Luton Borough Council (202337343)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337343

Luton Borough Council

25 July 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. request to be rehoused.
2. reports of damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident and his wife have been joint secure tenants with the landlord since 2004. The landlord is also the local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom house, where the resident and his wife live with their 5 children. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mobility issues. The resident told us that he has sciatic nerve issues. He has also said that 2 of his children suffer from asthma which is exacerbated by the damp and mould issues at the property.
The landlord sets out in its damp and mould strategy that it will work with tenants to resolve issues of damp and mould, including providing advice about ways to reduce condensation. It says it will ensure responsive repairs needed to prevent and remedy damp are carried out quickly and efficiently to minimise any damage to the structure of the property. The landlord sets out on its website that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days and standard repairs (non-urgent jobs) within 30 working days.
At the time of this complaint the landlord’s complaints policy set out that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 15 working days and to those at stage 2 within 25 working days. Since 1 April 2024 it aims to respond to housing complaints within 10 working days to stage 1 complaints and 20 working days to stage 2 complaints. That is in line with timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s records note that it inspected the property regarding a right to buy application at the beginning of March 2023. At this time, it noted that there was damp and mould to various rooms and that its contractor was to complete a mould treatment. It also detailed a leak to the rear gutter, which it thought could be contributing to mould issues, and that repairs were also to be completed to this.
On 31 March 2023 the contractor sent an email to the landlord. It said it had attended to complete work to mould wash areas within the property, but that furniture and belongings made it “impossible” to do everywhere. It also noted:
1. the resident was bed–bound.
2. the resident’s wife had refused access to the upstairs of the property.
3. the resident, and belongings needed to be moved from the property so work could progress.
In April 2023 the resident sent photos of damp and mould at the property to the landlord. Later that month he said 7 people were living in the property and there was nowhere to move belongings. In May 2023 the landlord told the resident it would provide hotel accommodation while work was completed.
The landlord completed a damp and mould survey at the property on 10 July 2023. This noted extensive mould to external wall surfaces and to areas of the ceiling, but that the structure of the property was dry. It also detailed that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen required attention and that trickle vents on the windows were in a “poor state”. The report recommended:
1. reviewing and remedying ventilation fans, ensuring trickle vents were clean and clear and that the resident understood the importance of leaving them open.
2. ensuring all door undercuts were at a minimum of 10mm between door underside and floor finish.
3. completing a mould remedial process using fungicide.
4. reviewing loft insulation and cavity wall insulation.
The landlord moved the resident and his family to temporary accommodation on 29 September 2023. It noted on 12 October 2023 that work had been completed and that the resident could return to the property the following day. Later that month the resident complained to the landlord. He said, he had been “pushed” to move out of the property and this had been difficult due to his disability and his children’s school. He said:
1. the landlord had failed to provide boxes for packing when it said it would.
2. his children missed a day of school as the landlord did not arrange transport as agreed.
3. since returning to the property signs of damp had come back.
4. contractors had spilt paint, broken a window and lights around a window and blocked the toilet.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 November 2023. The landlord said the damp report showed the structure of the property was dry and that the issues were being caused by the high levels of condensation. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by having to move out of the property while work was ongoing. However, it said it had facilitated this by providing alternative accommodation, arranging removals and storage of goods and taxi travel to take the resident’s children to school. It apologised that the resident’s children had missed a day of school. It said the taxi arrived at the pre-arranged time but did not communicate to the resident that they had arrived.
The landlord said it had provided 2 family rooms at a hotel and that this was sufficient for the resident’s family of 7 people. Regarding the resident’s concerns that repairs were inadequate, it said the number of people living at the property would cause condensation and that it was important to achieve regular ventilation. It said its contractors had not been aware a toilet had been blocked during work, but it had arranged for this to be cleared as soon as it was notified of this. It said the contractor was also unaware of any paint spills, and all surfaces had been protected during work. However, the landlord said that any paint drops could be removed with a cloth as it was emulsion paint.
In respect of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the property for his family, the landlord said his banding reflected the significant overcrowding. However, it said there were long wait times for residents to secure 4–bedroom properties. It encouraged the resident to consider other housing options such as renting from a private landlord or attempting a housing exchange.
The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 3 December 2023. He said:
1. the request that he wipe paint off furniture “perplexes me” and he again raised that “mishaps” by the contractor had included a blocked toilet and a broken front window.
2. his children had missed valuable school time due to no communication about which taxi firm was being used.
3. his family had been “bullied” and “threatened” into temporary accommodation without adequate notice or support and had only been provided with boxes to pack the day before the move.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 January 2024. It acknowledged that lessons needed to be learned regarding the confusion around the taxi and the late arrival of the boxes for the resident to pack. It also said:
1. the resident should let it know if there was still an issue with paint spills.
2. it had contributed £100 towards the resident’s additional expenses but would review any additional costs he had incurred under its compensation policy.
3. it appreciated it was not easy for the resident to move to temporary accommodation, and that was why it had provided extra support.
4. it was sorry the resident felt bullied, and it had spoken to staff, and they were clear that this was not their intention. However, it said it had to address the repair issues due to the risks caused by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Rehousing request

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 will not be investigated. Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The resident has raised concerns about the length of time he has waited to be rehoused as his current property is overcrowded. Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) governs the allocation of local authority housing stock in England. It sets out reasonable preference that must be given to certain applicants when making decisions about offers of property. This includes applicants living in unsuitable conditions and those who need to move on medical and welfare grounds.
We acknowledge the resident’s concerns that his family need a bigger property, and we do not seek to dispute this. However, the Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints for rehousing that fall inside Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). Since the resident’s rehousing request falls inside this part of the Act, it cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman and would be better suited to consideration by the LGSCO.

Handling of reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, sets out that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about actions.
Records we have seen show that the landlord identified damp issues to various rooms in March 2023. It noted its contractor was to complete a mould treatment to the property and work to check a rear gutter for leaks. But there is no evidence it considered completing a full damp survey at this time. The records show the last damp survey had been completed in 2019. By failing to consider completing an updated damp survey at this time, the landlord missed an opportunity to take early steps to establish the cause of damp and mould. It did not consider completing one until the end of May 2023. That was after the contractor noted one was needed to establish the cause of the severe mould problem in all rooms. Completing an early survey would also have given the resident reassurance that the landlord was taking all appropriate steps to address damp and mould issues at the property.
It is unclear what the landlord communicated to the resident in advance of the mould treatment work started by its contractor at the end of March 2023. It should reasonably have ensured that the resident understood, and was prepared for, the extent of work to be completed. It is apparent the contractor subsequently encountered difficulty completing the work. Appropriate communication with the resident might have helped avoid the issues the contractor reported it experienced around accessing the upstairs of the property, and difficulty completing work due to the amount of furniture/belongings. The landlord had identified the issues affected various rooms within the 2–bedroom house. It was also aware that 7 people were living there. Given this, it would have been reasonable for it to consider the practicalities of completing work while the property was occupied. That there is no evidence the landlord did so in advance of its contractor starting work in late March 2023 was a failing. While it is acknowledged that the resident later expressed reluctance to move to temporary accommodation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have fully explored this. It was not until 8 May 2023 that the landlord offered to move the resident to temporary accommodation during work. It is unclear why this was not considered sooner.
The resident said in his complaint that he felt bullied and threatened by the landlord into moving to temporary accommodation. In response to this the landlord said that this was not its intention, but that it was an urgent issue that needed to be dealt with. We acknowledge that moving to temporary accommodation would have been a significant inconvenience for the resident and his family, particularly in view of the resident’s mobility issues. We also appreciate that the landlord’s letter, in August 2023, when it said it would serve a notice of possession if the resident did not co-operate in providing access, would have been a source of great concern for the resident. However, the inclusion of this information was proportionate and appeared to be a general reference to its ability to seek possession, rather than a suggestion this action was imminent. The landlord concluded the letter by stating it “trust[ed] such action will not be necessary” and provided a contact number for the resident to call to discuss the matter. It had a responsibility to ensure necessary repair work was completed. It had an obligation to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounted to a hazard and required remedying, and to ensure the property was fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy.
The resident was also required, under his tenancy agreement, to provide reasonable access to the property for repairs to be completed. Records show that the landlord corresponded with the resident in June, July and August 2023 about access for work to address the mould at the property. Moving to temporary accommodation was inconvenient for the resident. But work was required throughout the property, and the contractor had previously been unable to complete work due to possessions and lack of access to all rooms. In these circumstances, the landlord’s request that the resident move out during work was reasonable. We have seen evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange temporary accommodation, and removal and storage of goods for the resident and his family. We acknowledge however that there were issues with the delivery of removal boxes, and we consider this further later in the report.
The resident returned to the property on 13 October 2023. In his subsequent complaint, in late October 2023, he said there were already signs of damp returning to the property. In response to this the landlord said that the damp report showed the structure of the property was dry, and that the issue was with high levels of condensation. We have seen evidence that the landlord raised work in August 2023 to mould wash affected areas and to check whether loft insulation was adequate, in line with the damp survey recommendations. However, the damp survey made other recommendations too, such as that the landlord review the ventilation fans, trickle vents, cavity wall insulation and damp-proof course. In addition, it noted that door undercuts should be checked to ensure they were a minimum of 10mm from the floor finish. But we have seen no evidence of this work being raised or completed by the landlord. There is also no indication why it did not do so. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report states that where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident. The damp survey had found that extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom “need attention” and that trickle vents were in a “poor state”. It said that the recommended work would allow the resident to better control the humidity levels in the property. The landlord should reasonably have taken steps to complete this work, along with the other work identified by the damp survey. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord had reviewed the resident’s banding priority in July 2023, and awarded him band 2. It said it was the highest priority aside from those who the police had advised were in immediate danger. But, as the landlord later noted, it should have done all it could to address the damp and mould issues in the property until a transfer to another property could be secured. By failing to complete all work recommended by the damp survey of July 2023, the landlord was not doing all it could to address and control damp and mould. When the resident complained at the end of October 2023 that damp issues had not been resolved, it was an early opportunity for this to be corrected. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further inspection to establish whether more could be done. It could then have identified that work was outstanding from the survey. That it did not do so was a failing. Instead, it appeared to focus on steps it considered the resident should be taking to ventilate the property.
It said in its stage 2 response that the resident should keep reporting damp and mould issues, and that it would continue to work with him to minimise issues at the property. But he had reported the issues had continued in his stage 1 complaint. As stated earlier, the landlord should have attended to inspect these to establish whether more could be done. The landlord knew of the number of people living at the property, and the likely issues this may cause in achieving sufficient ventilation. In this knowledge, it should have done everything it could to ensure any other issues within the property were not contributing to damp and mould. In light of the failings we have found, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to understand his current concerns about damp and mould. It should share with the resident the recommendations of the damp survey of July 2023 and set out what steps it will take in respect of each of the recommendations of this survey. We have also ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident to recognise the impact of its failure to respond appropriately to his ongoing concerns about damp and mould at the property, or complete all work recommended by the damp survey. This order has been made with consideration of all the circumstances of the case and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Records we have seen of repairs do not detail when work raised was completed. For instance, the landlord’s repair log show that work was raised to mould wash affected areas in the property in June 2023 and that this had a target date of 11 August 2023. But the landlord did not record when this work was completed in its repair logs. Internal emails it sent on 11 October 2023 show the work was eventually completed on this date, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make adequate record within its repair logs of the date work was completed. As noted earlier, we acknowledge that the start of this work was delayed as the landlord had experienced difficulty agreeing access with the resident.
The landlord told us that a survey of the loft was completed by a specialist insulation contractor, and that further insulation was subsequently laid. But we have seen no evidence that confirms this work was completed, or when. Without maintaining appropriate records of repairs the landlord cannot adequately demonstrate that it is taking appropriate steps in line with its repair obligations. It is also difficult to see how the landlord is assessing how it performs against target repair timescales without recording when work was completed. Clear records can also assist the landlord in monitoring progress of outstanding work. In view of this, we have ordered that the landlord complete a review of its record keeping processes and guidance to staff. This should be undertaken with reference to the Ombudsman spotlight report on knowledge and information management. We have also ordered that the landlord provide evidence to us and the resident of repairs it completed to the insulation at the property. If it cannot provide this evidence, it should arrange for a further inspection of insulation to ensure appropriate work is completed.
The landlord arranged taxi travel to take the resident’s children to school during the period of time the resident was in temporary accommodation. However, the resident set out in his complaint that his children had missed a day of school due to confusion about the taxi arrangements. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for this and said the taxi had been waiting at the hotel at the correct time but did not communicate with the resident. Later, in the stage 2 response, the landlord said it would ensure in the future that taxi companies had clear instructions to make their presence known. But the resident also said the landlord had not adequately communicated to him about which taxi company was being used. We have seen records showing internal communications within the landlord about the taxi booking, but there is no evidence the landlord clearly communicated to the resident about this. It should have done so, particularly as it was aware some members of staff would be on leave during the move. Had it provided details of who the resident could contact in the event of problems, either within the landlord or the taxi company, the issues could have been avoided. We acknowledge that the issue with the taxi travel on the first day, leading to his children missing school, would have been inconvenient for the resident and his family.
The resident told the landlord in his complaint that the late arrival of boxes for packing had been stressful for his wife, who had needed to do all the packing herself. The landlord had advised previously that boxes would be delivered on 25 September 2023, in advance of the move on 29 September. Records show it started arrangements, in mid-September, for removal boxes to be delivered. However, it later became clear the removal company were still waiting for confirmation of this booking from the landlord. We have seen evidence the landlord took appropriate steps to chase what was happening with the boxes after the resident informed it on 27 September 2023 that they had not arrived. But with the knowledge that the resident had been left with less than 24 hours to pack, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to establish whether the resident and his family now needed further assistance. It could also have considered if the move could be postponed for a short period to allow more time to pack. That there is no evidence the landlord considered either was a failing. It could have done more to consider additional support or changes it could make to the move plans. That would have helped to avoid putting the resident’s family under undue time pressure to pack. The late arrival of boxes would undoubtedly have added further stress, for the resident and his family, to what was already a stressful time.
The landlord apologised for the late arrival of boxes and the confusion over taxi travel, leading to the resident’s children missing a day of school. But we have identified failings in the landlord’s handling of these issues. The impact of these failings was not long-lasting. But we do not consider the landlord has adequately recognised the additional stress and inconvenience upon the resident and his family as a result of them. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award to recognise the impact of these failings.
The resident told the landlord of paint spills onto his possessions during repair work and that a window, and lights around a window had been broken. He also said his toilet had been left blocked. The resident could reasonably expect that the landlord, and its contractors, take appropriate steps to ensure his possessions were not damaged during work. When he raised this in his complaint the landlord said that its contractor was not aware of any paint spills on furniture but that these could be wiped off. It noted work to unblock the resident’s toilet had been raised as soon as it became aware of this. But the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that his front window had been broken in its stage 1 response. It only addressed this in its stage 2 response. It said at this time that issues with the damaged window had now been remedied by the contractor. It also agreed with the resident that the advice that he wipe up paint spills was not ideal. It offered to raise any outstanding issues with its contractor and that was appropriate. But it would have been reasonable for it to have done so earlier, when it reviewed his complaint at stage 1. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns that lights around a window in the property had been broken. It should have done so. In view of this, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to consider any outstanding issues or concerns about damage caused by contractors during the work in September/October 2023. It should then consider whether an award is due, in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint

Each of the landlord’s complaint responses was issued in line with response times set out in its complaints policy. However, the resident raised concerns to us about the appropriateness of a comment the landlord had made in its stage 1 response. In this the landlord said that a contributing factor to the issues at the property was the overcrowding. It said the resident had “contributed to the overcrowding” and the property had been a “suitable size” for his family when it was allocated. The resident told us that he was “hurt” by the comment and found it “insensitive” disrespectful” and “rude”. In providing comments to us in May 2024, the officer who responded to the stage 2 complaint said they had identified during the stage 2 review that this was not an appropriate comment to make. They said they had raised this with the officer who had provided the stage 1 response, and they would not make this sort of comment in the future. But there is no contemporaneous record of this discussion in the landlord’s file. It would have been appropriate for it to have made a record of this, particularly as it related to a point of learning.
The comment made in the stage 1 complaint response was poorly judged. We understand why the resident inferred from this that the landlord was apportioning some blame on him. As noted in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should avoid using language that infers blame on the resident, or leaves residents feeling blamed. The comment was also unhelpful as the landlord was aware of the difficulty in securing the resident’s family a larger property. While the landlord said that it had identified this was not an appropriate comment during its stage 2 response, it did not seek to address and remedy this by apologising to the resident. It should reasonably have done so. Its failure to do so left the resident with the continued impression that it was blaming him for the damp issues at the property. It missed the opportunity to put things right with an early and proactive apology before the resident had needed to raise it himself. We have ordered that the landlord remind its staff of the importance of avoiding language or comments that leave residents feeling blamed.
As noted above, we have found other failings in the landlord’s handling of this complaint. It did not offer to inspect the resident’s ongoing concerns raised in his initial complaint that damp and mould had returned. As stated, had it done so, it could have identified other actions appropriate to take to help address and remedy the issues. It was a missed opportunity to ensure all issues and concerns had been addressed. In addition, as noted above, we have seen no evidence that the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns that lights around a window had been broken, despite him raising this in his complaint. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. With consideration to the circumstances and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of these failings on the resident.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the adequacy of the £100 it had given him during his stay in temporary accommodation, the landlord said it would review any additional expenses he had incurred under its compensation policy. That was appropriate, and we have recommended that the landlord repeat this offer to the resident. The resident told us that he was seeking compensation for items that had been damaged due to mould. While we have seen no evidence that he raised this during his complaint, it would be appropriate for the landlord to consider the resident’s claim about this either through its compensation policy or by referring him to its insurer. As such, we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident so it can provide further information to him about making such a claim.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the handling of his request to be rehoused is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. record keeping.
3. complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings found in this report. This apology should be made with reference to guidance on apologies in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It should also specifically address the comment it made in its stage 1 response that was poorly judged and unhelpful.
2. pay the resident compensation of £900, made up of:
  1. £500 for the impact of the failings we have identified in its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 for the impact of the failings we have identified in its provision of boxes for packing and taxi travel.
  3. £250 for the impact of complaint handling failings we have identified.
3. contact the resident to understand his current concerns about damp and mould. At this time, it should share with the resident the recommendations of the damp survey of July 2023 and set out what steps it will take in respect of each of the recommendations of this survey.
4. provide evidence to us and the resident of repairs it completed to the insulation at the property. If it cannot provide this evidence, it should arrange for a further inspection of insulation to ensure appropriate work is completed.
5. contact the resident to consider any outstanding issues or concerns about damage caused by contractors during the work in September/October 2023. It should then consider whether an award is due in line with its compensation policy.
6. remind its staff of the importance of avoiding language or comments that leave residents feeling blamed.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should complete a review of its record keeping processes and guidance to staff. This should be undertaken with reference to the Ombudsman spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. repeat its offer to the resident that it will review any additional expenses he incurred during his stay in temporary accommodation under its compensation policy.
2. contact the resident so it can provide further information to him about making a claim for damaged items either through its compensation policy or to its insurer.
3. contact the resident to obtain accurate details from him of all vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household.