London Borough of Enfield (202122007)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122007

London Borough of Enfield

27 February 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 resident complained about the landlord’s handling of works in response to her reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 24 July 2017 and the property is a two-bedroom flat.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2020 to request for a surveyor to attend the property on 29 September 2020. This was concerning damp and mould. An appointment was arranged for 5 October 2020, however the engineer was unable to gain access, which resulted in a visit to the resident’s property on 12 October 2020. There is no record of the outcome of this visit and the next contact was 18 January 2021, when the resident emailed the landlord to express upset about having to chase for an inspection, she was also unhappy that the previous appointment had been cancelled without informing her. In response the landlord apologised and explained that It had been cancelled as a result of human error, it was then rescheduled for 21 January 2021.
After the visit the contractor explained that the mould was a result of condensation. It arranged for the wallpaper to be removed, to carry out a mould wash and repaint the wall. This appointment was scheduled for 22 February 2021, however the contractors were unable to gain access, which resulted in it being rescheduled for 17 March 2021.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord issued a response to the resident’s complaint dated 18 January 2021. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint to be about a survey which was due to take place being cancelled without prior notice. It also acknowledged the impact that the resident said the damp and mould was having on her family’s physical and mental health.
The landlord apologised for the lack of communication and cancelled appointment. It explained that this was due to a human error. It explained that following the cancellation, the appointment was rescheduled for 21 January 2021. The survey had attributed the mould to condensation and an order was raised to remove the resident’s wallpaper, complete an anti-mould wash treatment and paint the walls. This appointment had been scheduled for 22 February 2021, however due to the contractors being unable to gain access this was rearranged. Subsequently the contractor was also unable to gain access on 17 March 2021.
The landlord explained that it had addressed the resident’s concerns about insufficient heating and arranged for contractors to attend on 5 October 2020, however they were unable to gain access. It successfully gained access on 12 October 2020, where it checked the heating and found no faults. Following further concerns raised by the resident, it arranged for a further inspection on 22 March 2021.
Following the landlord’s stage one response, on 25 March 2021 an inspection took place. A leak was found that was affecting the property, resulting in the landlord requesting quotes to repair the exterior damage to the brickwork causing water ingress into property.
On 4 April 2021 and 9 May 2021, the resident requested an update from the landlord following the inspection. Subsequently on 10 May 2021, the landlord provided her with a copy of the findings. It found mould growth to be in the living room, bathroom, children’s bedroom and main bedroom. It recommended a mould wash and anti-fungal paint in several areas of the property. It also recommended inspection of a suspected potential leak from above, and the repair of external brickwork.
Contractors were unable to conduct works as scheduled on 6 April 2021, due to no access. Following this, on 14 May 2021, the landlord informed the resident that contractors had attempted to gain access on 6 April 2021, but were unable to. In response the resident stated she had not been informed of this visit.
On 18 May 2021, the resident informed the landlord that paint repairs completed in the bathroom had started to come away from the wall. She also enquired as to what could be done about the cold temperature within the property as she was worried the issue would reoccur during winter.
On 25 May contractors attended the resident’s property to conduct internal repairs. Following this the resident informed the landlord that no external work had been done or internal work to the second bedroom. The resident also informed the landlord of a plant growing alongside her flat which needed to be removed.
The resident stated that the communication received from the landlord had been very poor. In addition she was unhappy about the housing team’s response to considering her for a housing transfer.
The landlord responded on 28 May 2021, it apologised for the delay in works. It explained that it had chased the contractor and would inform the resident once it had an update.
On 12 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she had spoken with the neighbour above about the potential leak, she was informed the neighbour was experiencing similar issues. Following this, the contractors requested the neighbours’ details.
There is a gap of around six months in the evidence that the Ombudsman has seen, until 29 December 2021, when the resident emailed the landlord to enquire about outstanding repairs, stating that despite an inspection taking place two months prior she had not received an update.
The landlord arranged for surveyors to carry out an inspection of the property, however it was unable to gain access on 27 January and 12 February 2022.
On 17 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to inform it that contractors had scheduled to install new radiators on 28 February 2022. The resident raised concerns about the installation of thermal boards and explained that, despite being told an inspection would take place, it had been four weeks since the installation. The resident explained that she did not believe a mould treatment took place prior to the installation.
She also said that the ivy plant had not been removed, the broken pipe had not been replaced, and the external issues had not been completed. She was concerned the issues would reoccur if this was not attended to.
The resident brought to the landlord’s attention that the neighbour above who was experiencing the same issues was in the process of being moved, she was unhappy that, in her case, she was told she would not be considered for a mutual exchange.
On 11 March 2022, the resident was contacted by contractors to conduct a survey on 14 March 2022. The resident contacted the landlord to explain its contractors had changed three radiators, however two had been cancelled and were still awaiting authorisation. The resident said that the radiator in her children’s bedroom had been removed exposing the pipe along the wall. This resulted in a safety hazard for her children. She also explained that the pipes under the carpet had started to burn them.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. The landlord understood the resident’s complaint to be about the way it handled repairs and the time taken to address the resident’s issues. It also acknowledged the resident’s concerns that damp and mould remained in the property and it was extremely cold.
The landlord explained in its first stage response it had informed the resident of appointments with the surveyor and heating engineer. Following this, internal works had been completed to the property, however external work not completed until 14 March 2022.
The landlord explained that it had arranged for repairs and they were completed as followed:
1. Antibacterial mould treatment 25 May 2021.
2. Thermal boarding to external wall in living room and bedrooms and remedial works to property including redecorating of living room and bedrooms, connections of sockets to walls between 20 January 2022 and 7 February 2022.
3. Repairs to bathroom window 20 January 2022.
4. Installation of new radiators. Resident advised on 11 March 2022 that 3 radiators were installed, and these works are still ongoing.
5. Downpipe repair at the cable end of building – right hand side needs rectifying, appointment 14 March 2022.
6. Cut back overgrown shrubbery – appointment 14 March 2022.
It acknowledged there had been delays in conducting repairs and apologised to the resident. In recognition of its service failings, it offered the resident £150 compensation.
The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about a mould wash not being applied before thermal boarding being installed. It explained that it would arrange an inspection of this, and should it find that this had not been done correctly it would be corrected.
On 15 March 2022 an inspection took place of the property, the landlord confirmed the external work had been completed. It explained that all other aspects of works had been completed with supporting photos. The only concern which required addressing was the thermal board in the living room to determine if the correct work had been conducted prior to completing.
As the resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was sent to this service for adjudication. The resident explained she was unhappy with the following:
1. The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports.
2. The landlord’s delays and poor communication.
3. The impact on the household’s health and wellbeing.
4. The financial impact caused.
5. The standard of work carried out.
As a resolution the resident stated she was seeking for the landlord to:
1. Carry out necessary repairs to fix the damp and mould issue – including rectifying the wrong installation of the thermal boards and external work to property.
2. If repairs or correctional work cannot be completed, to move properties.

Assessment and findings

The resident has explained that the issues have had an impact on her household’s physical and mental health. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and the resident’s health. Whilst we cannot definitively draw a link between the condition of the property and the health of the occupants, careful consideration has been given to the resident’s comments about the impact of the situation on her household.
This investigation has taken into consideration the Housing Ombudsman’s recent spotlight investigation on damp and mould cases, which is available on our website, and also whether the actions of the landlord were proportionate and in line with its guidelines.
The resident had reported that her neighbour was able to move because of the ongoing issues of damp and mould. She expressed upset that this consideration was not given to her situation. Whilst the resident’s frustration is understandable, this service does not know the circumstances under which this neighbour was rehoused, furthermore the landlord did not consider this in its own complaint responses so has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond in full. Therefore, this aspect of the resident’s concerns has not been considered in this report, however we have made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss housing options.

The landlord’s handling of works in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

When damp and mould is reported, landlords should carry out an inspection to determine the cause. Page 18, Table 2, of the landlord’s housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy provides repair responsibilities and timescales. With regards to mould growth, it states mould growth due to condensation affecting less than 25% of a room is the resident’s responsibility. With regards to mould growth resulting from issues within the block or condensation affecting more than 25% of the room, it is the landlord’s responsibility. Where mould growth reasons are unknown, this is subject to inspection to determine liability.
This service has reviewed the landlord’s process for dampness, mould and condensation. It states the following would be done:
1. Step 1. Resident reports dampness, mould or condensation to landlord directly – a proforma has been developed to ensure key information is captured.
2. Step 2. Appointment raised for survey for all reported cases of dampness, mould and condensation cases.
3. Step 3. Survey carried out by in-house surveyor or specialist sub-contractor (both follow the same process). The target timescale for a survey to be carried out is 21 days from the date of request but priority will be triaged.
4. Step 4. The landlord will review the survey report and contact the resident to check if any additional assistance or information is needed before works are progressed. It will then arrange suitable appointments for all necessary work to be carried out, including anti-fungal treatments and painting where required.
5. Step 5. The resident will be contacted in writing to confirm the outcome of the survey, the next steps and timescales for any required works to be carried out. This communication will also include information on steps the household can take to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of repairs through a leaflet.
6. Step 6. The surveyor or landlord will ensure all work takes place as arranged, taking account of individual circumstances and any additional support required for the tenant. An inspection of all works will be carried out following completion.
7. Step 7. A follow-up check will be scheduled for 8 weeks after the work to ensure this has resolved the issue. If the issue has been resolved, no further action is required.
8. Step 8. If the works have not fully resolved the issue, the landlord will carry out further investigation to ensure the issue is resolved. Step 7 would be repeated to ensure the issue is resolved.
In this instance when the resident informed the landlord of damp and mould in the property on 7 September 2020, it had correctly followed its procedures by arranging a survey to be conducted within 21 working days. Whilst it was unable to gain access within the designated schedule, it was prompt in ensuring a survey took place soon after.
The resident explained that she was given conflicting reasons as to what caused the mould. She had been told on separate occasions that the cause was condensation, poor ventilation, and water penetration from the above flat and a downpipe.
This service recognises how frustrating it would have been for the resident to receive conflicting information. However, the Ombudsman also recognises that sometimes it is challenging for landlords and contractors to diagnose the cause of damp and mould. In such circumstances we expect landlords to actively seek to resolve the problem and be in reasonable communication with residents throughout the process.
This service has reviewed the photographic evidence and it is clear the resident was experiencing mould issues within several areas of the property. The evidence shows that, following the first inspection, the landlord arranged for its contractors to remove the wallpaper, carry out a treatment and repaint the affected areas. It also investigated the cause of a leak and arranged for a downpipe to be fixed.
The resident was unhappy with the length of time in which it had taken the landlord to conduct repairs. On reviewing the information, it is clear that there were several instances where the landlord’s contractors were unable to gain access in order to proceed with the works. It is also evident that there were missed and cancelled appointments. This service understands that both parties contributed to delays, however it is clear that it took the landlord a considerable amount of time to make repairs. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged this and in recognition offered the resident £150 compensation.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation as there were delays and poor communication. Whilst the landlord’s actions to resolve the matter were proactive, in that it investigated concerns, attempted repairs, conducted pre and post inspections and offered compensation, it is clear there were lengthy delays, the resident had to chase for updates and further inconvenience was caused when the landlord had to redo the work. Therefore, whilst the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to recognising this, the amount offered did not take into account the full extent of failings in this case, and therefore did not constitute reasonable redress.
The resident advised that the landlord’s contractors did not follow the correct procedures when placing the thermal boards. It was expected that the contractors would remove wallpaper, and carry out an anti-fungal wash prior to placing the thermal boards. However, the resident stated they failed to do so.
When the landlord was informed of this, it investigated the matter and contacted its contractors. As it found that it was unable to substantiate the claims, it arranged for an inspection. Upon inspection it was discovered that the work had not been carried out properly. This resulted in the landlord agreeing to remove the thermal boards, strip the wallpaper, apply mould treatment, and then reinstall the thermal boards.
As there was no proof to confirm the resident’s claims or proof that its contractors had completed the work correctly, it was correct for the landlord to conduct an inspection. It is understood that the resident felt the landlord did not take her concerns seriously when she first brought this to its attention, the evidence shows that following reports of works on 22 January 2022, the resident had to chase the landlord on 17 February 2022 to have the inspection carried out. This service has not seen evidence as to when the inspection took place, but this was confirmed by the resident and following this, works commenced in March 2022.
It is clear that the landlord had set instructions for what works needed to be carried out, however this was not done. It is reasonable for a landlord to expect its contractors to complete work to the correct standard. When the contractor fails to do so, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure this is corrected and that any performance concerns are raised through its contract monitoring and management arrangements. In this instance, despite the work not being completed correctly to start with, the landlord rectified the matter but did not give consideration as to whether any further compensation should be offered. Therefore the Ombudsman is ordering the landlord to pay further compensation.
The landlord’s procedure includes for a follow up to be scheduled after 8 weeks of completing the work, to ensure the matter has been resolved. The landlord has confirmed that it conducted an inspection on 8 December 2022. However, following this the resident had reported further concerns, in response to which the landlord carried out a further inspection on 31 January 2023.
This service recognises the landlord has made attempts to rectify the matter, however as the resident has raised further reports, this service will be recommending that it carries out further investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of works in response to her reports of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

There were lengthy delays and poor communication in the landlord’s attempts to resolve the issues concerning damp. Whilst it is clear the landlord acknowledged this, apologised to the resident and offered compensation the, amount offered did not reflect the overall inconvenience caused including delays, lack of communication, differing advice and having to carry out works to rectify the thermal boarding works.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident a total of £300 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. This amount includes the £150 previously offered.

Recommendations

Taking into consideration that the resident has raised further concerns since this complaint completed its formal complaints procedure, the landlord should further investigate the damp and mould and provide a plan of action in writing to the resident. It should aim to have any repair works needed completed within a reasonable period of time and provide the resident with timeframes.
The landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s follow-up report on damp and mould to see if there are further opportunities to improve its overall approach to damp and mould cases. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The landlord’s current housing repairs, maintenance and planned works policy sets out that mould growth due to condensation affecting less than 25% of a room is a resident’s responsibility, with mould growth resulting from issues within the block or condensation affecting more than 25% of a room is the landlord’s responsibility. It is recommended that this part of the policy is amended to reflect that all cases of reported mould growth should be investigated before a decision is made as to the cause and responsibility.
The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter to discuss housing options.