London Borough of Hackney (202306139)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202306139
London Borough of Hackney
16 October 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 the resident’s request to be placed on the housing register and for her application to be prioritised.
- The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated remedial repairs in her property.
- The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
Jurisdiction
- 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. 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.
- The resident has stated that part of her complaint is about the landlord’s response to her request to be placed on the housing register and for her application to be prioritised. Issues relating to a landlord’s statutory rehousing obligations are not within the Ombudsman’s remit. Complaints about statutory rehousing obligations authority fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and as such, this aspect of the complaint 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.
Background
- The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority at the property, where she lives with her child. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a 5-storey block. The building has a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) responsible for providing some housing services, including repairs. The landlord informed the Ombudsman it is “unaware of vulnerabilities” for the resident. It stated this may be due to a cyber-attack that occurred in October 2020. It did confirm the resident mentioned in her stage 1 complaint several health issues suffered by her and her child.
- The resident reported damp and mould at her property on 16 February 2023. The TMO attended at the property on 17 February and completed a mould wash. Its records show this was completed “wherever required”. The resident raised a complaint on 10 May. She said there was damp and mould in both bedrooms, the living room and the bathroom. She said it had damaged her belongings and furnishings and impacted her and her son’s health. She believed a broken window handle which she reported in 2021 was contributing to the damp issue. As a result of the complaint, the landlord arranged for the TMO to complete an investigation of the damp and mould at the property. Following an investigation the TMO reported the following:
- The bathroom was in a “bad state” with mould “on walls and windows in all rooms.” They said it was “one of the worst cases of mould they had seen”. As such they arranged for a contractor to attend to give a quote for works to address the issue. They said they believed this would be “expensive.”
- The TMO had installed thermoboards “years ago”, but the mould was “trapped behind” the boards and was “breaking through again.” They said the resident was “not interested” in having the mould cleaned or using extractor fans. The resident was reported as saying she “could not afford to run extractor fans all day” and only wanted to move from the property.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 May 2023. It recounted the details of the TMO inspection on 18 May and that she “desired to move home” rather than have the mould treated. It said the TMO was preparing a quote to “include damp and mould and other issues pointed out during the inspection.” Once the TMO received the quote they would contact the resident to discuss a “plan of action.” The landlord also referred the resident to the TMO’s Housing Officer to “discuss housing options.”
- The resident escalated her complaint on 9 June 2023. The landlord replied with its stage 2 complaint on 7 July. It told the resident the following:
- It said the TMO had received a quote from the contractor for work to address damp and mould at the property. However, the quote needed to be reviewed by a TMO manager. The landlord said this would take place from 17 July due to the availability of the TMO manager.
- The TMO housing officer had discussed with the resident about moving. It said it was “not currently carrying out home transfers” but the resident could consider “private sector” properties. It also directed her to housing options on its website.
- The landlord spoke with its insurance team about compensation for the resident’s belongings and personal injury. It told her if she felt the landlord was liable, she could make a claim to its insurers. Contact details were provided for the landlord’s insurance team.
- On 22 August 2023 the TMO told the landlord the quote for the works at the property was “too high”. It said it had completed mould washes at the property “every year since 2021”. It said it could “only carry out mould washes” and had completed one most recently in February 2023. In response, the landlord said it “appreciated the estimate was excessive”. It believed the resident would raise her case to the Ombudsman and suggested the TMO “engage with a specialist damp and mould company.” Work was completed to the bathroom and “other affected areas” by the TMO on 24 October 2023.
- The resident raised her concerns with the Ombudsman through a third-party organisation (with consent) on 1 November 2023. They referred to the “negligence and inaction” of the landlord for the “persistent mould” which had caused “severe consequences” to the resident and her child. They said the resident had been “subjected to mould for 10 years” and the landlord had “disregarded multiple complaints.” They stated no attempt had been made to resolve the “root cause of the issue.” The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 13 May 2024.
Assessment and findings
Scope of assessment.
- In the resident’s correspondence, she referred to work taken to address damp and mould at the property in 2011. Given the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events before May 2022. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made on 10 May 2023.
- The resident said that her and her child’s health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of damp and mould at her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
- The landlord directed the resident to complete a claim for damage to her possessions and on her own content’s insurance or its insurance. It also advised her she could make a personal injury claim to its insurer. It is unclear if the resident followed up on this advice. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of an insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of her possessions and its overall approach to the matter.
- In correspondence the landlord has confirmed the TMO was responsible for the “repairs at the property.” The tenancy agreement was between the resident and the landlord. As such the Ombudsman is unable to assess the TMO’s handling of any repairs reported to it or completed at the property. The landlord’s overall management of any repairs in its relationship with the TMO will however be assessed. This is because the tenancy agreement in accordance with the Landlord and Tenancy Act confirmed the landlord had an overarching responsibility to ensure the property was in a reasonable state of repair.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
- The landlord’s ‘Your Tenancy Conditions’ document confirms the resident must tell the landlord about any problem in the property, which it is responsible for repairing. It will complete “normal” repairs in 21 working days, where the fault or failure does not cause major inconvenience or danger. Its Repairs Policy states the resident is responsible for “controlling the build up of moisture” in the property. It states this is to “prevent damp and mould appearing on walls or ceilings.” The policy provides no information on the landlord’s responsibility for addressing reports of mould. However, its website provides further information. It stated on 3 February 2023 that damp mould and condensation is an issue it takes “extremely seriously” and has outlined a plan to tackle this. This includes the following:
- It will inspect all reports of damp and mould within 5 working days and would set up a “dedicated hotline” in its repairs contact centre to “speed up getting issues of damp and mould reported.”
- Ensuring all housing officers are “fully aware” of the signs of damp and mould and how to ensure it is “properly reported.”
- The website also recognises other causes of damp, including leaking pipes, rising damp, penetrating damp and cold bridging.
- The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. 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. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
- The resident reported damp and mould in her property on 16 February 2023. The landlord raised the issue on the same day with the TMO completing a mould wash of “all affected areas” on 17 February. This was in accordance with its procedure and was a timely approach to tackling the resident’s report. It is unclear if the TMO or landlord completed a thorough inspection at this point. As such there is no evidence it was able to establish a root cause of the damp and mould at the property. This caused the resident to believe it had not been proactive in dealing with the issue.
- In her complaint of 9 May 2023, the resident said she had mould “in all parts of her home” and this had been “ongoing since 2009.” She also referenced that the TMO was completing mould washes but “had not resolved the issue.” The landlord acted appropriately in arranging for the TMO to complete an inspection. However, it did not do this in an appropriate timescale, taking 7 working days. This was not in accordance with the procedure on its website which suggests this should be arranged in 5 working days.
- The inspection was completed at the property by the TMO’s repair officer on the same day the landlord raised it. The landlord raised an “inspection for damp and mould.” There is no evidence it raised for a thorough inspection to be completed with the use of damp and mould measuring tools. As such the evidence suggests the TMO completed only a visual inspection. It would have been appropriate to complete a thorough inspection using mould and damp measuring tools at this point. This would have supported the landlord and TMO in establishing any root causes of the issue. The repairs officer stated the mould was “one of the worst cases” they had seen. It established a number of potential root causes of the mould:
- They recognised mould had penetrated the thermaboards installed “years ago”, which were installed to resolve the damp and mould issue.
- They found the resident stated she could not run the extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom daily. The resident was reported as saying she “could not afford this” despite the TMO stating it would amount to “£1.00 per year.” They also offered further mould cleans which were rejected by the resident as she “desired to move from the property.”
- On 18 May 2023 the TMO arranged for a contractor to visit the property to “look at the extent of the problem and give a quote.” The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 22 May. It managed her expectations that the TMO would arrange a “plan of action” once it received a quote. The resident said in her escalation she did not believe “work due to be completed would resolve the damp and mould issue.” There is no evidence of the TMO updating the landlord following this or completing a “plan of action.” The landlord did not chase this until 4 July 2023, which was 6 weeks after the initial request was made. This caused uncertainty to the resident on what action would take place and when.
- The landlord clarified in its stage 2 complaint response that the TMO needed to approve the quote for the work through a manager. It would later establish this was because the quote was greater than the TMO’s threshold of £10,000. It told the resident the TMO would update her from 17 July when the TMO manager returned. It appropriately asked the TMO to prioritise this on both 7 and 17 July. The TMO told the landlord on 18 July it believed the quote included full redecoration and additional vents. The TMO believed this was an example of “betterment” and was therefore outside the TMO remit. The landlord’s response to this was effective. It asked the TMO on 18 July to provide the resident with a holding reply. This was appropriate in managing her expectations of the work.
- On 22 August 2022 the TMO told the landlord it could “only complete a mould wash” at the property and had “already done this in February (2023).” The landlord’s response was robust advising the TMO to act due to potential Ombudsman interest. It said the TMO was “responsible for works” and should “lead on it.” It told the TMO although the quote was “excessive” it should “engage with a damp and mould specialist” and appropriately provided details of suitable organisations to them. Following this, there is no evidence of the landlord further chasing this until the TMO raised the repairs on 22 September.
- The TMO completed the repairs and mould treatment at the property on 24 October 2023. In total, this took over 5 months to complete from the initial inspection of 18 May. This was beyond the 21 working days in its policy by 91 working days. It is noted the landlord took effective action on the matter it progressed the issue when the TMO raised concerns. However, there were a number of periods between 22 May to 4 July and 22 August to 22 September where it could have expedited the repair. The resident was forced to manage the impact of the damp and mould at her property throughout this period, including the distress and inconvenience it caused.
- From 16 February to 24 October 2023 the landlord and TMO’s communication with the resident about damp and mould was limited, other than its complaint responses. This was despite the resident raising the issue on several occasions and raising the impact it was having on her and her child’s health. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS.
- 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 left the resident to manage the damp and mould at her property herself over a prolonged period. Although it completed mould washes in February and October 2023, there is no evidence it attempted further mould washes in between even despite the resident’s resistance to them. It also never considered other options such as dehumidifiers. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
- In further correspondence on 1 November 2023 and 25 April 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman there was the continued presence of damp and mould in her property. This is evidence the repairs in September 2023 have potentially failed to resolve the root cause of the issue. The landlord will be ordered to arrange an independent inspection of the property to pursue resolution of the issue.
- The resident reported her broken window handle on 5 March 2022. She said she had originally reported it during “lockdown” when the contractor “took the handle.” There is no evidence of further action taking place to repair the handle. The resident frustrated with this, raised the issue in her complaint on 9 May 2023. She said the landlord inspected the issue on 3 February 2023. However, the Ombudsman cannot find evidence of this in the landlord’s records, suggesting a record-keeping failure. The resident believed the broken handle was contributing to damp and mould at the property, as “cold air was coming through the window.”
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it raised “other issues the resident pointed out.” However, the TMO did not complete the repair of the broken window handle until 18 December 2023. The landlord and TMO failed to communicate with the resident up to this point. Furthermore, the landlord failed to further address the issue or update the resident on the repair in its stage 2 complaint response. In total from the initial report, the repair took 453 working days to complete. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 432 working days. The resident was left uncertain when it would complete the repair and if it was taking her concerns seriously throughout.
- The resident requested rehousing in her initial complaint of 9 May 2023. As previously stated, the resident’s concerns about being placed on the housing register will not be assessed in this report. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it did advise the resident to discuss housing options with the TMO housing officer. It provided her with the contact details to do this.
- The resident raised rehousing in her complaint escalation of 9 June 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the TMO spoke with the resident on 9 June. The resident said this was about a transfer, however, earlier correspondence suggests she contacted the landlord about a housing register application. The landlord told the resident in its response of 7 July “it was not offering transfers at the moment”. It could have explained this more effectively explaining why this was and providing details on how the resident could find out when this would be available again. It did however appropriately direct her to privately rented properties and further information on its website. The landlord will be asked to provide an update to the resident regarding options for housing transfers.
- The resident mentioned the impact the damp and mould was having on her and her child’s health on 9 May and 9 June 2023. The Ombudsman can find no evidence of the landlord or TMO completing any risk assessments for the resident and her child. This is an indication it was not considerate of the well-being of the resident or her family. In correspondence with the Ombudsman on 23 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s health issues. The Ombudsman can see no further evidence of a risk assessment having been completed up to this point. A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlord’s decision-making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that take into account factors such as household vulnerability. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family at the property. It must then take any further appropriate action, as necessary.
- In her complaint and escalation, the resident asked for compensation. She said this was for the damage the damp and mould had caused damage to her belongings and furnishings and to her and her child’s health. The landlord failed to address the issue in its stage 1 complaint response. However, its stage 2 complaint response did go on to address the issue. It appropriately directed the resident to claim on her own home contents insurance regarding her belongings and furnishings. It told her if she did not have this, she could make a liability claim against the landlord. It also advised her she could make a personal injury claim to its insurer. It provided her with details for its insurance team to do this. This was appropriate in ensuring a decision regarding liability for the damage and reported injury could be made and if a claim could be made on the landlord’s insurance.
- The landlord offered no compensation to the resident in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaints responses. It should have done so for the total detriment caused to the resident and for the following reasons:
- The overall delay of 5 months in completing repairs to the resident’s property to address damp and mould. This includes its failures to expedite the issue between 22 May to 4 July and 22 August to 22 September 2023. Between February and October 2023, it completed no further mould washes and did not consider further supportive measures such as dehumidifiers.
- The overall delay of over 18 months in repairing the resident’s broken window handle. This includes its failure to communicate or update on the matter between 9 May and 18 December 2023.
- It failed to consider the impact the situation was having on the resident and her child’s health despite receiving prompts from her in correspondence and her complaint and escalation. It did not offer support or consider a risk assessment.
- In summary the landlord treated the resident’s initial report of damp and mould appropriately. The TMO attended within 5 working days and completed a mould wash. Following this it failed to act in accordance with its Repairs Policy in relation to the TMO completing repairs to address damp and mould at the property. The Ombudsman notes the landlord expedited the TMO on several occasions. It also ensured the TMO was aware of its responsibilities leading to the completion of the necessary works. It is recognised the damp and mould was reported to have worsened due to the resident’s unwillingness to use extractor fans at her property. The overall delay was affected by the landlord’s failure to consistently expedite and monitor the situation. The landlord also failed to manage a repair to a broken window handle for over 18 months causing uncertainty to the resident. She raised a number of times the detriment to her health, but the landlord did not use this as a prompt to support the resident or complete a risk assessment to support any action.
- In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified. The Ombudsman has considered that the resident’s enjoyment of both bedrooms and kitchen have been curtailed for a significant period by the damp and mould. As such, the landlord has been ordered to pay compensation based on 5% of the rent for each of the rooms that were affected, for the period during which the resident was unable to use these rooms to their full purpose. This is therefore 20% of the weekly rent for 20 weeks. The resident’s rent is £112.52. 20% of the weekly rent was £22.50. The total compensation for 20 weeks is therefore £450. Further compensation of £150 has been awarded for the landlord’s failure to complete the window handle repair over 18 months and for the overall detriment and distress caused to the resident. In total £600 has been awarded. This figure is not intended to act as a formal reimbursement of the resident’s rent for these periods, but rather it is considered reasonable and proportionate redress for the periods in question given the landlord’s failures and resulting detriment to the household. It failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its failure to offer compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.
- The landlord did not introduce a formal complaints policy until 1 December 2023 after it had addressed the resident’s complaint. Prior to this, it had a complaints procedure. This confirmed it operated a two-stage complaints process as follows:
- Stage 1 complaints are dealt with by a senior officer from the service being complained about. There are two options for resolution:
- Option 1 is to “get it sorted”, where it will try to solve a problem within 5 working days of logging a complaint. It does this to resolve the issue quickly without the need for a full investigation.
- Option 2 is to “investigate it” where it will complete a more thorough investigation and details response. It will take up to 10 working days to provide its response. It will inform the resident if it needs to apply an extension to its response timescale and respond in a further 10 working days.
- Stage 2 complaints are dealt with by an independent team in the Chief Executives office. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints in 20 working days. If the original resolution was “not enough to allow an investigation” at stage 2 it may pass the complaint back to stage 1.
- Stage 1 complaints are dealt with by a senior officer from the service being complained about. There are two options for resolution:
- There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint of 10 May 2023 or her escalation of 9 June. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). As such it failed to acknowledge the complaint and did not understand the details of her complaint or what she wanted as a resolution. This meant it failed to manage her expectations and reduced its chances of providing an effective complaint response.
- There is no evidence of the landlord considering ‘option 1’ for its stage 1 complaint. It could have used this approach to provide information about discussing housing options and the ongoing quote sooner. The landlord did provide its stage 1 complaint response in 8 working days which was in accordance with its procedure and the Code. The complaint response was brief, and to the point and displayed a lack of understanding or empathy for the resident’s situation.
- The stage 1 complaint response failed to fully address the following issues:
- It did not address the resident’s concerns about the damaged handle on her window. The landlord did state its quote would look at “other issues the resident pointed out during the inspection.” However, it is unclear if it was referring to the broken handle. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident on whether it was addressing the issue. Following the landlord’s stage 1 response, it did not provide a further response at stage 2 on the matter. A repair request was not raised for the broken handle until almost 7 months later. This suggests the landlord failed to appropriately consider the issue and did not monitor or manage further resolution of the issue.
- It also failed to address the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings and furnishing. It would later address this in its stage 2 complaint response by referring the resident to its insurance team. However, it should have done this much sooner, in its stage 1 response. Had it done so it would have allowed the resident to consider taking this action at the earliest possible point.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in 20 working days. This was in accordance with its procedure and the Code. This response was more empathetic to the resident and her situation. It was also more comprehensive and addressed all points raised in the resident’s escalated complaint. The response did however fail to acknowledge any issues with its complaint handling. This should have included the overall detriment to the resident plus the following:
- Its failure to acknowledge either the original complaint or escalation. In failing to do so, it did not have the opportunity to clarify the issues raised or the resolution sought by the resident.
- Its stage 1 response showed no empathy and failed to address all the resident’s concerns. This included her points about damage to her possessions and the broken window handle.
- A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to the Code in failing to acknowledge the complaint and escalation and in its communication with the resident. Its final response failed to acknowledge any failures in its complaint handling. It should have addressed this to exhibit awareness and learning from its failings. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £100 compensation has been ordered. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be placed on the housing register and for her application to be prioritised is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs at the property.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
- The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its complaint handling failures.
- Pay the resident a total of £700 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
- £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s ineffective response to reports of a damp and mould in the resident’s property and associated repairs.
- £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
- The landlord must complete a risk assessment for the resident and her child, taking any further action as appropriate. It must also investigate further appropriate support for the resident and her child.
- The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of the date of this report:
- The landlord is ordered to complete a full inspection of the damp and mould at the property by an independent surveyor. It must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcome of this inspection. It must also take appropriate action as a result of the findings of the inspection.
Recommendations
- The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, and consider the completion of a self-assessment against the report if it has not done so already.
- The landlord should review the September 2023 government guidance – ‘understanding and addressing the health risks of damp and mould in the home’ to help it address its approach to damp and mould.
- The landlord should provide the resident with an update on its position regarding housing transfers. It should also provide information to the resident on her options for rehousing.