Thanet District Council (202400557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400557

Thanet District Council

29 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 response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette. The resident lives with her partner and 3 children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household.
The resident first reported condensation and mould in the property around February 2022. In response, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection and examined the loft space for air flow. As a result of the inspection, works took place to treat the mould and clear the gutters. The landlord later replaced the windows in August 2023. No further contact was seen between the resident and the landlord until November 2023, when she raised concerns that the mould had returned.
The landlord arranged for an inspection by a surveyor in December 2023. Remedial works were ordered including an upgrade to the insulation in the loft and a further mould wash. Both works were completed by 16 February 2024. On 28 February 2023, the resident made a complaint. She explained that:
1. 2 mould washes had been completed in the previous month. The most recent had been completed on 16 February 2024, but less than 12 days later, the problem had returned.
2. She was concerned about the health implications the mould had on her family, particularly her young children.
The landlord arranged for an independent damp specialist to attend the property on 5 March 2024. On 6 March 2024, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. It had undertaken a number of interventions including multiple mould washes, upgrading the loft insulation, and replacing the windows.
2. It acknowledged the recurring nature of the problem and would undertake any further necessary remedial works once it had been notified of the outcome of the visit by the damp specialist.
3. Overall, it felt that it had taken reasonable steps to identify and address the areas of mould and it remained committed to resolve the issue.
The resident said she was “far from happy” with the response she had received. She acknowledged that the landlord had been trying to help find out the cause of the issue, but reiterated she was worried about the effect the mould had on her health. She reported that the situation had caused her to consider taking her own life, and she was unhappy the landlord had not offered compensation for damaged items of furniture.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. It said that:
1. The independent report had found excessive condensation in the property. Causes of condensation could include low internal room temperature and high humidity levels with low air circulation. To address the issues effectively, it proposed the installation of a positive input ventilation system (PIV) and lap vents in the roof void. It also provided general advice on how to avoid condensation in the property.
2. Its contractors would contact her promptly to arrange the necessary work. In the meantime, it wanted to offer her £150 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and frustration caused.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 5 April 2024. She reported that she found the amount of compensation the landlord offered was “insulting” as it did not go far enough to cover damage to her belongings. On 26 November 2024, the resident explained to the Ombudsman that the landlord followed up the works with a post-inspection in the summer and no damp was found, but the issue had started to return as the weather had got colder. She said she wanted the landlord to prioritise a move for the family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows she has been reporting damp and mould for considerable period of time. The resident reported she felt concerned about the impact the situation had on the health of her family, including her daughter who has asthma. She also explained her belongings had been damaged as a result of the mould. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health or personal belongings.
In accordance with our remit, the Ombudsman is focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint which is reflected in the timeline above. Unless otherwise stated, any issues that were raised after the landlord’s final response on 28 March 2024 are beyond the scope of this assessment. This is because, in general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and resolve any issues accordingly, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.
The resident has explained that as an outcome to the complaint, she wishes to be prioritised for a move due to overcrowding in the property. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the resident’s housing application. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her housing options.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould

Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
In this case, the evidence demonstrates that when the resident has reported damp, mould and condensation, the landlord has tried a number of interventions to resolve the issue. This has included several mould washes, clearing of gutters, upgrading of loft insulation and replacement of the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to try a number of remedies to see if they fixed the problem. When its interventions did not work, the landlord’s decision to send a surveyor to inspect the property in more depth in December 2023 was appropriate.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of any surveyor visits or inspections to ensure there was an audit trail. However, the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with notes from this visit. It is not until the landlord issued the resident with a stage 1 response on 6 March 2024 that it updated her of the outcome of the surveyor’s findings in detail. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations at an earlier stage.
It is noted that since the resident’s complaint concluded, the landlord introduced a new damp and mould process in July 2024 to ensure residents are updated of the outcome of any findings in writing within 48 hours. The Ombudsman welcomes this approach so that all parties are aware of the findings and any agreed potential next steps are made clear at the earliest opportunity.
Despite the recommendations made by the surveyor to do a further mould wash and upgrade the insulation, the issue returned and as a result the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 February 2024. Within her complaint, the resident made it clear that she was concerned about the impact the situation was having on her family.
In October 2021, the Ombudsman released a spotlight report on damp and mould. Within this, it explained that landlords should adopt a risk-based approach to damp and mould. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s specific concerns about the physical and emotional impact the situation was having on her and her family. When the resident reported that her mental health had deteriorated to the extent that she had thoughts of taking her life, the landlord did not refer to its safeguarding adults policy and offered her no support. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s concerns was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of empathy to her situation.
The landlord arranged for an independent damp specialist to visit the property 5 working days after the resident made her complaint. This demonstrated a commitment to resolve the situation for the resident within a reasonable time. The decision to instruct an independent damp specialist to attend the property was appropriate, so that the landlord could obtain another perspective on its interventions up until that point.
The independent report was comprehensive and provided evidence of inspections it had undertaken to a number of areas in and around the property, including the loft. The report concluded that there was some condensation throughout the property. As well as providing advice as to how condensation could be managed day to day, it recommended that the landlord install a PIV unit and lap vents in the roof void. The landlord was entitled to rely on the outcome of the report from the qualified damp expert before discussing a plan of action with the resident.
The report was provided to the landlord on 11 March 2024 and the resident was updated of the outcome which was appropriate. However remedial works were not ordered until 2 April 2024. The delay in raising the works caused the resident additional inconvenience. However once they were logged on the landlord’s system, the remedial works were completed within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with the landlord’s repairs standard.
In its final response to the resident, the landlord offered her £150 in compensation for the inconvenience ongoing remedial work had caused. While this largely put matters right for the resident, it failed to acknowledge that it could have referred her to specialist mental health support at an earlier opportunity. The landlord also missed an opportunity to signpost the resident to either her own contents insurance or the landlord’s insurers for claims for damaged belongings.
In making her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she felt that the landlord placed blame on her lifestyle as a contributing factor to the cause of the condensation. There is no evidence the landlord placed sole blame on the resident for the condensation. Rather, it reiterated general advice the independent specialist surveyor had made within their report of 11 March 2024, which was appropriate.
After concluding the resident’s complaint and completing the remedial works in May 2024, the landlord returned to the property in September 2024 to assess whether its interventions had worked. This was appropriate and demonstrated good practice in line with the landlord’s HHSRS obligations.
Overall, the landlord tried a range of interventions to try to resolve the damp and mould which was appropriate. It also commissioned an independent damp specialist to inspect the resident’s property before concluding her complaint. While the landlord’s actions were mostly reasonable, it missed an opportunity to signpost the resident to specialist support at an earlier stage and it failed to explain how she could make a claim for damaged belongings, resulting in a finding of service failure.
The Ombudsman has considered further compensation in line with our remedies guidance. The amount ordered is in recognition of the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident where she was not referred to specialist support or given an explanation of how she could make a claim for her damaged belongings within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
It is noted that since the conclusion of the resident’s complaint, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that the damp has returned as the weather has got colder. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to revisit the property as the winter months approach.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report.
2. pay the resident £100 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount is in recognition of the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as explained in paragraph 25 of this report.
3. contact the resident to discuss whether there are any vulnerability concerns within the household and update its records accordingly.
4. explain to the resident what options are available to her should she wish to make a claim for damaged belongings.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. contact the resident to discuss her concerns that the damp has returned in the winter months.
2. contact the resident to discuss her housing options.