London Borough of Barnet (202211443)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211443

London Borough of Barnet

24 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 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord has handled the following:
    1. Request to be rehoused.
    2. Reports of discrimination by the landlord.
    3. Reports of anti-social behaviour, specifically sexual harassment
    4. Reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident had an introductory tenancy with the landlord which began in August 2014. The property was a 1 bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord had the recorded the resident as a vulnerable tenant who suffers from arthritis, a fractured Achilles tendon and episcleritis celluvisc (an eye condition).

Damp and mould

  1. On 18 November 2022, the landlord raised a works order following the resident’s report of mould in the bedroom and within the built in cupboard. An appointment was arranged for 8 February 2023, and the order was marked as complete, however, there is insufficient detail in the records to indicate what works were carried out, if any.
  2. A further order for a mould wash to the cupboards was raised on 6 March 2023, and completed on 22 March 2023. The landlord noted that there were gaps in the flooring of an external side concrete wall which allowed water ingress into the internal cupboards. While a works order was raised to fill the gaps, this was marked incorrectly as complete on 22 March 2023. Following the resident’s report on 17 April 2023 that the damp and mould remained ongoing, the order was raised again and completed on 5 May 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould on 28 February 2023. The complaint included other matters which are detailed in the relevant sections below. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about damp and mould as it stated it had arranged for a mould wash and repair to the gaps and cracks in concrete following a damp survey.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of mould as she stated the mould wash had not been applied to all affected areas. She stated that the repair to resolve the water ingress was not carried out successfully and had made matters worse. The resident explained that her property was “constantly cold” and this had exacerbated her joint pains.
  5. The landlord conducted a damp survey on 14 April 2023. The survey identified black mould in the internal hall way leading to the property, and rising damp internally in the bedroom. The surveyor noted that the mould wash carried out by the landlord had failed due to application being carried out upon a wet to touch wall surface. The surveyor also noted that remedial works that were being carried out by the landlord in relation to the damp concerns remained ongoing and there was a health and safety risk to the resident as the area had not been cordoned off.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 3 May 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about damp and mould and apologised for the lack of communication and poor planning regarding the repair and offered £50 compensation in acknowledgement of this. The landlord stated that a further damp inspection had been booked in for 18 May 2023.
  7. The landlord raised a work order for the external wall and pointing at the back of the wall to be inspected for mould. This was completed on 18 May 2023.
  8. A work order for a mould wash was raised on 11 June 2023, however, this was cancelled as the landlord noted that its operatives attended in September and due to the wardrobe units being fixed to the wall and full of belongings the mould wash could not be carried out. The landlord noted that the resident had not been in touch to confirm the belongings had been removed therefore the job was cancelled.

ASB and application to be rehoused

  1. The resident first reported ASB from her neighbour on 22 November 2022. She informed the landlord that her neighbour had agreed to help her with an issue she was experiencing with her gas cooker, and in the process the neighbour had “groped” her in a “sexual manner”. The resident also informed the landlord that the alleged perpetrator had also started parking their van outside the resident’s window and had been walking across in front of her bedroom and bathroom window.
  2. The landlord responded on 30 November 2022 and informed the resident that an ASB officer would respond within 5 to 10 working days. On 7 December 2022, following a full case triage by an ASB officer it was decided that an ASB case would not be opened and the resident was advised to report the incident to the police. With the resident’s consent the landlord also agreed that it would speak to the alleged perpetrator regarding the incident.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 15 December 2022 to inform it that she had contacted the police and that the incident had had an ongoing impact on her mental health. She stated she was “too scared to press charges and she requested to be moved as she felt “trapped”. The landlord made several attempts to contact the alleged perpetrator, however, this was unsuccessful. The landlord carried out a visit to the resident on 6 January 2023, and attempted an unsuccessful visit to the alleged perpetrators property.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint regarding ASB and stated it would make a further attempt to contact the alleged perpetrator regarding the incident.
  5. In her escalation request the resident explained that the ASB officer she had spoken to regarding her report had not informed her clearly of the next steps or the ASB process.
  6. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s ASB complaint as it stated it would work with the police once the resident provided the crime reference number and that it had made attempts to contact the alleged perpetrator.

Discrimination and application to be rehoused

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2023 and requested a transfer to another property as she felt the current property did not suit her medical needs.
  2. In the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord on 28 February 2023 she explained that she felt the landlord had been discriminatory towards her in response to her transfer request. She felt the landlord had ignored all the reasons she had requested a move and had only focussed on medical reasons.
  3. In its stage 1 response issued on 22 March 2023 the landlord stated that there was no evidence to show it had been discriminatory towards the resident, however, it acknowledged that the support and advice provided fell short of its expected standards. The landlord had also confirmed that it had referred the resident’s request for a transfer to the relevant staff member.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request on 29 March 2023, she explained that she felt she had been dismissed by the landlord when she requested a transfer and she was unhappy with a staff members handling of her request.
  5. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 as it stated that its communication had been “poor” in response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
  6. The resident moved out of the property and was transferred to a different property by the landlord in November 2023.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 14 March 2024. She explained that she felt the landlord had ignored her ASB complaints and she remained dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her transfer request.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which falls properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  3. The resident has stated that part of her complaint is about the landlord’s response to her request to be rehoused. Rehousing requests which are undertaken on behalf of the Local Authority in accordance with its allocation policy are outside the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Complaints about rehousing under a local authority fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and does not form part of this investigation. The resident may be able to refer the complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue it further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that the damp and mould issues affecting her property have been ongoing since 2015. The Ombudsman appreciates that this is a longstanding issue. As a general principle the Ombudsman will consider events up to 12 months prior to a formal complaint being raised to the landlord, this is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This investigation does not consider any specific events prior to 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord on 28 February 2023. 
  2. The resident mentioned that the damp and mould at the property has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding their health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant risk to health. This service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

Reports of discrimination

  1. The landlord has an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to consider how its policies and decisions affect people with characteristics that are protected under the Act, including disability, age and race. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether or not the landlord had been discriminatory in its treatment of the resident, as that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord had due regard to its obligations under the Act..
  2. With regards to the resident’s reports of discrimination, this Service would expect the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports giving due consideration to the Equality Act 2010, as part of which it should be appropriate for the landlord to explain the non-discriminatory reasons for failings where service failures exist.
  3. Due to the landlord’s lack of a detailed response to the residents transfer request, she felt that the landlord had treated her unfairly due to her “age, disability and race”. The resident first made the landlord aware of her concerns regarding discrimination in her initial complaint. She felt that had she been a “white woman” the landlord may have responded with more urgency in response to her reports of sexual harassment from her neighbour. She also expressed that she felt the landlord had been dismissive of her health and disabilities in its response to her emails requesting a transfer.
  4. In response to the resident’s reports of alleged discrimination, the landlord informed the resident that there was no evidence that the resident had been discriminated against and it therefore did not uphold this element of her complaint. However, this service has not seen what evidence the landlord relied on to conclude that there had been no discrimination or that it satisfactorily set out and explained its rationale which led to its conclusion.
  5. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have set out to the resident what actions it had specifically taken to investigate her reports of discrimination regarding age, disability and race. The landlord should have provided more information on what it investigated, the evidence it relied on and the processes followed in reaching its decisions. This would have demonstrated it acting with due regard to its obligations under the Act. The landlord’s failure to do so led to a lack of reassurance for the resident in the landlord’s actions around the matter and negatively impacted the landlord/tenant relationship.
  6. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident, detailing what evidence it reviewed when it investigated her reports of discrimination and set out it’s reasons for concluding there had been no discrimination against the resident in its treatment of her. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the failure identified.

Anti-social behaviour, specifically sexual harassment

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will investigate ASB reports as soon as possible and it will prioritise serious incidents. Following an ASB report the landlord will conduct an initial triage assessment which includes a vulnerability assessment. During this assessment the landlord will determine whether the incident is a ‘low’ or ‘high’ risk.
  2. If an incident is classified as high risk, the individual reporting the incident may be advised to report it to the police and a case officer would be assigned.
  3. The policy also states that the landlord will signpost to appropriate organisations if specialist support is required.
  4. In response to the resident’s initial report of ASB, specifically sexual harassment, the landlord appropriately conducted a case triage. However, this was conducted approximately 15 days after the initial report. While the landlord’s policy does not specify response timescales, given the nature of the allegation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have responded to the resident sooner. It is likely that the resident would have been feeling unsafe and distressed following the incident and adequate support should have been provided by the landlord in attempt to alleviate the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord’s policy states it will conduct a vulnerability assessment as part of the initial triage, however, there is no evidence to show this took place. Consequently, the landlord failed to determine the incident as ‘low’ or ‘high risk’. This was a failure by the landlord as it meant the resident’s needs were not adequately assessed or met.
  6. When the landlord did make contact with the resident, it appropriately signposted her to the police. However, the resident also alleged that her neighbour had been parking outside her window, and walking across her bedroom and bathroom window and there is no indication that this was taken into consideration before the landlord decided not to open an ASB case.
  7. The resident made contact with the landlord again in December 2022 to explain the ongoing impact the matter had had on her mental health. Following this, in accordance with its policy, the landlord should have considered signposting the resident to appropriate organisations in recognition of the fact that she required support. While the landlord made a further attempt to contact the perpetrator, the evidence shows these attempts were via telephone or a house visit. There is no evidence to show the alleged perpetrator was contacted via email or letter notifying them of the allegations made against them and the potential repercussions of such conduct. While the landlord may have preferred an in person approach, in the absence of this being successful, it should have considered alternatives rather than no contact at all. This understandably left the resident feeling as though the landlord was not taking the matter seriously contributing further to the breakdown of the landlord and tenant relationship.
  8. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord did not act in accordance with its policy and it did not take prompt action to provide support to the resident which exacerbated her worries and concerns regarding her neighbour.
  9. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in recognition of the failures identified above.

Damp and mould in the property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attempt to diagnose the cause of dampness following a report of damp in the property. In the majority of cases, reports of dampness will result in an inspection and the resident will be advised of the cause of the damp. Dependent on what is causing the damp the landlord will arrange for a damp survey, repairs or advise the resident regarding condensation management.
  2. The matter will be monitored for 6 weeks with a re-inspection booked with a surveyor to assess improvement.
  3. The landlord’s policy also sets out expected timescales for different types of repairs. Programmed works include works which require a ‘pre-inspection’ and such works are expected to be planned, undertaken and completed within 25 working days inclusive of the inspection.
  4. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
  5. The landlord’s records show the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the bedroom on 18 November 2022, however, the work order was not completed until 8 February 2023. This was approximately 56 working days after the resident’s report was made which is outside of the 25 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord should have acted promptly to arrange an inspection to identify the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord’s delay in conducting the inspection meant the resident was left without a repair and continued to experience damp and mould in her home for a prolonged period.
  6. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The landlord’s repair records are not sufficiently detailed enough for this Service to identify what action was taken on 8 February 2023, therefore we are unable to assess whether the action was reasonable.
  7. Following a further report of mould in March 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged for a mould wash, however, the damp survey conducted in April 2023 would later identify that this was not applied correctly. The landlord should ensure that its contractors are equipped with the correct expertise, skills and tools to complete repairs. It is evident that this was not the case here and consequently the resident was inconvenienced by the delay in carrying out a suitable repair as the damp and mould issues remained ongoing. The issue of unsuitably skilled contractors was also evident in relation to the remedial repair to the gaps and cracks in concrete as it was identified by a surveyor that there was a health and safety risk due to the area not being cordoned off. The landlord’s contractors should have the correct skills to identify and remedy health and safety risks to protect residents. This was an oversight by the landlord which put the resident at unnecessary risk.
  8. Furthermore, in relation to the works to fill the gaps and cracks in the concrete, this was initially identified and raised on 6 March 2023, however, due to poor record keeping this was incorrectly marked at complete on 22 March 2022. The repair was not completed until 5 May 2023. This was 42 working days after it was logged, and also appears to have been prompted by the stage 2 complaint raised by the resident. Had the landlord made accurate records, this delay could have been avoided. The delay caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had informed the landlord she was concerned about the impact of the ongoing damp and mould on her health.
  9. Additional works were raised after the stage 2 complaint, however, the mould wash raised on 11 June 2023 was cancelled by the landlord as it noted the resident had not been in touch to confirm she had removed her belongings from the fitted wardrobes. While the resident has a responsibility to allow access in relation to repairs, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have been proactive in following up with the resident regarding the repair, as landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
  10. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord did not act proactively and due to insufficiently skilled contractors, the repairs were delayed or unsatisfactory. Poor record keeping led to avoidable delays. While the resident has since moved out of the property and is therefore no longer experiencing the damp and mould, it is evident that the damp and mould was ongoing for a period of a minimum of 7 months. During this period the resident had notified the landlord of her health concerns and it is likely that the delays in resolving the matter exacerbated the distress experienced by the resident.
  11. The landlord offered £50 compensation in recognition of the poor communication and planning regarding the damp and mould repair.
  12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord did not take into take into account the full extent of the distress and inconvenience the ongoing damp and mould, and delayed repairs would have caused to the resident. The landlord’s failure to proactively manage the situation led to a protracted delay in the matter being fully resolved. The amount offered by the landlord does not reflect the full impact on the resident over an extended period, therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation in addition to the £50 offered in its stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically its handling of the resident’s reports of sexual harassment.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £650 in addition to the £50 offered in its stage 2 response. This is made up of the following:
      1. £100 for the failings identified in relation to the resident’s reports of discrimination.
      2. £250 for the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, specifically sexual harassment.
      3. £300 for the failings identified in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
    3. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident, detailing what evidence it reviewed when it investigated her reports of discrimination and set out it’s reasons for concluding there had been no discrimination against the resident, by the landlord during the handling of her complaint.