London Borough of Croydon (202227185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227185

London Borough of Croydon

26 March 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:
1. A management transfer request.
2. Reports of leaks in the property and subsequent damp and mould.
3. The complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 14 August 2015. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident including “mental health difficulties, disability, other impairment and mobility issues.”
On 20 June 2022, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. For the past 4 or 5 years she could hear water dripping over the ceiling of the property. The resident said water was running down both bedroom walls, the bathroom doorway and into a lightbulb. The resident said she had to use 3 containers to catch the water.
2. The landlord had attended 3 times to disconnect the hallway light. The resident said she has been without a light in the hallway for 3 months.
3. She believed there was a leak coming from the upstairs property.
4. Her kitchen ceiling was leaking 3 months ago, and water was inside the cupboard behind her fridge where the waste pipe was located.
5. The built–in wardrobe in the bedroom was covered in mould as were the walls and some shoe boxes. The resident also said that the mould had ruined some of her personal belongings.
6. Her daughter could not stay in her bedroom and the wardrobe smelled of mould. The resident said the mould was severely affecting her daughter’s health.
7. The property smelled of cigarette smoke from neighbouring properties. The resident said that this was affecting her and her grandson, who had asthma.
8. She wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and the impact on her ability to enjoy her home. The resident also said the issues in the property were affecting her mental health.
On 19 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. It had inspected the property in October 2016 and found a leak from a bath waste pipe which was in an upstairs property. The landlord said it repaired the leak and inspected the resident’s ceiling. The landlord said the ceiling was dry.
2. It had inspected the resident’s property and an upstairs property in February 2018 and found no leaks.
3. In July 2020, it attended the resident’s property again and found no leaks, but it did identify a previous leak in a neighbouring property. It also found a small hole in the resident’s bathroom ceiling. The landlord said it told the resident to contact it if the leak started again.
4. In January 2021, it attended the resident’s property and found no leaks. The landlord said it made the hallway light safe and reinstated the light in March 2021.
5. In December 2021, it attended the property and found a leak from a neighbouring property. The landlord said it completed repairs and isolated the resident’s hallway light, which it reinstated after 2 weeks.
6. It had attended the property following each of the resident’s reports of leaks. The landlord said it either found no evidence of a leak or the leak had stopped, and it had identified no repairs.
7. The resident first reported damp and mould on 13 June 2022. The landlord said it attended the resident’s property to carry out a mould wash but found that the resident had cleaned the mould herself.
8. The mould was at a low level and was “not necessarily consistent with a leak coming from above”. The landlord said it had arranged for a repairs inspector to contact the resident by 15 July 2022 to arrange an appointment to inspect the leak and the mould.
9. It would not offer compensation to the resident. The landlord said the resident would need to claim through her insurance for any damage to her personal belongings. The landlord said if the resident did not have insurance she could pay for insurance via the landlord in addition to her rent.
10. The resident would need to report issues of smoking from neighbouring properties to her tenancy officer.
On 18 August 2022, the resident said she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and the situation had become worse. The resident said the mould in the property had affected her mental and physical health. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day and said it would need reasons why the complaint had not been fully addressed at stage 1 to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
On 6 and 7 February 2023, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint. In her escalation request, she said:
1. The issues in the property had become even worse. The resident said water was leaking into the bedroom wardrobe and the cupboard where the electricity meter was.
2. The delay in responding to the landlord was due to having COVID and mental health difficulties.
3. The landlord had told her it could not attend the property to inspect the mould until September 2022. The resident explained that she cleaned the mould in June 2022, as her daughter could not sleep in the bedroom, and she could not wait until September 2022 for the landlord to attend the property.
4. The landlord had told her that it did not treat mould anymore.
5. The landlord had told her in December 2022 that the guttering was blocked.
6. The landlord had not done anything to rectify the above issues. The resident also said her household was becoming ill due to black mould in the property.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. It had failed to contact the resident to arrange an inspection, verify the mould issues raised and identify any required repairs. The landlord apologised for this.
3. The repairs team had tried to contact the resident on 13 March 2023 but had received no reply.
4. The resident reported a leak in her bathroom on 19 December 2022. The landlord said it arranged an inspection to take place on 17 January 2023. However, the landlord said an operative was unavailable and therefore it rescheduled the appointment to 25 January 2023. The landlord said it found an issue with the diaphragm to syphon and it ordered and fitted new parts.
5. The cause of water penetrating the brickwork of the property was due to a blocked gutter. The landlord said it jetted the guttering on 13 February 2023 and removed the debris. The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the work.
6. The resident had often had to wait 4 weeks for attendance at the property rather than the standard 5 days.
7. Its contractors attempted to investigate a leak from the property above but there was no response. The landlord said its contractors left a calling card but never followed this up.
8. The resident would need to contact its repairs team to schedule an appointment for an inspection of the property.
9. It had offered the resident £100 compensation for the above failings.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said that the landlord had still not addressed the issues with damp and mould in the property and her daughter was unable to sleep in the bedroom due to the smell of mould. The resident said the landlord’s repairs team painted over a wet black mould patch inside the cupboard wall, but they did not clean or treat the mould.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme states:
“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made before having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s handling of the management transfer request, as this has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
The resident did not raise any issues regarding her request for a property transfer within her complaint. As such, the landlord has not addressed this in its complaint responses. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

Scope of the investigation

The landlord has indicated that there were historic leaks affecting the property between 2016 and 2021. However, it is not clear whether the previous leaks contributed to the damp and mould referred to in the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2022 or, if these were separate issues.
While it is concerning that the landlord has indicated that the resident has experienced this issue at her property for several years, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
Therefore, while the Ombudsman has referred to previous issues with leaks, damp and mould to provide context to the resident’s complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from June 2022 onwards when the resident made a complaint to the landlord about leaks, damp and mould.
The landlord investigated and responded to several issues including the resident’s report that her property smelled of cigarette smoke from neighbouring properties. However, in referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, it is unclear if the landlord has resolved this part of the complaint.
The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm with the resident if she is satisfied with the landlord’s response on this issue. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen any further correspondence between the resident and the landlord regarding the smell of cigarette smoke in the property. The resident did not refer to the issue in her escalation request. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould, and its handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping

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.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. For example, the landlord has failed to provide details of the repairs referred to in its stage 1 response.
The landlord has provided some repair records from June 2022 onwards, but the records lack content and clarity. The landlord has recorded some repairs as “completed” but there are no details about what works it undertook or if any works were still outstanding. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property and subsequent damp and mould

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help enforcement authorities identify potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. As per the Decent Homes Standard, for a property: “To be decent, a dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards. Landlords should consider the circumstances very carefully in the interests of the occupiers of the dwelling before concluding that a hazard cannot be dealt with effectively, and in such cases should ensure that the occupiers are fully aware of the position.”
A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.
The landlord’s online repairs guide states it will attend to emergency repairs within 2 hours and will complete non-emergency repairs within 15 days.

The leaks

The resident reported the following leaks between June 2022 and March 2023:
1. a leak coming from the upstairs property and reports of damp and mould (reported on 20 June 2022)
2. water coming through the brickwork affecting the bedroom (reported on 27 October 2022)
3. a leak in the airing cupboard (reported on 4 November 2022)
4. water ingress through the ceiling of the property (reported on 10 November 2022)
5. the cistern leaking into the toilet and the cold-water bath tap leaking and mould in the wardrobes (reported on 19 December 2022)
6. water ingress in the bedroom wardrobe and the cupboard where the electricity meter was (reported on 7 February 2023)
7. the cistern leaking into the toilet and the cold-water bath tap leaking (reported on 16 February 2023)
8. a leak coming through the hallway ceiling (reported on 4 March 2023).
It is not clear whether it was one of these issues that caused the damp and mould or whether the leaks were all equal contributing factors.
Following reports of leaks from June 2022 onwards, there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to contact the resident to arrange an inspection and identify any required repairs. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had arranged for its repairs team to contact the resident by 15 July 2022. However, there is no evidence that the repairs team contacted the resident or that an inspection ever took place. The landlord’s repair records are unclear and inconsistent, making it difficult to establish when, if any, the landlord’s contractors undertook repairs.
It is clear from the evidence available that the resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repair process, which would have likely left her feeling unsupported and distressed. For example, in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it asked the resident to contact its repairs team, rather than offering the resident a date for the inspection.
Further, the landlord said its repairs team tried to contact the resident on 13 March 2023 but received no reply. The evidence shows that the resident cancelled an appointment with the repairs team on 13 March 2023 due to COVID-19 in the household. The resident contacted the repairs team on 21 March 2023 to request a new appointment but received no reply. The resident contacted the repairs team again on 3 April 2023 as she had received no response. Despite this, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for an inspection. As such, this was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The landlord should keep up-to-date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The landlord failed to keep its repair records up to date which caused unnecessary delays and worsened the situation for the resident and her family.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The resident reported leaks coming from the external brickwork of the property on 27 October 2022. The landlord said the cause of the leaks was blockages in the guttering. The landlord said it cleared the debris from the guttering on 13 February 2023. This was 74 working days after the resident had reported leaks coming from the external brickwork. The delay was more than the landlord’s repair guide which states it will complete repairs within 15 days. The delay was not appropriate.
The resident reported water ingress through the ceiling of the property on 10 November 2022. The landlord said its contractors attempted to investigate a leak from the property above but there was no access. The landlord said its contractors left a calling card but never followed this up. The landlord should have monitored the resident’s property following her report of water ingress. It also should have kept in regular communication with the resident and kept her updated on any progress with the repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord kept in communication with the resident or that it inspected the resident’s ceiling. This was not appropriate.
The landlord identified several failings in its stage 2 response including multiple delays across several repair issues, a failure to follow up on reports of leaks and delays in inspecting the damp and mould. The landlord’s repair records are not clear on when it responded to the resident’s reports of leaks, but the landlord acknowledged that the resident was often waiting for the landlord to attend the property for weeks at a time. While the landlord may have eventually attended the property to inspect the leaks, it did not do so within a reasonable time, and it failed to assess any potential water ingress or damage to the resident’s property.

The subsequent damp and mould

The landlord does not appear to have a policy or procedure for investigating reports of damp and mould. The landlord has not provided any void information or details about the condition of the property at the tenancy start date. The cause of the damp and mould is not clear, but from the evidence provided, there were several leaks reported by the resident over a considerable period of time.
The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 13 June 2022. The landlord’s repair records show that it closed or completed the repair log regarding the damp and mould on 5 September 2022. It is reasonable to assume that this was the date the landlord attended the property. This was 60 working days after the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in the property. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman understands that when the landlord attended the property in September 2022, it said it could not inspect the mould as the resident had cleaned the area. The resident had already explained to the landlord the impact that the mould was having on her and her daughter. In addition, the resident said the landlord had told her it could not attend the property until September 2022. As such, it was reasonably foreseeable that the resident would have been left with no choice but to attempt to clean the mould herself.
The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. The landlord should have still carried out a detailed inspection of the property when it attended in September 2022, particularly to investigate the cause of the damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord kept in communication with the resident between June and September 2022, or that it monitored the property to assess whether urgent remedial works were required. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The landlord did not consider the impact of the leaks, or the damp and mould on the resident and her family and it failed to evidence or explore options of a temporary decant. This was despite the resident’s concerns for the health of her and her family, particularly after reporting the presence of black mould in the property. Furthermore, the landlord did not consider whether dehumidifiers were required, and it failed to monitor the property to assess the severity of the leaks and the subsequent damp and mould. When the landlord became aware that there was mould in the property, it should have responded quickly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said its damp and mould team became “aware of the property” on 30 March 2023. It said it raised a mould wash on 6 April, which it completed on 19 April 2023. The landlord has not provided details of the reports received on 30 March 2023. It has also not provided details of the mould wash it carried out in April 2023.
The landlord failed to carry out a mould wash of the property within a reasonable time. The landlord should have arranged for a mould wash of the property as soon as it was aware it was required.
What is a reasonable time depends on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and that the resident’s daughter was also residing in the property. Further, the resident had repeatedly shown concerns about the impact the damp and mould were having on the health of her family.
The landlord failed to carry out an inspection of the property to identify the cause of the damp and mould within a reasonable time. The landlord attended the property on 2 November 2023 and completed a damp and mould inspection form. However, this did not identify the cause of the damp and mould. Further, this inspection was 355 working days after the resident had reported issues of damp and mould in the property. The delay was entirely inappropriate.
The landlord’s inspection on 2 November 2023 noted the following:
1. there was damp and mould present in both bedrooms
2. there was a leak from the property above into the external electricity cupboard
3. the fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not working
4. a new fan and light were required in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
From the evidence provided, it is not clear whether there are still outstanding repairs and issues with damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm this with the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property, identify the cause of the damp and mould and identify and complete any outstanding repairs.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses to repair works.
The resident said her daughter has been unable to use her bedroom due to the level of damp and mould. The landlord has not disputed the loss of a bedroom, or the resident’s consistent descriptions of the family’s living conditions. That said, it has not directly acknowledged their situation either.
The resident said that the damp and mould had damaged some of her personal belongings. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would not offer compensation to the resident and she would need to obtain her own insurance.
While the landlord advised the resident to go through her own insurance, it did not refer to its own insurance. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of any insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. However, in accordance with s.4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to see that they are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their property caused by a relevant defect.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s reports of damage in accordance with its discretionary compensation policy to establish whether it should contribute towards the cost of her personal belongings.
Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and subsequent damp and mould. This is because the landlord’s inappropriate approach failed to treat a potential health hazard seriously. The landlord has offered the resident £100 compensation. While the landlord offered some compensation to the resident, the compensation was not appropriate for the severe failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s annual self-assessment form states that as per its corporate complaints policy, it will issue responses to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. However, it said it would commit to updating its policy and process in December 2023 to 10 working days, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord has since updated its complaints policy. However, the policy which was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that the landlord would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 July 2022. This was 21 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. While this was only 1 working day over the landlord’s complaints policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident when it became aware that it was unable to respond within the timescales set out in its policy.
While the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 August 2022, it was not clear from her correspondence what issues remained outstanding. The landlord therefore responded to the resident on the same day and said it would need reasons why the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to progress the complaint to stage 2 of the procedure. Given that the landlord needed to fully understand the reasons why the complaint remained unresolved and what outcome the resident was seeking, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord again asked for further information from the resident, which the resident provided on 7 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 April 2023. This was 39 working days after the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated and 19 working days over the landlord’s complaints policy.
While the landlord updated the resident on 16 and 22 March 2023 to advise that its stage 2 response would be delayed because of a staff member leaving the organisation, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a date for when it would provide its response. The delay was therefore not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been significant delays in completing the repair works. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation about why these delays had occurred, or what it intended to do to resolve them.
Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a management transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property and subsequent damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The Chief Executive should be asked to make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £5,825, broken down as follows:
  1. £5,650 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs to the leaks and subsequent damp and mould between June 2022 to the date of this investigation.
  2. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The total compensation replaces the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any of the £100 already paid to the resident if applicable.

Contact the resident to discuss her report of damage to her personal belongings and establish whether it should contribute towards the costs incurred or whether this is being considered by its insurer. Importantly, home insurance policies often do not cover damp and mould, as they are gradually operating causes.
Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out.
1. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination.
2. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection.
3. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan must be shared with the resident and this service.

The landlord must, within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination:
1. Carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take. The landlord must share the review with the Ombudsman and the review must include:
  1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
  2. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
  3. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
  4. a review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.
  5. a review of its access arrangements in cases of uncontrollable leaks.
The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraphs 65 and 66. It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.