency of the required repairs even though the resident and his family were having to live in a damp, mouldy and wet home. This Service recognises that there would have been times in 2020 and 2021 when the government’s restrictions meant that some of the works could not be carried out but this only accounts for a relatively short period of time. Overall, the landlord failed to comply with its legal obligations to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation and free from category one hazards, and as far as this Service is aware, the damp and mould is still affecting the property to date.

Handling of the associated complaints.

The evidence points to multiple complaint handling failures by the landlord. The resident first made a formal complaint on 19 February 2020. The landlord provided a stage one response on 9 March 2020, which was 14 working days after the complaint was made. This was outside of the timescale stated in the landlord’s complaints policy which says that it should respond at stage one within 10 working days.
Although the landlord apologised, the response was incomplete as it failed to address all the concerns raised. The landlord said that the complaint had been allocated to the repairs service, and as the resident was dissatisfied with the level of service from landlord services, it was unable to comment. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a joint approach to the complaint and gather information from both departments before issuing a full response to the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage two on 2 April 2020 and the landlord responded within its stated response times on 6 April 2020. However, the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s concerns as it failed to address the issues raised in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord also failed to provide any redress or reassurance.
The resident made a second formal complaint on 9 December 2020. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with a stage one response. This was unreasonable and is a significant failure on the part of the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 February 2021 and the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two, even though there is no evidence to show that it had responded at stage one.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 7 April 2021. In its response, the landlord addressed the resident’s reference to the ongoing case of antisocial behaviour involving a neighbour. The landlord provided an update and confirmed that the police and council’s noise nuisance team had taken relevant actions. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide this update as the issues of antisocial behaviour had not been specifically brought to the landlord to investigate through its complaints process.
However, the response was 50 working days after the resident’s escalation to stage two. This was significantly outside of the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy, which states that it should respond at stage two within 30 working days. This was also outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which states that responses at stage two should be within 20 working days. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider the failures at stage one or the significant delay within its stage two response and missed opportunities to put things right.
Following contact from the resident on 8 March 2022, the landlord sent the resident a further stage two response. The landlord issued a further final response on 31 March 2022 and clarified to the resident that it had used its discretion to review the previous stage two response. The review of the stage two response was outside of the landlord’s policy and was almost 12 months after the original stage two response in April 2021. This was unreasonable and likely caused the resident confusion about how the landlord was handling his complaint.
In summary, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not adequately respond to the resident’s concern’s, missed opportunities to put things right, failed to recognise unreasonable delays in the process, failed to comply with its own policies, and did not provide reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of remedial works to the resident’s property following reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The resident and his family have lived with damp and mould for approximately five years. They have endured numerous repairs appointments to treat the damp and mould and deal with the damaged caused, which repeatedly failed to resolve the problem. At times, the landlord behaved unfairly and unreasonably and treated the resident and his family in an unsympathetic manner.
The landlord dismissed the resident’s request for temporary accommodation, even though the work required was significant. It failed to consider the health conditions of the children or that the family was forced to all live in one room, when determining whether it was reasonable for the family to live in the property whilst the work was carried out. The landlord also failed to provide reasonable redress to the resident.
There were multiple failures and delays in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns, did not adhere to its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and failed to offer reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £4949.20 (this is inclusive of the offer of £150 previously made) comprising of:
1. £2449.20 for the delays in completing the repairs and the associated impact on the property and the resident’s use of it whilst paying full rent for the property.
2. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by the delays in completing repairs in the property taking into account the identified vulnerabilities, of which the landlord was aware, and the urgency of the works.
3. £1,000 for the loss of opportunity for the resident to have made an insurance claim or be offered appropriate compensation for the belongings damaged by damp and mould.
4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaints.
Within six weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Confirm to the resident and this Service the current position in relation to the required remedial works, including a full schedule for completion, and consideration of the resident’s circumstances in relation to a temporary decant.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures highlighted in this report (the apology should be offered by the landlord’s Chief Executive).
3. Ensure that its Cabinet Members responsible for repairs and complaints are provided with a copy of this report. The landlord should review how it would handle these repairs differently following the introduction of its new damp and mould policy, which resulted from the orders made in the previous Ombudsman’s determination reference 202113701.
4. Review its handling of this complaint and create an action plan to show how it will ensure that it responds to complaints within an appropriate timescale in future.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendation

The landlord should complete a full review of the antisocial behaviour case and provide the resident with an update and an action plan to address any outstanding issues and provide suitable resolutions.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.