London Borough of Redbridge (202400614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400614

London Borough of Redbridge

28 November 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:
1. housing application.
2. reports of damp and mould at the property.
The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a studio flat. The resident lives with her 2 children. One of the children has breathing difficulties. The resident was housed as a care leaver and has English as a second language. She uses translation services to read and reply to emails. The landlord advised this Service there were no known vulnerabilities. The resident’s advocate from the local council’s safety and quality assurance team will be known as the representative for the purposes of this report.
On 13 January 2021 a work order for a damp and mould inspection and a mould clean was raised. A further 7 work orders related to damp and mould inspections and follow-on works were raised by 21 March 2023. On 3 April 2023, the resident’s representative made a complaint about the suitability of the property, due to its size and safeguarding concerns, and about damp and mould at the property. The representative said the resident was a care leaver who had an 18-month-old child and was heavily pregnant with her second child and experiencing health problems. She attached a copy of a doctor’s letter which stated the damp may have caused the resident’s daughter’s upper respiratory infections. The representative said the resident had tried to communicate with the landlord about these issues, as had she, but that there had been no change. The need for the resident to have an Amharic translator was referenced in the complaint. The resident wanted an apology and to be rehoused.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 April 2023. It said the resident had made a housing application on 16 November 2021. The landlord explained the local council’s assessment process used to identify the resident’s housing need and the banding she had been allocated. It said the housing register is a waiting list, and the local council was obliged by law to follow its allocations policy. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The resident’s complaint was escalated on 8 September 2023 by the representative as the issues remained outstanding.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised that the damp and mould aspect of the resident’s complaint was not addressed in the stage 1 response. The landlord stated on 15 December 2022 a contractor attended the property and carried out damp and mould work. It said further works within the property had been raised and passed for approval. The landlord said a request had been submitted to the contractor to reassess damp and mould at the property. It did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord reiterated how the local council had assessed the resident’s housing application and her banding priority. It said when the resident had submitted medical evidence in March 2023 to support her housing application, her banding had not been reassessed for which it apologised. The landlord partially upheld this aspect of the complaint. It said the reassessment should have taken place sooner. However, as the reassessment did not change the resident’s banding priority, the landlord said the resident had not been disadvantaged when bidding on properties.
The resident’s representative contacted this Service on 5 April 2024. She said the property still had damp and mould despite treatment to remove it. This was affecting the resident and her children’s health. The resident wanted the work completed with a commitment to check the treatment was successful, compensation and her bidding priority raised to band 2. On 9 October 2024, the resident contacted this Service to say the damp and mould had worsened and her children were becoming unwell.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is set out in 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, or part of a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident’s landlord is a local council. Where a council is concerned, the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints that relate to its management and provision of social housing. Complaints about other functions and services councils provide, fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
With this in mind, the Housing Ombudsman Service is unable to consider the resident’s housing application and banding priority as these decisions were made by the local council’s housing register team. Housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6 which include applications for housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf) are a matter for the LGSCO. This includes the assessment of such applications and the priority given. The resident may wish to contact the LGSCO regarding this aspect of her complaint.

Scope of investigation

The resident told this Service that living with damp and mould in the property had affected her and her children’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
The resident advised this Service that the damp and mould in the property had been ongoing for several years. However, paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, 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 means this Service will not normally consider events that have happened 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. However, there is information available to this Service from 13 January 2021 which is important to this case because it showed the landlord was aware of the issues long before the resident complained and point to failings which would be unfair for this Service to exclude from the investigation. Therefore, this investigation will include events from 13 January 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

The landlord’s Tenancy Conditions Handbook states, “We will repair: the structure and exterior of the building – this includes roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside pipes, kitchen and bathroom fixtures”. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The evidence showed damp and mould had been an ongoing problem at the resident’s property for a long length of time. The landlord shared records that go back to 13 January 2021. On this date, a work order was raised for a damp and mould inspection. A further 7 work orders relating to damp and mould inspections, and follow-on works were raised by 21 March 2023. Despite these works, the problems with damp and mould were still occurring at the time of the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2023 and the evidence showed the damp and mould remained on 6 November 2024. This was inappropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. This Service has not been provided with any inspection reports but can conclude from the work orders raised that the damp and mould affected all areas of the property – the bedsit/living room, bathroom, kitchen, and the corridor.
Of the 8 work orders relating to damp and mould that were raised prior to the resident’s complaint, 3 were for damp and mould inspections. All 3 work orders were either listed as “cancelled” or had no status and no completion date listed. The evidence showed 2 inspection work orders, dated 13 January 2021 and 28 November 2022, were cancelled by the contractor because the landlord had cancelled the job on its housing management platform which stated, “work no longer required”. Another work order for a damp and mould inspection was raised on 6 February 2023 but as of 9 October 2024, when the landlord submitted its evidence to this Service, this work order did not have a status or completion date listed.
Prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord had completed some damp and mould work at the property. It carried out a mould wash and redecoration of the property on 2 February 2021. On 15 December 2022 the landlord attended the property which resulted in a work order being raised on this date. The work order was for replacing the double glazing in the bedsit/lounge window and the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen windows. The records showed this work was completed on 2 February 2023. The resident confirmed this work was complete when the contractor contacted the resident on 22 March 2023 about a duplicated work order.
There was another work order that had been raised prior to the resident’s complaint but this appeared not to have been completed. This was a work order raised on 18 January 2023 for another mould wash. However, as of 9 October 2024 when the landlord submitted evidence to this Service, this work order remained outstanding. The work order has a status of “allocated” and no completion date. It was unclear why this mould wash work order was raised but not actioned.
The damp and mould problems at the property were raised in the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2023. Attached to the complaint was a GP letter which stated the damp may have caused the resident’s daughter recurrent upper respiratory infections which her child needed “frequent antibiotics to manage”. Despite the resident’s complaint raising these issues, the landlord did not address the damp and mould aspect of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response dated 24 April 2023. This was inappropriate and further delayed the resident receiving a resolution to the damp and mould problems in the property.
For the landlord to have overlooked such an important part of the resident’s complaint showed that it did not act with any urgency to comply with the HHSRS requirements. It also showed that the landlord did not have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould that this Service expects from landlords. Recommendation 1 from the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
On 15 June 2023 a work order was raised for another damp and mould inspection. This inspection took place on 27 July 2023 which was 42 calendar days after the work order was raised. The evidence did not show why it took this long for a damp and mould inspection to take place. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment stated the landlord “can prioritise and carry out an inspection within 5 working days if the issue is deemed as severe and within 28 days if it is deemed to be a minor issue such as a small patch of mould”. Carrying out the inspection 42 calendar days after the work order was raised was inappropriate as this exceeded the timescales referenced by the landlord in its damp and mould self-assessment.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that this damp and mould inspection should have been carried out in line with the 5 working days timescale referenced in the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment. This is due to the length of time the damp and mould problem existed, the health concerns raised and the type of property. As the property is a studio flat it meant the resident and her children could not avoid the areas of damp and mould because the property only has one living space which is also the sleeping area.
The inspection report was dated 4 August 2023 and confirmed damp and mould at the property. The contractor stated, “Due to the entrance door leading into the hallway it would not be possible to install thermo-board so the only solution we can recommend is that the wall is drylined with 12mm plasterboard by the dot and dab method then skimmed with 2 coats of multi-finish, although not ideal we feel this at least may help if not fully resolve the issue of condensation”. Despite the inspection report being dated 4 August 2023, the contractor who received the report on behalf of the landlord did not forward it on until 16 October 2023, which was 73 calendar days later. This was inappropriate and caused a delay in the recommended damp and mould remedial work being approved and carried out.
While this delay may have been caused by the contractor, the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on repairs states, “If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services”. The landlord did not have good oversight of this case. It should have been monitoring the outcome of the inspection and proactively chasing up the contractor for a copy of the inspection report to ensure the works were raised and completed in a timely manner.
The resident experienced further delays in getting the work identified by the inspection to be actioned, as the landlord did not reply to the contractor’s email to authorise the work from the inspection report until 24 April 2024. This was 191 calendar days after the landlord received a copy of the inspection report and 272 calendar days after the inspection had taken place. This was an inappropriate and unreasonable length of time to leave damp and mould remedial work outstanding. The evidence did not show why the landlord took so long to authorise the work. The delay showed a lack of urgency from the landlord to address the damp and mould at the property and left the resident and her children living with damp and mould for an extended period.
When the landlord authorised the work on 24 April 2024, it requested the contractor “prioritise” the work. This approach was appropriate due to the nature of the problem and the delay the landlord had caused by not authorising the work sooner. However, despite the landlord’s request for this work to be prioritised, the work order was raised on 25 April 2024 with the priority listed as “routine”. The landlord states in its online repairs handbook that routine repairs “are usually done within 28 calendar days”.
On 10 June 2024, 47 calendar days after authorising the work, the landlord contacted the contractor for an update. Despite the landlord requesting the contractor prioritise this work, the appointment had not occurred until 6 June 2024. However, on 14 June 2024, the contractor replied to the landlord and advised that the work had not been carried out. This was because when the contractor attended the property on 6 June 2024, it was full of the resident’s possessions and no floor coverings had been lifted. The contractor advised the landlord there had been “difficulty communicating with the tenant due to a language barrier”. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had made arrangements prior to the appointment to lift the floor, remove the belongings, or advise the resident that she needed to do so.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had not appropriately considered the circumstances of the resident and the property. There was no evidence to show any consideration had been given to effectively communicating with the resident, given English was not the resident’s first language. There was also no evidence to show any consideration had been given to how the resident was living in a studio flat with 2 young children. Therefore, due to the type of property there wouldn’t be any other room for her belongings to be stored in. The landlord should have proactively identified the potential obstacles in carrying out the work and managed these accordingly to ensure there were no further delays.
When the contractor advised the landlord of the difficulties it had encountered in carrying out the work, the landlord sent two internal emails on 14 June and 17June 2024 to arrange storage for the resident’s belongings whilst the work was carried out. However, the evidence showed on 6 November 2024, 145 calendar days after the first email about arranging storage had been sent, that this had not been arranged and the work was still outstanding. This meant the resident had experienced further delays in the work being carried out which was inappropriate and unreasonable.
During the prolonged wait for the work identified in the inspection report to be carried out, a work order for a mould wash and for some sealing around the door was also raised on 4 March 2024. This work was carried out on 9 April 2024. Despite this, the damp and mould worsened at the property with the resident reporting to the landlord that the mould had spread throughout the property and the mould was leaving a smell on their clothes. On 6 November 2024 the resident told this Service that, “there just keeps being delay after delay and the mould has spread across the ceilings and the entire home and continues to spread”.
When the landlord submitted evidence for this investigation, it advised this Service there were no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. However, in the resident’s complaint dated 3 April 2023, the landlord was advised the resident’s daughter had recurrent upper respiratory infections which needed frequent antibiotics. A letter from her GP stating these details was attached to the complaint. When the landlord became aware that the resident’s child was experiencing respiratory problems, the landlord should have considered the possible risks of exposure to damp and mould and that living in a studio flat meant there was no respite from this exposure.The evidence showed the resident had repeated her concerns about her children’s health in emails to the landlord. The resident’s complaint also stated she needed an Amharic interpreter. When the resident chased up the landlord, she reminded it that her English was limited.There was no evidence to show that the resident’s household was identified as vulnerable by the landlord, that a risk assessment was carried out or the resident’s communication needs were accommodated.
It appeared the vulnerabilities of this household had not been appropriately recorded by the landlord. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not do this.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”. There was no evidence to show the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her children’s health in relation to the damp and mould problem which was inappropriate and unreasonable. With the damp and mould problem ongoing for many years, the resident experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience.
The Spotlight Report states, “Where appropriate, landlords should consider at an early stage whether moving the resident out of the property (otherwise known as ‘decanting’) to suitable accommodation is necessary, either on a temporary or permanent basis”. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have at least considered this, given that the resident was living in a studio flat with 2 young children, one of which has respiratory problems. The property type also meant there were no other rooms the household could be in when the work was carried out, or when there may have been fumes after the treatments, or when the property may have needed ventilating after work. There was no evidence to show the landlord considered a decant for the resident and her children.
Decanting the resident and her children could have been a reasonable alternative to arranging for the resident’s belongings to be stored. Especially as arranging storage has further delayed the work being carried out which prolonged the household’s exposure to damp and mould in the property.
Due to the length of time the property had a damp and mould problem, it appeared the landlord did not address the root cause. As referenced above, recommendation 1 from the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”. There was no evidence to show the landlord had considered overcrowding as a significant contributing factor or that it had taken any action to attempt to mitigate the effects of this, such as providing the resident with a dehumidifier. The resident also referenced in her complaint that she was unable to open her windows due to the smell of drugs from people smoking drugs downstairs. The landlord did not make any reference to this in its complaint responses and yet this clearly affected the resident’s ability to ventilate the property.
The landlord has a “Damp, Mould and Condensation Procedure” but this was not in place until 18 June 2024, over 14 months after the resident made her complaint. The landlord has advised that there was not a damp and mould procedure in place prior to this date. The lack of a damp and mould policy and procedure may have contributed to the delays and mismanagement of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
As previously referenced, the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment states the landlord “can prioritise and carry out an inspection within 5 working days if the issue is deemed as severe and within 28 days if it is deemed to be a minor issue such as a small patch of mould”. However, the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure does not specify timeframes for the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould. These timeframes are referenced in the landlord’s self-assessment, but not the procedure. This means residents and the landlord’s internal staff may not be aware of the timescales to respond to reports of damp and mould. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this information should be included in the procedure so residents’ expectations can be managed, and so internal staff are working to the correct timescales, which did not happen in the resident’s case.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure states there is “a clear process for reporting damp, mould, and condensation and for assessing and responding to these reports”. The process is not clear from the procedure which lacks detail including timeframes for responses as referenced above. The delays and lack of resolution experienced by the resident since this procedure was in place does not evidence a clear process.
The landlord’s procedure is not aligned with the zero-tolerance approach this Service expects from landlords. The procedure suggests that some damp and mould remedies may be carried out as part of a planned programme of works which means residents could experience delays in getting remedial work actioned. The procedure also suggests that some causes of damp might not be addressed as it says it “will not be able to control condensation damp where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so or if any remedial action would be ineffective. This can include poor construction or design (not meeting current construction and living standards) for example: Cold bridging areas in the fabric of the building that cannot be eliminated”. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property. This is because the damp and mould problem has been ongoing for many years, since at least 13 January 2021 and the evidence showed the problem was still unresolved as of 6 November 2024. The landlord has not provided a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and the resident has experienced considerable delays in the landlord approving and actioning the recommended works after a damp and mould inspection on 27 July 2023. As of 6 November 2024, this work had been outstanding for 468 calendar days.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by the Ombudsman in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of use and enjoyment of a property. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent charge, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident’s rent is based on the weekly rent of £96.94 for 2023-2024 and £103.14 for 2024-2025.
The order considers the weekly rents specified above from 15 June 2023, when the records show the landlord was aware of the resident making another report of damp and mould, to 6 November 2024 when the evidence showed the work identified in the damp and mould inspection on 27 July 2023 had still not been carried out. As such, the resident and her children have been living with damp and mould that the landlord was aware of for 73 weeks. The Ombudsman concludes that compensation based on 50% of the weekly rent should be paid to the resident. This is because the resident and her children did not have full enjoyment of the property in comparison to if the property had not been affected by damp and mould. This amounts to £3,634.41 to recognise the loss of enjoyment of the property over 73 weeks. As the property is a studio flat/bedsit, there were no other alternative areas of the property that the resident and her children could use instead.
The landlord must apologise to the resident for its significant failings in its handling of this case.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property as the resident has reported the mould has spread further during the wait for the remedial work to be carried out. All recommended work must be completed including the work that is outstanding from the inspection on 27 July 2023. The landlord must also identify what action it will take to address the ongoing damp and mould problem to ensure future occurrences of the problem are prevented. If the resident agrees, the resident and her household must be decanted during the repair work to ensure all areas of the property can be addressed, and any treatment and redecoration is dried out before the resident and her children return.
The landlord must meet with the resident, using a translation service if required, to discuss the resident’s concerns about drugs being smoked downstairs and respond accordingly in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures regarding these matters.
The Ombudsman has issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme which states, “The Ombudsman’s determination may uphold or reject the complaint and make orders or recommendations, including that the member review and/or update policies and practice where a matter may result in further complaints about the same matter”. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its procedure in relation to responding to damp and mould. This is to ensure the landlord operates a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and includes timescales in its damp and mould procedure. We have set out the scope of the review below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate”.
In the resident’s complaint she raised her concerns about damp and mould at the property. However, the landlord did not address this matter in its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate and not in line with the Code. The landlord not addressing the resident’s concerns about damp and mould delayed the resident getting a resolution to this matter.
The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 internal stages to its complaints process. The policy states the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 November 2023 which was 38 working days after the resident escalated her complaint on 8 September 2023. This was 18 working days outside of the landlord’s policy and the Code.The delay the resident experienced was inappropriate and unreasonable. It was also unfair as it further delayed the resident receiving a response to the damp and mould concerns that were missed out at stage 1. The delay also meant the resident was delayed in being able to bring her complaint to this Service for investigation.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because a key aspect of the resident’s complaint was not addressed by the landlord at stage 1 and there was a considerable delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 response. Therefore, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award £200 for its complaints handling failures in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her housing application is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £3,834.41 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £3,634.41 in respect of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. £200 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from a senior manager for the failings she has experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property using an independent surveyor or damp and mould specialist. The recommended work from this inspection and the outstanding work from the inspection on 27 July 2023 must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must also identify what action it will take to address the ongoing damp and mould problem to ensure future occurrences of the problem are prevented. The landlord must advise this Service what it has identified and complete this work within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
After the above work has been carried out, any affected areas must be redecorated by the landlord within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If the resident agrees, the household must be appropriately decanted during the repair work to ensure all areas of the property can be addressed, and any treatment and redecoration is dry, and the property ventilated before they return. Appropriate consideration and action must be taken to ensure effective communication with the resident as English is not her first language.
The above work must be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report and the property appropriately monitored by the landlord going forward to ensure the damp and mould does not return. Compliance with this order must be evidenced by sending this Service a copy of the independent damp and mould inspection report, a report from the landlord on what it identified and actioned to address the ongoing damp and mould problem to ensure future occurrences of the problem are prevented and the completed works orders detailing all the work carried out.
The landlord must meet with the resident, using a translation service if required, to discuss the resident’s concerns about drugs being smoked downstairs and respond accordingly in line with its policies and procedures regarding these matters. This meeting must take place within 4 weeks of the date of this report and must be evidenced by submitting notes of the meeting to this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 54f of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its damp, mould and condensation procedure. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. a review of its damp, mould and condensation procedure, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. This is to ensure going forward:
  1. there is a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould which does not delay remedies until a planned programme of works or deny resolution to a problem when the cause is condensation damp due to poor construction or design.
  2. the procedure is more comprehensive and includes timescales for responses to reports of damp and mould and remedial works.
3. a review of its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording of vulnerabilities, including English not being a first language, and to ensure consideration is given to these when dealing with cases of damp and mould, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
Following the review, the landlord must produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learnings from the review.
2. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. the changes it will make to its damp, mould and condensation procedure to ensure going forward there is a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, and timescales are included in the procedure.
4. the changes it will make to ensure vulnerabilities are appropriately recorded and residents are effectively communicated with when English is not their first language.
The landlord must embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform policy and practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord must provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord must also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in policy and practice have been embedded.
The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of receiving this report to agree the terms of reference, timeframe, and milestones for the review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the resident’s housing options and provide any relevant support and guidance to the resident which may help facilitate her move to a larger property.
It is recommended that should future damp and mould treatments/work be needed at the property that, if the resident agrees, her and her household are appropriately decanted while the work is carried out to ensure any treatment and redecoration is dry, and the property ventilated before they return.