London Borough of Wandsworth (202346171)
Back to Top
|
Case ID |
202346171 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
London Borough of Wandsworth |
|
Landlord type |
Local Authority / ALMO or TMO |
|
Occupancy |
Secure Tenancy |
|
Date |
30 April 2026 |
- The resident’s family of 4, including 2 children, live in a 1-bedroom property. They moved into the property in September 2022. Shortly after moving in, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. The resident has confirmed that the damp and mould are now resolved.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- The associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- There were unexplained delays in the repairs process. There was no evidence the landlord considered the vulnerability of the household or the resident’s concerns about damp and mould affecting the family’s health. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings.
- The landlord failed to respond to complaints made by the resident. It did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint, and it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Orders
Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1290.61 This is made up of an award of £690.61 in recognition of the loss of use and/or enjoyment of the bedroom due to delays in progressing the repairs. This award is based on a proportion of rent between the following dates;
It must also pay the resident:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
3 |
Insurance order The landlord is ordered to refer the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal possessions to its insurer now. If its insurer cannot assess the claim due to the passage of time and availability of evidence, it must consider the resident’s claim and make her an offer of compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings. |
No later than 28 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
19 March 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said:
|
|
13 December 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord again. In addition to what she said in her previous complaint she said:
|
|
24 January 2024 |
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said:
|
|
30 January 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. She said:
|
|
26 February 2024 |
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She explained that the damp and mould had a big impact on her family. She wanted compensation for the damage caused to the family’s personal belongings. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
Reports of damp and mould |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident said the condition of her home impacted her family’s health. We can consider the general impact of damp and mould. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the health conditions of the resident and her family. This is best considered by a court or insurer by way of a personal injury claim, where expert medical opinion can be sought. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her family’s health.
- The landlord accepts that there was damp and mould present throughout the property, including in the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and living room. The resident said that water was dripping from the ceiling. She explained that the damp and mould had a significant impact on the family’s wellbeing.
- In December 2022 the resident told the landlord that the family were now sleeping in the living room. Although both rooms were affected by damp and mould, she said the bedroom was worse affected. She reiterated this to the landlord on several occasions. The landlord has provided limited evidence to us about its assessment of the severity of the damp and mould in the resident’s home, and it did not respond to her when she said that she could no longer use the room.
- The resident has young children. It is accepted that young children are more susceptible to negative health impacts due to damp and mould. The resident also provided evidence that her son’s mattress had been affected by mould, and medical evidence which said that damp and mould in the home would ‘likely’ have a negative impact on the family’s health. As such, we accept the resident’s account that the room could not reasonably be used for its intended purpose.
- The landlord has a damp and mould procedure document which outlines its approach to damp and mould. Except in complex or severe cases, the landlord takes a staged approach, initially arranging a mould wash and inspection by a qualified officer. It escalates cases to its building maintenance inspector or an external contractor if the cause of damp and mould is unclear or difficult to resolve. This is a reasonable approach which allows the landlord to manage its resources effectively. The landlord followed this stepped approach in its handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
- Establishing the cause of damp and mould in a property can be complicated, as it can be affected by numerous factors, including ventilation, overcrowding, leaks, and outstanding repairs. The landlord took a methodical approach to assess and resolve the damp and mould. It:
- Arranged for mould treatments in the resident’s home. While mould treatment is not likely to resolve the source of damp and mould in a property, it is effective at reducing risk associated with mould, so this was appropriate.
- It upgraded the resident’s radiators to ensure she could heat the property effectively. The upgrade was completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales for routine repairs.
- It replaced the resident’s front door when it was damaged by water penetration. While the replacement took around 2 and a half months, this timescale was reasonable considering that the door was custom made to specification.
- It repaired leaks in the resident’s home within its repairs policy timescales.
- It investigated neighbouring properties to identify any leaks affecting the resident’s home. It identified and repaired a leaking pipe in a neighbouring property.
- It provided a dehumidifier for 2 weeks to reduce moisture in the property after a leak.
- It installed a PIV unit to reduce condensation in the resident’s home. This was effective in resolving the issues.
- While the interventions taken by the landlord were appropriate and did ultimately resolve the damp and mould, there were unexplained delays in it progressing the repairs. For example:
- The landlord first said it would look to provide a dehumidifier on 6 January 2023. It took 1 month for it to raise a job to provide the dehumidifier. It has not explained the cause of this delay, so we consider that it was not reasonable. Once the job was raised, the dehumidifier was delivered promptly.
- On 28 March 2023 the landlord said it was looking into options to reduce the condensation in the resident’s home. No further action appears to have been taken until 6 June 2023 when the landlord logged a job to upgrade the resident’s radiators. This was a further unexplained delay of approximately 2 months.
- The conditions in the resident’s home improved during the summer months. She contacted the landlord on 30 October 2023 to explain the issue had recurred. The landlord did not visit the property until 7 December 2023. The landlord was aware of the case and the family’s circumstances. As such it would have been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property within 2 weeks of becoming aware of the issue. The landlord has not explained why it took 5 weeks to arrange an inspection. We consider that this was an avoidable delay of around 3 weeks.
- Following its visit on 7 December 2023 the landlord said it would consider installing a PIV unit. In its repairs policy, it says that it will do ‘important’ repairs within 20 working days. As damp and mould is known to pose a risk to health, it should have prioritised the repair as ‘important’. However, the landlord did not install the unit until 8 April 2024. This exceeded the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. While the resident was away over the Christmas period, the landlord has not given any reason for the delay after 8 January 2024.
- We consider that the avoidable delays in this case amount to around 7 months. The delays were the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. They extended the time that the resident could not use the bedroom in the property for its intended purpose. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, and for the loss of use of a room during this period.
Record keeping
- Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (available on our website) highlights the importance of good record keeping. There were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping. For example:
- The landlord’s records show that it spoke to the resident by phone on several occasions. However, it did not provide contemporaneous records of what was said during these calls.
- Letters and emails refer to reports being made to the landlord by contractors, but we have not seen copies of the reports.
- In the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, it says that if its building maintenance inspector inspects a property, they will assess the level of moisture in a property using a protimeter (a hand-held moisture measuring device). They will then consider various potential causes of damp and mould. These include external repairs issues, cold bridging, and property insulation. We would expect the landlord to have clear contemporaneous records showing the outcome of its inspection, noting the level of moisture and its assessment of the cause of any issues. It has not provided us with this.
- In complaint correspondence, the landlord suggested that it first inspected the property in January 2023. However, emails sent by the resident in December 2022 refer to a property inspection on 8 December 2022. The landlord did not dispute that this inspection occurred. This indicates that either records were not made of the visit, or were not stored in a location that was easily accessible to relevant staff.
Response to concerns about the family’s health
- It is accepted that damp and mould can have a detrimental impact on health. It poses an increased risk to small children. The resident has 2 small children. She told the landlord repeatedly that she was concerned that the damp and mould was affecting her family’s health and provided it with 2 medical letters from her GP. In one letter, the GP s noted that the family had frequent viral illnesses and said that ‘damp will likely adversely affect their health’.
- Where there is indication of increased risk to vulnerable household members, landlords should act accordingly. For example, a property that may be habitable for someone with no increased susceptibility to mould may not be habitable for someone with a known respiratory condition.
- The landlord’s records do not show if it considered or responded to the information it had about the family’s health. This was a significant failing, either in the landlord’s actions or its record keeping.
- If it had assessed the individual circumstances of the family, it may have acted differently. For example, in the landlord’s damp and mould procedure document it says that if a resident is experiencing health problems because of damp and mould it would consider an ‘essential repairs transfer’ (temporary move) and making a safeguarding referral. There is no evidence it took these steps.
Rehousing
- The resident asked the landlord to permanently rehouse her if the issues in the property could not be fixed. The landlord gave the resident general advice about her housing transfer application, but we did not see evidence that it explained its approach to, or thresholds for, temporary and permanent rehousing if repairs are needed. Doing so may have made the process clearer for the resident.
Damage to personal possessions
- The resident told the landlord on numerous occasions, including in her complaints, that her personal belongings had been damaged by mould in the property. She specifically referred to damaged clothing, shoes, a mattress, a sofa, and a pram.
- Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to assess if it is liable for damage caused to residents’ belongings. As such the landlord should have advised her of this and given her details for its insurance process so she could make a claim if she wanted. Despite the number of times the resident raised the issue, we saw no evidence that the landlord told her about its insurance process. The landlord has also confirmed that no claim was made.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of this case. The compensation awarded is in line with our compensation guidance (available on our website). We have also ordered it to refer the resident’s case to its insurer. If the landlord’s insurer advises the landlord that it cannot consider the resident’s claim due to the time passed and availability of evidence, it must make her an additional offer of compensation. This is because, in the circumstances, its failure to provide her with appropriate advice would have caused her disadvantage.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlord’s complaints handling. The resident wrote to the landlord on several occasions expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in her home, including submitting 2 complaints using the landlord’s online complaint form. In accordance with its policy, and the Code, the landlord should have identified that these contacts were complaints and responded accordingly.
- Instead, the landlord responded to the resident’s contacts as service requests. This was not appropriate, as on neither occasion was it the first time the resident had made the landlord aware of the concerns, which were complex and ongoing. This was a significant complaint handling failure which prolonged the complaints process for the resident, and may have led her to feel her concerns were not being taken seriously by the landlord.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord noted that the resident had previously complained using its complaints form. However, it did not consider if it responded appropriately when it treated the issue as a service request. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident.
- The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of the complaints process. They should then send stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
- The landlord’s complaints policy timescales did not comply with the requirements of the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy, and its complaints timescales now comply with those in the Code.
- The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process in 26 working days. This exceeded its policy timescale by 4 working days. While the delay was not excessive, it will have caused the resident frustration. The landlord could have minimised this by letting her know that it would not meet its policy timescale. There was no evidence it did so. It responded within its policy timescales at stage 2 of its complaints process.
- The landlord failed to fully address the resident’s complaint. It did not respond to her concerns about damage to her personal belongings, as discussed above. This may have led her to feel that the landlord was not fully hearing her concerns. Landlords should ensure that they respond to all elements of residents’ complaints.
Learning
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider implementing a risk assessment for all households who report damp and mould, so that it can consider the individual circumstances of each case. It should record its decision making around this.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and accessible records to provide an effective audit trail. When we investigate a complaint, we request the landlord’s records. If no audit trail is available, we may be unable to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policy. In this case, there were some gaps in the landlord’s record keeping. It may wish to review its record‑keeping systems to ensure its records are robust.
Communication
- Good communication increases resident trust and strengthens the landlord-tenant relationship. In this case there were gaps in communication. These include a failure to address specific concerns raised by the resident, and failure to identify and respond to complaints.
- If it has not already done so, the landlord should consider refresher training for relevant staff so it can ensure it:
- Identifies complaints made by residents even if a resident does not identify their communication as a complaint.
- Fully responds to all elements of residents’ complaints.