London Borough of Newham (202307695)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307695

London Borough of Newham

27 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould caused by leaking gutters.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council and has lived in the property since March 2020 following a mutual exchange. The property is a 2-bedroom end terrace house. The neighbouring property is owned and managed by a housing association.
The resident reported to the landlord that the gutters at the rear of the property were blocked on 15 December 2021 and 17 February 2022 and the landlord cleared them. On 22 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge a complaint and advised that it would respond by 22 September 2022. We have not been provided with a copy of the original complaint, or the stage 1 response.
Between 22 August 2022 and 1 March 2023 the resident and landlord were in communication regarding the gutters at the rear of the property which were overflowing. She made a complaint on 1 March 2023 stating:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had rescheduled the appointment to clear the gutters on several occasions.
2. Water was running down the wall at the rear of her property and mould was growing internally despite a recent application of anti-mould paint.
The following day, the resident put a note through the neighbour’s door advising that their gutters were blocked and asking them to report it to their landlord. The resident contacted the local council to report that the neighbour’s gutter was overflowing and affecting her property, though this email went to the council planning team rather than the landlord.
A stage 1 acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 8 March 2023 advising that a complaint response would be issued by 15 March 2023. The same day, the landlord attended and cleared the resident’s gutter however repair records indicate that it identified that scaffolding and a gutter repair were needed.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It stated that it did not know why the appointments had been rescheduled, or why she had been told she needed to be present as gutter clearance was external. It apologised for any difficulty the resident had experienced reporting the repairs and awarded £50 compensation.
Two further work orders were logged on 2 May 2023 and 1 June 2023 for the gutters however this Service has not been provided with the full details of what these appointments were for. The resident contacted this Service for support, and the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 July 2023. On 11 August 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would not be able to meet the stage 2 deadline, and that it would provide a stage 2 response by 25 August 2023. Two further extensions were made on 1 and 15 September 2023.
On 2 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to support her with a property move as:
1. She felt the damp and mould was affecting her health.
2. She had to have the heating on constantly at 24 degrees.
3. She was concerned she would not be able to continue with her degree course due to the impact on her health.
The landlord called the resident on 24 October 2023 to discuss her complaint, and she confirmed that water was still penetrating her property from the neighbouring gutter.
A stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 31 October 2023. The landlord confirmed that it intended to visit the property with the neighbouring landlord to plan to resolve the leak. While it acknowledged that there had been appointments rescheduled previously it maintained that it had cleared the gutters it was responsible for and was pursuing the landlord next door to resolve the issue. It awarded the resident £250 compensation, made up of £100 for appointments being rescheduled and £150 for not responding to the stage 2 complaint within the timescales set out in its policy. The resident responded the same day accepting the compensation but said she was worried the landlord would not help her anymore because she accepted it.
On 29 November 2023 the resident made another complaint. She said that workmen had attended her neighbour’s property but were unable to gain access to complete repairs as there was no one over the age of 18 present. She expressed concern at the level of mould in her bedroom. Internal notes show that a surveyor had determined that the concrete gutter on the neighbour’s property was severely damaged and it scheduled a meeting with the neighbouring landlord on 4 December 2023. Internal records show that both landlords visited the property on 5 December 2023. They agreed on a schedule of works which set out that:
1. The neighbouring landlord would replace the gutter on its property.
2. The landlord would then complete internal remedial damp works to the bedroom wall, lift the floorboards and check joists, and complete remedial damp works in the living room.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2023 to say:
1. She was unhappy that she was expected to remain in the property while the work was being completed.
2. She was having to live in the kitchen and a small bedroom as the living room and bedroom had damp and mould.
3. The smell was overwhelming.
4. She felt that the air was compromised by the mould and it was affecting her health.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 19 December 2023. It reiterated the plan for the works and said that it would prioritise the work in the area it was responsible for. It also said that while it was aware she had asked to be decanted, doing so would extend the time taken to complete the work. The resident responded the same day, and said she was concerned that bad weather may delay the wall drying out. She also said that it was costing her a lot of money to run a dehumidifier and keep the property heated as she had opened windows to circulate air. Her belongings had also been ruined by mould.
The resident asked the landlord to support her with moving to a new property on 10 January 2024, and on 19 January 2024 made another complaint about the mould. In the stage 1 response issued on 2 February 2024 the landlord apologised that the building surveyor had not kept in contact with her and advised that it was awaiting an update from the neighbouring landlord. Internal records show that throughout February 2024 there was communication on several occasions between the landlord and neighbouring landlord regarding the repairs.
On 4 March 2024, the landlord issued a response to the most recent complaint stating that it had been informed that the repairs had been done, and it would meet with the other landlord again on 7 March 2024. Once the other landlord had completed a survey and confirmed that the gutter was watertight, the landlord would remove the remaining waterproof sheeting from the rear of the property. On 14 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord for an update as no one had lifted the carpet to check joists, she had to remove her carpet due to mould and the plastic sheeting was still at the back of her property. Based on the landlord’s record, the gutters were repaired on 4 April 2024. The neighbouring landlord’s insurance company informed the resident that her claim had been denied on 19 August 2024.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the leaking gutter and the resulting damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period investigated, the resident reported to the landlord and this Service that she felt that the damp and mould had a negative impact on her health. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the condition of the property and the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused.

Damp and mould

The landlord has informed us that at the time of this complaint it did not have a repairs policy in place. It has since confirmed that as of the date of this report it introduced a repairs policy and a damp and mould action plan so no recommendations will be made in this area.
The landlord had a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The resident asked the landlord for support with either a decant or property move on several occasions throughout the repairs period. The landlord has informed us that a decant was not considered however it is not clear whether this was intentional or an oversight. We have not seen any evidence that an assessment of the habitability of the property was completed.
The resident informed this Service that she was told a decant would have led to a delay with the repairs being completed. Similar statements were also made by a surveyor in emails provided to us by the landlord. It is not clear to this Service why a decant would have led to delays, particularly if an arrangement could have been made with the resident to arrange access. The landlord should have assessed whether the property remained fit for habitation considering the mould was present in the most commonly used living areas, and it did not know how quickly the other landlord would repair the gutter. It should also have considered whether the resident’s vulnerabilities including her physical health combined with the mould affected the ongoing suitability of the property.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our website, says that landlords should consider whether “they require an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould. This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication, and aftercare”. A comprehensive damp and mould policy or framework helps landlords to deliver a consistent service. The landlord did not have a policy in place at the time of the complaint but has since implemented one.
This Service recognises that the responsibility for resolving the leaking gutter causing the most damage did not lie with the landlord as it was on the neighbour’s property. The landlord was responsible for contacting the neighbouring landlord and maintaining communication with them as part of their repair responsibilities to resolve the issue. There is evidence that the landlord contacted the neighbour’s landlord regularly and arranged joint meetings, however some delays were outside of its control.
The landlord was responsible for the conditions within the property while it was waiting for the gutter to be repaired. There is no record that the landlord offered to provide any dehumidifiers for the property. The resident purchased a dehumidifier herself, and this is evidenced in her insurance claim where she listed this as an item she wanted to claim for. It is also unclear to this Service if the landlord completed ongoing mould washes as the repair records provided are limited to the external works. The landlord should have made every effort to keep the property habitable while the external works were being arranged. The resident has confirmed that internal works have now been completed, however the landlord has not confirmed to us when that was done.
There is also no record of whether the landlord considered any support when the resident told it that she was struggling financially. The landlord could have considered offering decorating vouchers or signposting to agencies who could support her with the cost of living. She had told the landlord that she was a student living on finance, and running the dehumidifier and heating was costing her more money. It did not respond to this or offer any signposting to local support services.
The resident has informed this Service that she felt she had to contact “anyone and everyone” to be listened to as in her view there was no progress with resolving the mould. While the landlord contacted the neighbouring landlord its communication with the resident was not frequent enough to reassure her that the matter was in hand. She relayed her concerns about the mould and the potential effect on her health regularly and the landlord was not empathetic to her worries.
For the reasons above, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. Fixing the cause of the mould may have been outside the landlord’s responsibilities, but the conditions inside the property were. There is no record that it offered any remedial mould works such as frequent mould removal or dehumidifiers, and it did not recognise the impact that the mould had on the resident’s overall wellbeing.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 15 working days at stage 2. Landlord records show that an initial stage 1 complaint was raised in August 2022, with a second stage 1 complaint opened in March 2023. A stage 2 response was issued on 31 October 2023, 76 working days after the complaint was escalated.
Subsequent complaints were logged by the landlord on:
1. 29 November 2023 – stage 1 response was issued in 15 working days. An additional stage 1 complaint response was issued on 14 March 2024 however it is unclear to this Service what prompted this.
2. 19 January 2024 – stage 1 response issued 11 working days later.
3. 25 January 2024 – stage 1 response issued 9 working days later.
4. 4 February 2024 – stage 1 response issued 21 working days later.
The landlord did not follow the 2-stage process in its policy. It should have progressed the resident’s complaints to stage 2 rather than raising new complaints. This led to unnecessary confusion for both the resident and the landlord’s staff.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was introduced in 2022 and sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlords must ensure that the complaints process is easily accessible and understandable for its residents. It also states that the landlord must make clear its understanding of the resident’s complaint and clarify what it is able to investigate on its complaint acknowledgement and responses. While it did this for some complaints in this case, the level of detail in its responses was not consistent.
At the time of the complaint, following the Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. As it is now a mandatory requirement, given the issues found in this investigation a recommendation will be made for the landlord to ensure its current processes are compliant with the Code.
In the stage 2 response the landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation for delays with issuing the response. While this was positive, it did not fully account for all the complaint handling failures in the case, namely repeated stage 1 complaints being logged rather than correct escalation to stage 2. This left the resident in the complaints process and unable to escalate her complaint to this Service for too long.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not correctly follow its policy which resulted in the complaints process being overly complicated and potentially confusing. The landlord did compensate for the delay in escalating to stage 2 which was positive, however it did not acknowledge its wider complaint handling failures which included repeated stage 1 complaints, and inconsistent formatting of complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £750, consisting as follows:
  1. £650 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £150 already offered to the resident during the complaints process.
  3. This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any money owed to the landlord unless the resident requests it.
  4. The landlord must provide proof of payment to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report to demonstrate compliance.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and request a copy of her receipt for the dehumidifiers she purchased. Once it receives them, it should consider reimbursing the resident. A copy of the correspondence and proof of payment should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this date to demonstrate compliance.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must signpost the resident to any cost of living support in the area, and any agencies who may be able to support with utilities and heating costs.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Review its complaints process to ensure that its complaint handling staff are aware when complaints should be escalated rather than new complaints being raised. It should also ensure that its staff are aware of its responsibilities in line with the Code, and that its policy remains compliant with the Code. A copy of the review must be provided to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance within 12 weeks of this report.
2. Review its damp and mould strategy to ensure:
  1. It gives advice to its staff on what support it can offer to residents in homes with mould, particularly in cases were repairs will take time to arrange.
  2. It is clear on when decants will be considered and ensure that a clear explanation of its decision is given to residents.
  3. A copy of this review must be provided to the Ombudsman as evidence of compliance within 12 weeks of this report.