London Borough of Lewisham (202412719)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412719

Lewisham Council

22 January 2025

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and subsequent damage to personal belongings.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a 3-bedroom flat.
3. The resident raised a complaint on 29 January 2024 as she said damp in the property had been ongoing for 30 years and the damp and mould team had not responded to her recent correspondence. She said the damp and mould was extreme and causing mental and physical health problems to her family. She wanted the landlord to rehouse her and pay compensation for her damaged belongings.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 February 2024. It apologised for its poor communication. It said the resident would not accept the recommended ventilation works, as she thought there was an underlying structural issue that it had not addressed. It scheduled a damp and mould appointment for 1 March 2024, and it would assess whether the property was uninhabitable and if she required a decant. It recommended the resident to claim on her content’s insurance for damaged goods.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 February 2024. She said the landlord had not followed the recommendations by the landlord’s independent adjudicator in a previous stage 3 response on 18 January 2023. She said the leak detection team had attended but not provided an update. She did not want a ventilation unit as recommended by the landlord as it had not identified the cause of the water ingress or damp and mould. She said the landlord was liable for the damage to her belongings and needed to compensate her.
6. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 28 March 2024, it said there had been a delay in resolving the damp and mould as the resident had not given it the chance to complete the recommended repairs. It had offered the resident dehumidifiers, but she had refused them. It advised on 25 March 2024 that the property would benefit from a full flat ventilation system installation, and it would complete interim mould washes. It would contact the resident on the week commencing 2 April 2024 to arrange the repairs. It apologised that items were damaged by damp and mould and offered £250 but noted the repairs policy states residents should have adequate insurance and it is not responsible for personal belongings.
7. The resident referred her complaint to the Service on 26 June 2024 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. She said the landlord had not contacted her following the stage 2 to arrange the appointments. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issues or move her due to the impact on her family’s health. She also wanted compensation for the mental impact and damaged belongings. She said she refused the ventilation unit as the landlord had not identified the root cause of the issue for 30 years and only completed patch repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. It is clear that there is a long history of damp and mould in the property, which the resident reported had been ongoing for over 30 years. In line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As a result, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould from 29 January 2023 onwards, which is 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
9. The resident raised an earlier complaint about damp and mould in June 2022, which the landlord issued a final response to on 11 January 2023. It is noted that the resident contacted the Service on 13 March 2023, but did not provide a copy of her final response when requested so the case was subsequently closed. The resident did not further pursue the issue until 26 June 2024, when she referred the complaint considered in this investigation. In accordance with paragraph 42b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. As over 12 months elapsed between the resident exhausting the complaints procedure and this case being accepted for investigation, the June 2022 complaint does not fall within the remit of this investigation.
10. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
11. It is understood that the resident’s desired outcome is to be moved from the property. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move, however, we are unable to order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. Local authorities have procedures for managing allocations and prioritising transfers. The Ombudsman would not make a recommendation that could result in other residents on the housing transfer list being disadvantaged by having their allocations delayed or pushed back. Nonetheless, the Service will comment on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be movedand whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and subsequent damage to personal belongings

12. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation in line with its damp mould and leaks policy to take steps to resolve damp and mould. Its repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take a holistic approach to resolve the issues and implement interim solutions if appropriate.
13. The resident called the landlord on 27 October 2023 to discuss the damp and mould and the proposed ventilation system to resolve the issues. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report which recommended the works. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. The Service can therefore not determine when the landlord completed the inspection or if it attempted to complete the recommended works within the appropriate timeframe.
14. The resident did not want the recommended ventilation system as she thought there were structural defects with the brickwork so she did not think it would offer a full resolution. She said that the landlord only completes patchwork repairs and had previously installed thermal board which the damp and mould had since come through. However, she has not provided any evidence to support the conclusion, such as an independent survey, so the landlord was entitled to proceed with the repairs recommended by its appropriately qualified contractors. Furthermore, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is contractually required to provide reasonable access to the property to carry out works.
15. On 31 January 2024, the resident said she rejected the ventilation system as the landlord said it would be installed in the hallway, which she did not think would improve the condition of the bedrooms, and she was concerned about the additional electricity usage. There is no evidence that the landlord explained how it thought the ventilation system would have improved the damp and mould or that it attempted to manage her expectations regarding the expected usage costs. This was a shortcoming on behalf of the landlord which may have prevented the resident from making an informed decision regarding the works.
16. It is important to note that the Service cannot determine with certainty whether the proposed works would provide a full and lasting resolution. If the recommended works were unsuccessful, the landlord could have considered an alternative approach. The landlord would not be obliged to consider further works until the resident allowed access to complete the initial recommended works and it has the opportunity to assess how it affects the property condition.
17. Ultimately, as the resident refused the recommended works, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the damp and mould would persist if the resident did not provide the opportunity for it to complete the works. This was appropriate advice to manage the resident’s expectations. It was reasonable that the landlord offered mould washes and a dehumidifier as an interim solution to mitigate the impact on the resident.
18. The resident raised concerns several times that the property was not safe, and she wanted the landlord to decant or permanently move her. It was reasonable that the landlord attended on 1 March 2023 to assess whether the property was habitable. Again, the Service has not seen a copy of this report, but the resident has not disputed that the appointment took place. The stage 2 response stated the surveyor found the property would benefit from a full flat ventilation system, and it would complete interim mould washes. While the landlord may have determined that such works would ensure the property was suitable to live in, it was inappropriate that it did not explicitly address the resident’s concerns that the property was uninhabitable. This was a missed opportunity to alleviate some of the distress caused to the resident due to her concerns that the property was unsafe for her family.
19. The landlord also had several visits with the resident to discuss her request to be moved. It explained during a visit on 30 January 2024 that if she wanted to apply for rehousing on medical grounds, the medical team would need to assess whether she would be awarded medical priority. It said that in similar cases the medical team usually referred the case back to the landlord to resolve the damp and mould in instances when it is causing health issues. It was reasonable that it provided such advice to manage her expectations. It also visited on 23 February 2024 to obtain information about the family’s medical conditions, in which the resident provided medical letters relating to her daughter. The landlord provided advice on updating the tenancy information, as her daughter was not listed as a tenant. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and gave practical advice on how to progress the matter.
20. As an outcome of the complaint, the resident requested compensation for items damaged by damp and mould. It is recognised that this would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord does not insure the resident’s furniture, belongings, or decorations, and it advises residents to take out their own insurance. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord provided such advice in its complaint responses and signposted her to the relevant policy.
21. The landlord’s compensation, reimbursement, and remedies procedure states that if the resident believes the landlord is responsible for the damage it should send them a copy of its insurance claim form. In its stage 2 response it said it had provided its building contents insurance. While it may have been helpful for the landlord to have provided clearer instructions on how to progress the claim, it is evident that the resident made a claim in February 2023, so she was aware of the process. The landlord is entitled to have insurance in place to assist it with the cost of liability claims and it would not be expected to provide compensation for liability for damaged belongings outside the insurance process. The landlord therefore exceeded its obligations by offering £250 for damaged personal belongings.
22. In her complaint to the Service on 26 June 2024, the resident stated that the landlord had not contacted her following the stage 2 response to arrange the appointments. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would contact the resident the week commencing 2 April 2024 to arrange the repairs. There is no evidence that it fulfilled this, so it unreasonably set the resident’s expectations. This was a failing by the landlord. The resident subsequently contacted her MP for support on 13 June 2024 as the landlord failed to contact her, causing her additional time and effort.
23. The landlord completed a further inspection on 9 October 2024 which recommended installing passive vents and humidistat fans, replastering the bathroom and completing a mould wash. The contractor noted that if the works did not provide a full resolution to the damp and mould, thermal board dry lining of the walls or the installation of a positive input ventilation unit may be required. The landlord completed works to the bathroom and mould washes on 8 November 2024. As such, there was a 7-month delay in completing the works following the stage 2 response, which was unreasonable. The landlord also raised a work order on 16 October 2024 to install fans in the bathroom and kitchen and an airbrick in each bedroom but is unclear if it has since completed the works.
24. The landlord should rearrange the ventilation works if they remain outstanding and contact the resident to address any remaining concerns she has with the proposed ventilation works. Furthermore, in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £250 compensation is warranted as the landlord failed to arrange the appointments within the timeframe set out in its stage 2 response, which adversely impacted the resident and delayed resolving the damp and mould.
25. In this investigation, shortcomings have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping – similar to those identified in case 202124577. We have not, however, made any further recommendations for the landlord to improve this. This is because a wider order was made as part of case 202124577 which the landlord has now complied with. We expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with the Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.
26. Moreover, the Ombudsman is currently undertaking a special investigation into the landlord. This is conducted under paragraph 49 of the Scheme and allows the Ombudsman to investigate beyond an individual complaint to establish whether there is evidence of systemic failings. The findings of this report will therefore contribute to the outcome and action needed following the completion of the investigation.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and subsequent damage to personal belongings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The landlord must pay the resident £250 compensation for the delay in arranging the appointments to address the damp and mould following the stage 2 response.
29. If the ventilation works remain outstanding, the landlord should contact the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the works. It should also contact the resident to address any outstanding concerns she has regarding the ventilation unit installation. It should provide the Service with a copy of the correspondence records and repair records as evidence of compliance.
30. The landlord should provide evidence that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

31. It is recommended that the landlord commits to completing the additional works identified in the inspection on 9 October 2024, if the resident allows it to complete the ventilation works and this does not provide a full and lasting resolution to the damp and mould.