Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Peabody Trust (202224410)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224410

Peabody Trust

28 May 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 handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould within the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her adult daughter. Both have several health conditions. Her daughter is a wheelchair user.
  2. The resident has been reporting mould in her property for several years. On 12 April 2022 the resident submitted a proposed disrepairs claim from her solicitors due to the damp and mould. The solicitor submitted a survey report which identified a lack of ventilation, inadequate heating, and low levels of insulation as a cause of the mould.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 31 March 2023. The resident stated in her complaint that she had refused access at times, as the appointments were for mould washes and not for a permanent solution to her issues. She advised that the mould was affecting her breathing, and that her solicitor was no longer engaging with her. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it would not handle the complaint, due to the matter being with the solicitors. The landlord did not initially respond to the stage 2 request, for the same reason.
  4. On 20 July 2023 the resident advised the landlord that her heart condition, sarcoidosis, was linked to mould. On 18 October 2023 the resident advised that she could not return home as her daughter had begun coughing blood. She has not returned to the property since. The resident was approved for a management transfer on 17 November 2023, although at the time of writing she has not been moved to a permanent home.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 17 November 2023 following a request from the Housing Ombudsman. It upheld the complaint handling aspect of the complaint and offered £250, as it recognised it should have responded to the complaint earlier. It partially upheld the complaint regarding damp and mould. It advised it would not fully uphold it as the resident had refused access at times. The landlord offered £600 compensation.
  6. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. She states that many reports were made regarding damp and mould and the landlord did not investigate the route cause or provide a lasting resolution. She wants the landlord to acknowledge where it has failed, and to offer an increased level of compensation. She also wants to be moved to a permanent home. The resident has advised that this experience has been extremely distressing and that her worsening health conditions have caused a reduction in life expectancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Under paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman would not normally investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within 12 months prior to a complaint being made. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of an environmental improvement notice, dated 14 February 2014. This was sent to the landlord regarding damp and mould in the resident’s property. While this gives context of how long the matter has been ongoing, we will not investigate events going back to this time.
  2. The Ombudsman has, however, extended the scope of the investigation to the January 2022. This is due to the landlord considering relevant events since this time in its stage 2 complaints response.
  3. The Ombudsman has been made aware of the resident’s and her daughter’s health conditions. We have also seen a letter from respiratory medicine in which concerns are raised that her worsening condition is linked to mould. The resident has provided medical evidence that her condition has worsened significantly, leaving part of her heart functioning at 26%. We are not medical experts and as such will not draw any conclusion about the causation of health conditions. However, we recognise that the resident is vulnerable, and this is considered in this investigation.

Reports of damp and mould within the property

  1. On 6 January 2022 the landlord noted that the extractor fan was not working. The landlord visited on 15 February 2022 and noted that it could not fix the extractor fan due to wet electrics. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the fan was known not to be working since December 2019. The landlord referenced that it was fixed in January 2020, however the repairs notes confirm that there was a significant build up of water in the duct. The Ombudsman will not investigate all events back to this date, however it is of concern that this issue has been known to be outstanding for several years.
  2. On 8 April 2022 the landlord records stated that it could not connect the extractor due to the amount of water in the duct. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord stated that the fan was fixed on the 5 March 2022. However, the repairs note stated that the fan was not spinning and there was water in the duct. It stated that it needed a roofer to check the roof vent. There is no evidence that the landlord ever conducted this repair.
  3. On 12 April 2022 the solicitor issued a pre-legal action for the damp and mould. It included a surveyor’s report which identified possible causes of the mould. There were subsequent emails between the landlord and the solicitor regarding disagreement of what had been reported. Although potential legal action can sometimes delay repairs, it is noted that the matter had not been to court at this time. The landlord should have been ensuring that the resident’s repair was a priority.
  4. The Ombudsman is aware that there were access issues due to appointments being cancelled by the resident. This was due to the resident requesting a schedule of works, as per her solicitor’s advice. The resident’s solicitor was also on holiday and the resident advised she would contact the landlord once the solicitor returned. The resident advised that there was subsequently a breakdown in communication with the solicitor and herself.
  5. We recognise that getting access may have delayed repairs. However, there is no evidence that the landlord was regularly attempting contact with the resident or the solicitor during this period. The timeframe spanned the release of the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and there was significant attention on the dangers of damp and mould in the media at that time. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities in the property. We consider that the landlord was the expert, and it should have been engaging with its resident to impress the urgency of getting any repairs completed.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 15 December 2022. It stated it treated the mould but that the fan was not working. On 6 January 2023 the resident refused a further clean as she stated she wanted the matter properly investigated. While the resident should be providing access, it is understandable that the resident had become frustrated.
  7. Between the 16 and 19 January 2023 a number of internal emails were shared within the landlord. The landlord was aware that there were multiple health issues that the resident had reported, one of which the resident had advised had arisen due to breathing in toxins. The landlord was also aware that the resident was sleeping on a mattress in the living room due to the mould. The landlord stated in its internal emails that the resident would not give access as she wanted a permanent decant. The resident did have another complaint raised, in which she was requesting a decant due to the unsuitability of the property, as her daughter was in a wheelchair and the flat was a first floor flat, without a lift. Although the Ombudsman has seen no access notes in the repairs log, it was not noted at any point that the resident would only accept a permanent decant. The landlord should have been clear in its communications with the resident what it could do and what it believed was preventing it from resolving the case.
  8. The landlord stated that the resident was already high priority for a move, but that this was taking time, due to the resident’s needs. It is unclear what action the landlord was taking to resolve the mould issue, while the transfer progressed. There was a note on 22 February 2023 that the landlord would visit the property the following day, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence this visit was completed. The resident subsequently reported mould again on 8 March 2023, and the landlord attended on 15 March 2023 to complete a mould wash. The extractor fan was noted as not working and there is no evidence the landlord considered how it would repair this.
  9. The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy on 9 February 2023. In the policy it states that it will take a proactive approach in managing its homes and buildings. It also states that it will monitor all work on damp and mould for a year to ensure that the solutions have been effective and resolved the issue. The landlord has noted one cancelled appointment by the resident on 13 April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord attempted to reschedule this appointment, or that it contacted the resident to check that the matter was resolved. The landlord does not appear to have followed its damp and mould policy in following up the mould reports.
  10. In an internal email on 21 July 2023 the landlord stated that it was aware a GP had advised that the resident could not remain in the damp and mould conditions. It stated that the resident had agreed to a decant, however this was complex due to her daughter’s health conditions. The landlord asked when the works could begin and how long this would take. There is no evidence this email was followed up by the landlord, or that the resident was provided with any update. There was a lack of urgency from the landlord, despite it being made aware by a GP of a possible health risk.
  11. The resident ultimately did not accept a temporary decant. This was due to the significant vulnerabilities in the household. The resident opted to stay with family and the landlord has applied its displacement award since the date she left the property. This is £400 a week. The landlord has applied its policy correctly in awarding the resident a displacement payment.
  12. Since moving out, the resident has not agreed to landlord access to the property for the repairs to be done. This was due to her medical conditions and having been told by medical professionals that the state of the property was a significant risk to her. We recognise that this would have been inconvenient for the landlord, as it was no longer able to do the repairs on the property. However, we consider that this has not impacted on detriment to the resident as it had been agreed that the resident was to be rehoused. The landlord closed its repairs case on 17 November 2023 as the resident had been approved for a management transfer.
  13. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord experienced access issues at times. It also acknowledges that since the resident moved from the property, no access has been given to complete the repairs. However, the damp and mould has been ongoing for a significant period of time. There is no evidence that the cause was properly investigated or that repairs were done which might have prevented the matter re-occurring. On every visit to clean the damp and mould, the broken extractor fan was noted as a cause, and there is no evidence this was ever fully repaired. The resident provided medical evidence and repeatedly reported that the mould was having an impact on their health. Although we will not comment on causation of health conditions, mould is known to be a risk factor, particularly for people with certain conditions. The landlord’s damp and mould policy also state that mould can produce substances which can cause health problems. The landlord was aware of these conditions in both the resident and her daughter, and it has taken no action to assess the risk. This was likely to have caused significant distress to the resident. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  14. In considering compensation, the Ombudsman has considered several factors. As already mentioned in this report, we will not order compensation based on any health conditions as this would need to be decided by medical experts. We have seen photographs from the resident of mould on various items of clothing and furniture. Damage of this nature would usually be a matter for insurance, and as such we will not order compensation for this.
  15. We also recognise that there were access issues at times. However, as noted above, we consider that the overall approach from the landlord has been poor and has resulted in a prolonged and extensive case of damp and mould. This was in multiple rooms in the property. We therefore consider an award based on 20% of the rent, from 6 January 2022 to be an appropriate remedy. This date correlates with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint. The resident moved out on 18 October 2023 which is the last date for the calculation. This amount has been calculated as £2,900.
  16. In addition, the Ombudsman recognises that there was significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, due to the ongoing damp and mould concerns. The Ombudsman considers £1,000, which is in line with our remedies guidance for severe maladministration, to be an appropriate award.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it could not deal with the complaint due to legal action. It also refused to escalate the case to stage 2 for this reason. When the landlord responded at stage 2, a year after it was first requested, the landlord acknowledged that it was wrong to refuse to handle the complaint. This was due to its own policy stating that it will only reject the complaint if legal issues have already proceeded to the court. The resident had not taken the matter to court.
  2. The substantial delay was a disadvantage for the resident. It meant that her case was not properly investigated, until a year after she first raised it as a concern. The landlord had an opportunity to engage with the resident which could have potentially helped resolve the issue before it reached a more serious level. However, the landlord has acknowledged its failures in complaints handling, and has provided £250 compensation. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered for a senior member of staff to issue an apology to the resident. The apology should identify where there have been failings in handling the damp and mould concerns.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £3,900 in compensation, comprising:
    1. £2,900 for the loss of enjoyment to the home.
    2. £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.
  4. In accordance with 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management review of the case against its own damp and mould policy. Where necessary, the landlord should consider further training for its staff. The landlord should submit the review to its senior management team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord continue to engage with the resident regarding her housing options to ensure her and her daughter have a suitable permanent home.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord is continuing to pay the displacement payment. It is recommended this continue until the resident is permanently rehoused.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer the £250 compensation for complaint handling if it has not been paid.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with its insurance details for any claims of damage to the property or claims of damage to the resident’s health.