Southwark Council (202400316)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bed flat. The resident lives with his daughter. He reported damp and mould and damaged windows in February 2023. He complained in April 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the required works.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Window repairs.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
4. The was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord failed to provide adequate oversight or communication the required works.
   2. The landlord failed to carry out inspections or risk assessments following the damp and mould reports.
   3. The landlord did not carry out mitigation works for the damp and mould while awaiting roofing works.
   4. The landlord proposed adequate redress for the excessive delays in repairs and damp and mould works at the property.
   5. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, but it awarded sufficient redress for its failings.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we’ve not investigated

7. The resident told us that the damp and mould caused medical issues for him and his daughter, leading to a loss of earnings and his employment. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould

8. The landlord’s repair policy says that within 20 working days of a damp report, it will inspect the property to assess the best course of action. The policy also says that it will carry out roofing repairs within 20 working days. Damp and mould are potential hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord should be aware of its obligations to remove or reduce potential hazards. The resident reported damp and mould in the bedroom, presenting an increased risk of harm to him and his family.
9. The landlord failed to produce a damp and mould survey, despite the resident reporting it for over a year before works were done. This is a failing under its policy which shows it did not inspect the property to identify the severity and cause of the damp. This prevented the landlord from monitoring levels of damp and mould in the property over that time, meaning it could not check if the problem was getting worse. The lack of inspection records meant that when the resident disputed the landlord’s view that there was no mould in the property, it was unable to evidence its position.
10. As the landlord did not inspect the property, it failed to consider the impact on, or risk to, the residents or how to mitigate the problems. As the resident had raised concerns around the health of him and his daughter, this should have prompted the landlord to inspect and consider whether it warranted a temporary move. This shows the landlord did not fully consider the resident’s concerns.  
11. Landlord emails from December 2023, over 7 months after the stage 1 complaint, show that it needed to seek confirmation between departments as to whether it had completed any damp and mould works. This demonstrates a lack of accurate record keeping. The landlord acknowledged it had not completed any damp and mould works due to outstanding roofing works. It is understandable a landlord may seek to complete works to resolve any cause of damp first. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not complete any interim repairs to mitigate the damp and mould in the meantime.   
12. The landlord completed damp and mould works on 7 May 2024, over a year after the resident initial reports. This was an unreasonable delay and significantly outside the timeframe set out in its repair policy. The landlord had no record of the severity of the damp and mould in the property during that period.  

Roofing repairs

13. It is unclear when exactly the landlord identified the need for roofing repairs and its link to the damp and mould. However, it raised the works order for the repair on 12 April 2023. It completed the roofing works on 25 May 2024, over a year later. The landlord said this was due to delays in putting up scaffolding but, even allowing for these, the time taken by the landlord was excessive.
14. There was a lack of adequate oversight by the landlord to ensure the completion of the required roofing repairs. There was miscommunication on which of its contractors would install the scaffolding. This led to one attending and finding another contractor had already partly installed it. It then took around 2 months for installation of the rest of the scaffolding because the landlord failed to arrange access for the contractor. This was another failing on the part of the landlord.
15. After the installation of the scaffolding, the roofing repairs took over 10 weeks to complete. This is significantly outside the timeframe set out in the repair policy and was unreasonable given the already excessive delays in setting up the scaffolding.
16. The landlord admitted the outstanding roofing repairs were preventing it from completing damp and mould works. It should have prioritised these works and considered the impact the damp and mould could have on the resident and his daughter in the meantime. Its failure to do so was significant.
17. In June 2024, the landlord made a final offer of compensation in addition to that made in its February 2024 stage 2 response. If the distress and inconvenience payment offered at stage 2 was halved between the roofing/damp works and the window repairs, the total for this element of the complaint was £520.
18. It was positive for the landlord to review its handling of the damp and mould reports at stage 2. Its investigation at this point was thorough and it offered compensation in the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for service failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord also proposed actions to put things right. It completed the proposed works albeit this was not done until 2 months after the stage 2 response.
19. Given the additional delays, it was then reasonable for the landlord to pro-actively review its compensation offer once works were complete. It did so within 2 weeks of the completion of damp and mould and roofing works. This was a resolution-focused approach and appears to have been pro-active rather than being in response to contact from the Ombudsman.
20. This revised offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. This was the case here given the errors made by the landlord on several occasions across a period of over a year, which caused upset to the resident. The level of compensation was therefore sufficient given the circumstances of the case alongside the apology and the landlord putting things right through the completion of works. In view of this, we make a finding of reasonable redress in its handling of damp and mould reports.

21. The landlord’s repair policy says that within 20 working days, it will repair or renew a broken sash window.
22. It is not disputed by the landlord that there was a significant delay in carrying out the required window repairs. The landlord raised work orders for the windows in February 2023 and did not complete the necessary repairs until June 2024, more than 15 months later. This was an unreasonable delay and contributed to the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident as he linked these works to the ongoing damp and mould reports.
23. There was a lack of adequate oversight of the required window repairs throughout the complaint. After agreeing in February 2023 to replace 5 windows, the landlord later increased this to 7 windows in May 2023. It then said it would only replace 4 and repair the rest. The number changed again in January 2024 following a further inspection. This inconsistency raises questions over the quality of inspections carried out by the landlord and added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
24. The landlord attended to measure the windows on at least 5 occasions, which points to a lack of accurate record keeping from previous visits. These additional visits only added to the resident’s frustrations and likely contributed to the already excessive delays.
25. It was positive for the landlord to review its handling of the window repairs at stage 2. Its investigation at this point was thorough and it offered compensation in the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for service failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord also proposed actions to put things right. It completed the proposed works albeit this was over 3 months after the stage 2 response. Given the additional delays, it was then reasonable for the landlord to pro-actively review its compensation offer once works were complete. It did so within a week of the completion of all but one of the window repairs. This was again a resolution-focused approach.
26. In June 2024, the landlord made a final offer of compensation, following those made at stage 1 and 2. If the distress and inconvenience payment offered at stage 2 is halved between the roofing/damp works and the window repairs, the total offered for this element of the complaint was £540. This offer is in line with our remedies guidance where there have been failings by a landlord which had an adverse impact on the resident as was the case here.
27. As the landlord completed the required works, apologised and made a proportionate offer of compensation, we make a finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the window repairs.

28. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says that it should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
29. The landlord failed to provide the stage 1 response until 23 working days after the resident raised the complaint. Although it acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, it did not keep the resident updated about the delay.
30. The landlord failed to show learning from the initial delay in providing a complaint response. After the resident’s escalation on 25 September 2023, the landlord took 109 working days to provide a stage 2 response. As at stage 1, the landlord failed to update the resident during the delay period.
31. At both stages of the complaint, the landlord failed to advise the resident that its response would be late or ask for an extension to provide it. This was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
32. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the significant delay in its responses at both stages. It proposed a compensation payment of £200 for those delays. This offer was in line with Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a case where there have been landlord failings that had an adverse impact on the resident. This was proportionate when considering the delays in its complaint responses. As the landlord apologised for the complaint handling failings and offered proportionate compensation, we make a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

33. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure that it is able to provide effective oversight of works that may require planning and the use of contractors.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord should have systems and procedures in place to ensure that it completes and records any inspections or risk assessments linked to reports of damp and mould. It should add detailed notes and findings to works orders to prevent the need for unnecessary repeat visits.