Thurrock Council (202202354)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202354

Thurrock Council

19 December 2022


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 the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in their property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The evidence shows that the resident had experienced historical issues with damp and mould in the property since moving in in 2015. Works to replace a window, install an air-brick and “hit and miss” vent, reinstate the damp proof course membrane, repoint the external brickwork and install thermal insulation boards in the living room and bedroom were completed in 2016 and 2017 in an attempt to resolve the reported issues.
  2. The resident raised concerns about the re-appearance of damp and mould each winter, in November 2021. A survey of the property was completed on 8 December 2021 which identified that the issues were the result of condensation and poor ventilation. The resident was given advice on improving ventilation and lowering humidity in the property including opening windows and moving furniture away from radiators. The surveyor recommended works to:
    1. Treat the mould apparent behind the resident’s wardrobe and an area of wall near the entrance of the property.
    2. Remove and reinstate the airbrick, which had previously been filled with expanding foam by the resident, and install a hit-and-miss vent to control airflow.
    3. Install window restrictors to provide security so that the resident was able to open the ground-floor windows for ventilation.
  3. The resident initially raised a complaint to the landlord in December 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the advice given by the surveyor, who she found judgemental, and she wanted the proposed works to be reviewed. She later escalated her complaint as she disagreed with the proposed works as they had previously been attempted and had not resolved the damp and mould. She also advised that the installation of window restrictors would not be of use and she had previously been informed that the issues were related to the fabric of the building rather than condensation. She was concerned about the effect of damp and mould on her child’s health. She also added that she had been informed that a disclaimer would need to be signed so that her wardrobe could be moved for works to be carried out. She explained that she did not want to be held liable for any damage caused to her wardrobe by operatives as she could not afford to replace this. She added that signing a disclaimer would impact an ongoing liability insurance claim she had raised with the landlord in view of the damage caused by the mould growth.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that it had discussed the resident’s allegations with the surveyor and had not been able to substantiate the resident’s version of events. However, it had reminded its staff of the standard of service required. It provided further advice on ventilating the property and explained the importance of balancing the internal conditions as a means to reduce internal moisture which could lead to condensation and mould.  It confirmed that the survey found no evidence of building fabric failures and that the historic issues with the fabric of the building had been addressed previously. It noted that the resident had refused the proposed works and stated that following a further inspection on 3 February 2022, another surveyor had agreed that the recommended works were suitable. It further explained that there was no evidence that the previous airbrick had not worked as intended and acknowledged that this had previously been filled in by the resident, limiting its performance. It also acknowledged that the resident had refused to sign a disclaimer to allow her wardrobe to be moved by its staff and confirmed that this was standard practice. It confirmed that the resident could take pictures of the wardrobe before and after it was moved for insurance purposes if this was required and that it would progress the works if she agreed.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the proposed actions by the landlord. She was dissatisfied that a series of repairs and treatments had not worked and that the landlord had proposed to repeat works that had not previously resolved the issues faced. She wanted different works to be undertaken or to be moved from the property.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident raised concern that she had experienced ongoing damp and mould in the property since 2015. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, however, in view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events; specifically, to the formal complaint addressed between December 2021 and March 2022. Any specific events prior to December 2021 have not been included in this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in their property.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including internal walls. The resident would be responsible for reporting repair issues, keeping the interior or the property in a good and clean condition, and allowing access for the landlord to complete required repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that when repairs are required, the resident is responsible for moving furniture to allow repairs to be completed. If furniture needs to be moved to undertake a repair, neither the landlord nor its contracted partners can be held responsible for any damage.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy and website state that where damp or mould is reported, the landlord and its contractors should complete a survey to identify the cause of the issue and recommend any remedial works, which should be completed within 20 working days or as part of a batch repair at a later date. Remedial works may include installing airbricks,  rendering external walls, injecting chemicals to the damp proof course or treating mould with fungicide. It also states that tenants have a responsibility to maintain the property to a good condition. This includes managing the environment the property to prevent the occurrence of condensation related mould. If mould does occur, the resident should clean this down using a fungicidal wash solution. Advice on how to prevent the occurrence of mould within the home would be provided.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident advised the landlord in November 2020 that the mould had returned following previous treatments in 2016 and 2017. She then pursued this in January 2021, however there is no evidence that a response was provided or the issues were investigated at the time. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded and investigated the issues at the time, however, this was unlikely to cause significant inconvenience to the resident who had not pursued her concerns further and later advised that the issues had resolved over the summer months without intervention.
  4. Following correspondence in November 2021, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a survey of the property within a reasonable timeframe. The report provided by the surveyor indicated that there were no immediate risks of water ingress or issues with the fabric of the property which would be contributing to the mould growth. The records indicate that the humidity of the property reduced considerably when the window in the bedroom was opened during the inspection and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to offer advice on ventilating the property to the resident alongside remedial works based on the tests carried out to lessen the likelihood of condensation.
  5. The resident raised concern that the surveyor had been unhelpful and judgemental of her situation. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s claims that the surveyor had told her to keep her windows open when she was not in the property and comments made during the visit. The landlord explained that the surveyor had refuted the allegations made and it was therefore unable to substantiate the resident’s claims. Without any supporting evidence or witnesses to the events, there were limited further steps the landlord could have taken to gain corroborative evidence of what occurred and it was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate the standards of service it expected to its staff in response.
  6. The landlord also acted appropriately by clarifying its position and advising the resident to open the windows only when it was safe to do so for approximately 15-30 minutes a day to reduce the humidity in the property. It acted appropriately by acknowledging the resident’s concerns regarding opening the windows and explaining that without maintaining the internal conditions in the property, the condensation and mould issues may never improve. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider additional steps it could take alongside this advice and explain that its intention to install an airbrick and hit-and-miss vent was to improve ventilation without the need for intervention by the resident. It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer window restrictors to allow the resident to open the windows safely and lessen the risk of unauthorised intruders.
  7. It is noted that an appointment to complete the recommended works was not arranged until 25 January 2022, approximately 10 working days outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the delay, the impact this may have had and apologising to the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have ensured that the recommended works were arranged in a timely manner following the survey. It is, however, noted that the delay at this stage was unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint as the resident disputed that the proposed works to install the airbrick, hit and miss vent or window restrictors were suitable and had declined the proposed works, asking for the recommendations to be reviewed.
  8. It is noted that the resident remains dissatisfied that previous repairs and treatments had not resolved the reported damp and mould and that the landlord had proposed to repeat actions that had not previously worked. It was reasonable for the landlord to gain a second opinion and review the proposed work on 3 February 2022 alongside a different surveyor in view of the resident’s concerns, however, it is noted that the recommendations did not change following this review. In some cases, it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue from the outset and there may be more than one contributing factor to damp and mould growth. Different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved but this would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what work to undertake and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to show that the two surveyors’ recommendations were inappropriate or that they would not help to resolve the damp and mould.
  9. In this case, the resident had admitted to filling the existing airbrick with expanding foam due to cold air entering the property. It remains unclear from the evidence as to when this was carried out. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had reported these issues or that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s intention before this was filled. As such, the landlord did not have the opportunity to determine whether the airbrick had previously been successful at reducing the condensation within the property or consider what else could be done if it was found to be unsuccessful. In view of this, it was reasonable for the landlord to propose to replace the existing (filled) airbrick in an attempt to improve the airflow within the property. The landlord would be entitled to try this in an attempt to resolve the issues before reassessing the situation if the conditions did not improve.
  10. It is not disputed that the mould apparent behind the resident’s wardrobe needed to be treated as recommended by the surveyor. It was reasonable, given the resident’s concern that she could not move the wardrobe herself, for the landlord to advised that it could do this if a disclaimer was signed. The resident has advised that she was unwilling to sign a disclaimer to state that the landlord and contractors would not be liable for any damage caused as she could not afford to replace the wardrobe herself if damage was caused. It is understandable, given the ongoing insurance claim for damage to the wardrobe as a result of mould, that the resident did not wish to sign a disclaimer in case the claim was affected. This is especially true given that she had been informed that the wardrobe would need to be taken apart to be moved.
  11. However, it is general practice for landlords and contractors to require disclaimers to be signed before moving a resident’s personal belongings where this is not their responsibility. As such, it was also reasonable for the landlord to explain that it could not progress with moving the wardrobe and remedial works until the disclaimer was signed. The landlord acted appropriately by clearly explaining its position to the resident and confirming that it could proceed with the works should she choose to sign the disclaimer. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident could take photographs of the wardrobe for insurance purposes before it was moved. There were limited further steps the landlord could take to progress the works and the delay in doing so was outside of its control.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord following the complaint and asked to be moved from the property in view of the ongoing damp and mould. It is unclear if the landlord has provided a response to this issue and it is therefore recommended that it responds to the resident and provides  information about how the resident can pursue a transfer or move if she wishes.
  13. Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it had made reasonable efforts to explain its position to the resident in an attempt to progress the remedial works recommended by its contractors. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when determining what work to undertake. Whilst it is noted that the resident has concerns that the proposed actions as recommended would not work, it would be appropriate for the landlord to complete these in an attempt to resolve the issues before reassessing the property if the conditions did not improve. As the resident had refused the proposed works, there were limited further steps that the landlord could take in an attempt to resolve the issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing damp and mould in their property.

Recommendations

  1. If the resident allows the proposed works to progress, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the effectiveness of the airbrick once installed to ensure that the work has been successful in reducing the damp and mould within the property. It should continue to monitor the property condition and complete a further survey if the resident reports that the issues have not been resolved.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident and provides  information about how she can pursue a transfer or move if she wishes.