London Borough of Newham (202401727)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401727

London Borough of Newham

18 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Concerns about overcrowding.
2. The investigation has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord of a 2-bedroom flat, which she has occupied since April 2001. At the time she made her complaint, her son and adult daughter also lived in the property.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 28 January 2024 about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in her property. The resident stated that she had been reporting the issue for many years and that the landlord stated that the reason for the mould was due to lifestyle. The resident reported that her belongings had been damaged by mould, that she had spent money on mould paint and re-decorating and that the issue was affecting her mental and physical health. She said she was disabled and had been diagnosed with a condition which can be caused by mould. The resident also stated that she was sharing a room with her son and that her daughter needed her own property, but had been told that she was not a priority.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 6 February 2024. The landlord stated that an appointment had been scheduled for its building surveyor to carry out an inspection on 15 February 2024. It said that any recommended works would be assigned to its contractor.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2024 and stated that her complaint had not been addressed in full, including that she had incurred thousands of pounds worth of damage due to the mould. She raised concerns about the contractor that had recently visited her property and stated that she had no trust in the company following works that were done in 2021. The resident stated that the mould was coming from outside of the property and that this should be fixed prior to redecoration inside.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 April 2024. The landlord stated that the resident refused works recommended by its surveyor as she wanted the property to be thermo-boarded and the exterior rendered. It stated that a further visit took place on 19 March 2024 and a list of works, including thermo-boarding, was identified and awarded to its contractor. The landlord said that a pre-start meeting was due to take place on 15 April 2024. The landlord provided the resident with its incident insurance form regarding damaged belongings and a link with information on joining the housing register. The landlord also offered £350 compensation for failings relating to complaint handling, which was comprised as follows:
   1. £200 as the stage 1 response did not answer all the resident’s points and lacked information and compassion.
   2. £150 because the stage 2 response was not provided within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
8. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 12 April 2024 and stated that the damp and mould had been an issue for nearly 2 decades and she had lost thousands of pounds due to this. On 12 July 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that in order to resolve her complaint, the landlord should investigate the source of the damp and mould, complete necessary repairs and award compensation for the damage to personal property and in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
9. On 27 September 2024 the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the damp and mould repairs had been completed. On 3 October 2024, the resident said that she was concerned that the mould would return as she believed that the root cause had not been addressed. The resident reported that she believed the mould was caused due to defects to the cladding on the exterior of the building, and that this should be repaired.

Assessment and findings

Scope

10. The resident reported that the damp and mould has been an issue in the property for more than 20 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. This position is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable timescale, usually within 12 months of the issues arising.
11. The resident raised her complaint in January 2024. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, our assessment has focussed on events from January 2023 onwards. However, events that occurred prior to the formal complaint may be referred to in this report for context.
12. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on her health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

13. The landlord’s damp and mould strategy states that the landlord will undertake a thorough assessment to identify the cause of the damp and mould. It states that the way in which tenants occupy the property should never be the default explanation and all other causes should be explored fully first. The strategy says that the landlord will take a proactive approach to identifying and resolving the cases of damp and mould.
14. The resident stated that the landlord’s contractor redecorated her property in 2021 after she reported damp and mould. The resident stated that the mould returned and the landlord arranged for the property to be decorated again during the summer of 2022. However, she said the mould came back in December 2022 and she removed it herself, before it returned again towards the end of 2023.
15. The landlord’s repairs records do not refer to any works orders that were raised for the damp and mould to be inspected in December 2022 or during 2023. The resident indicated that she usually reported the damp and mould issue by phone. The Ombudsman has requested evidence from the landlord of email correspondence and telephone notes of discussions with the resident during 2023. However, the landlord said that it found no additional reports of damp and mould during this time. We therefore have conflicting accounts as to whether reports were made in this time period, which we are unable to resolve.
16. As such, there is no evidence to reflect whether any actions were taken in 2023 or to indicate whether the landlord was aware that the damp and mould remained an issue. It is acknowledged that the resident stated that she cleared the mould and redecorated herself, which is likely to have caused significant distress and frustration. However, given the absence of evidence to reflect that the landlord had been made aware that the mould had returned, we cannot conclude that there were failings regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in 2023.
17. The evidence reflects that the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 20 January 2024 and provided photographs and videos which showed black mould in the property. When the resident raised her complaint on 28 January 2024, she reported that the landlord had previously told her that the damp and mould was due to lifestyle. The resident said that she had taken the action that the landlord had advised her to, such as in relation to drying clothes, but this had made no difference to the damp and mould.
18. The landlord has provided limited correspondence between it and the resident and it is therefore difficult to conclude whether it has previously responded inappropriately to her reports of damp and mould. However, the landlord should be reminded of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould which states that landlords should avoid apportioning blame or taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps.
19. Following the 28 January 2024 complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by promptly arranging an inspection of the damp and mould on 15 February 2024. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said that during this visit the operative informed her that the outside of the property should be fixed before redecorating inside. However, she said that another operative attended a few days later to assess what decorating needed to be done.
20. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous repairs records to the Ombudsman to reflect the outcome of visits that took place in February 2024, and it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to determine exactly what works were recommended. No evidence has been provided to indicate that efforts were made to assess the extent of any damp and mould, establish the cause, or whether the outside of the property was inspected.
21. An email from the landlord’s contractor dated 7 March 2024 stated that the resident had refused the basic damp and mould treatment and enhanced treatment, including thermo-boarding was therefore recommended. Various works were set out in an email from the contractor dated 8 March 2024. Given that the damp and mould treatment and redecoration had already been carried out by the landlord at least twice (in 2021and 2022), it should have considered more enhanced repairs from the outset.
22. In its 12 April 2024 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that remedial work was recommended as a result of the 13 February 2024 visit, but this was refused by the resident as she wanted the property to be thermo-boarded and the exterior to be rendered. Within an email to the landlord dated 18 April 2024, the resident stated that she had not refused the works, but said that there was no point decorating over the mould as this had already been done. She said that she had not requested thermo-boards as she had not previously heard of these, but that she had asked for the rendering to be looked at. The resident did not accept the compensation offer and said that the landlord had not considered how the issue had affected her health.
23. While it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to undertake an inspection, it has not provided evidence of a surveyor’s report and it is unclear whether a full survey was carried out. The landlord ought to have ensured a thorough inspection was undertaken to try to establish the root cause of the damp and mould.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that a further visit had taken place on 19 March 2024 and works were identified, including thermo-boarding the walls.  Again, contemporaneous records of this visit have not been provided, nor evidence that an assessment was made of the extent and impact of any damp and mould, and probable cause. The landlord stated that the contractors would attend the property for a ‘pre-start’ meeting on 15 April 2023. However, it did not state what date the works would begin.
25. The evidence indicates that a further inspection on 12 April 2024 found that windows needed replacing in the resident’s property and this was scheduled to take place on 17 May 2024. However, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that window replacements were completed on 20 June 2024. It is unclear why this delay occurred.
26. The landlord confirmed that the damp and mould works, including thermo-boarding, were completed in September 2024. The resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord told her that the windows would be fitted prior to the damp and mould repairs starting. It is unclear whether it was necessary to wait for the windows to be fitted before the works could take place. However, the landlord ought to have undertaken the damp and mould repairs following the 20 June 2024 appointment. It is unreasonable that a further 3 months elapsed before the landlord undertook the repairs. The landlord’s notes suggest that a delay occurred as the resident was away from the property. However, the resident informed the Ombudsman that she was on holiday for 2 weeks during August. The resident was therefore not away for an extended period and it is unclear why the lengthy delays occurred. Given that the resident had reported damp and mould in January 2024, the landlord ought to have undertaken repairs sooner. The delays experienced indicate a failing by the landlord which amounts to maladministration.
27. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
28. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays in the landlord completing the damp and mould works. The delays have exacerbated her concerns regarding her and her son’s health. Further distress and frustration will have been caused as the evidence indicates that the landlord has not reassured the resident the works will address the root cause of the issue.
29. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
30. The resident also raised that damage had been caused to her belongings, and she requested to be compensated for this. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how to make an insurance claim, and the resident should pursue this is she wishes to claim for damages.
31. The landlord has provided repairs records which indicate that various works have recently been undertaken, including mould washes, insulating walls and replacing the kitchen extractor fan. This reflects that the landlord has now taken positive steps to address the issue. However, in the absence of a surveyor’s report, the landlord should satisfy itself that the works carried out will resolve the damp and mould issue. Little evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to reflect that a surveyor had determined that thermo-boarding would be a suitable resolution, aside from the 7 March 2024 email described above.
32. Further, the resident has expressed concerns that the mould will return as she believes that the cause of the issue is the cladding on the outside of the building. There is no indication that the landlord responded to this particular issue or inspected the cladding. As such, an order has been made below for the landlord to conduct a post works survey to assess whether the repairs have been successful and identify whether any further works are required to address the root cause of the issue. A recommendation has also been made for an inspection of the cladding to be undertaken.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about overcrowding.

33. In her January 2024 complaint the resident said that she should have been moved due to having a 13-year-old son and adult daughter living in the property. The resident said that she was sharing a bedroom with her son and that the situation was impacting her wellbeing. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident said that she wanted the landlord to find a suitable property for her daughter so that her and her son could have their own bedrooms.
34. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord provided the resident with a link to join the housing register. It said that there was a shortage of housing in the area and it was becoming increasingly difficult to offer properties to both existing and new residents.
35. The landlord acted reasonably by providing information to the resident on how she or her daughter could apply to be rehoused, and there is no evidence of maladministration. While the Ombudsman recognises the issues raised by the resident in relation to her housing situation, it was appropriate for the landlord to manage expectations regarding the shortage of housing. The resident has confirmed that her daughter has now moved out of the property and so there is no longer an overcrowding issue.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

36. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 responses will be provided within 15-20 working days.
37. The landlord identified failings in how it handled the resident’s complaint. It found that the stage 1 response did not answer all of the resident’s points and lacked information and compassion. It also found that there was a delay in providing the stage 2 response. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2024 and the stage 2 complaint response was issued on 12 April 2024. This therefore indicates a delay of 16 days outside of the 20-day timeframe stipulated in its complaints policy.
38. In addition to the failings identified by the landlord, it is also noted that the landlord’s complaint responses did not comment on its prior handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, nor did it respond to the resident’s comments that she had been told the issue was due to lifestyle. As such, the landlord did not properly respond to the issues complained about as part of its complaint handling process, which it ought to have done.
39. However, the landlord made efforts to put things right by offering the resident £350 compensation for the impact of the complaint handling failings identified. The amount offered was reasonable redress for the impact of the poor complaint handling on the resident.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about overcrowding.
42. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress which was reasonable to resolve the associated complaint handling failings.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £750, made up as follows:
    1. £400 for the damp and mould repairs.
    2. £350 already offered by the landlord for complaint handling.
44. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must arrange a post-works survey to be carried out to assess whether the repairs were successful in resolving the damp and mould in the property. If the survey identifies that additional works are required, these should then be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
45. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timeframes stipulated.

Recommendations

46. The landlord should arrange for an inspection of the cladding on the building to assess whether causing the damp and mould. If repairs are identified, the landlord should arrange for these to be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
47. The landlord should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections.