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

Thurrock Council (202203965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203965

Thurrock Council

23 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:

a.     Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

b.     Landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a joint tenancy with her husband which commenced on 4 October 2021. The property is described as a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the resident has a mental health condition.
  3. The reports of water penetration into the resident’s property relate to a neighbouring property, which is not within the landlord’s management.
  4. On 10 December 2021, the resident told the landlord’s contractor that there was black mould and leaks in the property. The landlord noted that the resident was living in a buy back property.
  5. The resident complained on 4 January 2022 that after moving into the property in September 2021, she had reported repairs that remained outstanding. These were a leak under the kitchen sink, mould on the bedroom wall, an unsafe light switch and a defective radiator in the bathroom. Also, the bedroom did not have a window.
  6. The landlord responded on 19 January 2022, apologising that an appointment was not arranged as it had incorrectly recorded her contact details. It informed the resident that an appointment had been arranged for the following day to inspect the mould and to carry out the repairs to the kitchen sink, and light switch in the bedroom. Finally, it signposted the resident to its contractors to report repairs.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint on 9 May 2022. The resident advised that her baby was due the following month and the mould remained in the property.
  8. On 9 May 2022 and 22 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would not consider her complaint at the final stage of its complaint procedure. It stated that it had responded to her complaint on 19 January 2022, therefore if she remained dissatisfied with its response, she should have escalated her complaint within 20 working days. It had received her request to escalate the complaint on 9 May 2022, which was made out of time. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs were outstanding and it would ask its voids technical team to contact her.
  9. There was a gap in communications until 15 August 2022 when the resident contacted the landlord, stating that she had been informed its surveyor would resolve the mould in the property. Also, the landlord’s contractor had advised that to stop the water leak to the property, a wall needed to be removed. 
  10. The landlord’s records show that its:

a.     Contractor attended an appointment to resolve the mould on 17 August 2022 and 3sqm of mould treatment was undertaken to the bedroom.

b.     Surveyor visited on 23 September 2022, with its contractor and an inspection clerk responsible for the property next door. All parties accepted that the leak from the neighbouring property needed to be addressed and that from 3 October 2022, the resident would be on pregnancy bed rest. The following works were agreed:

  1. Hack off and replaster with waterproof cement the affected area.
  2. Apply 3-part mould treatment with stain block to the affected area.
  3. Allow for a drying period for the plaster work before application of the mould treatment.

c.      Surveyor and inspection clerk agreed on 4 October 2022 that the boxing within the bedroom needed to be removed to inspect the pipe work. However, the resident’s partner advised that due to his wife’s pregnancy, he did not want the work done. The mould had been painted and removed. Also, the wall was dry. 

  1. In November 2022 (the landlord’s records do not show the precise date), the resident’s husband reported that they had a young baby and the damp and mould had returned to the bedroom. The mould was also present in the living room and spreading to other rooms. In response, a surveyor inspection was arranged for 30 November 2022.
  2. The Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on 22 November 2022, requesting that the landlord address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord was advised that the MP considered that after reviewing the pictures, the mould growth was moderate but the landlord should act.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint made on behalf of the resident by the MP on the following day. It also arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 24 November 2022.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 December 2022. It set out that it had:

a.     Addressed the mould by applying 3sqm of mould treatment on 17 August 2022.

b.     Resolved the leak from the neighbouring property.

c.      Brought forward the surveyor inspection booked for 30 November 2022 to 23 November 2022 as the residents had a new baby.

d.     Agreed mould treatment to the bedroom, bathroom and living room. The appointment had been rearranged to 13 December 2022 as the resident advised she had COVID-19.

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 6 December 2022. She expressed that the landlord’s contractor had not undertaken treatment works on 22 November 2022 as it stated in its complaint response. Furthermore, the only work that had taken place was to replace the shower and that the bathroom needed tiling. Finally, she had a lack of faith in the landlord.
  2. The landlord communicated with the resident between 7 December to 9 December 2022 to clarify the date of the mould treatment to the property that the resident remained dissatisfied with. Also, it was noted that the resident wished to escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaint procedure.
  3. On 6 January 2023, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response. The landlord stated that it had reviewed its earlier response and apologised for the inaccuracy regarding the date that mould treatment had carried out to the bedroom. It explained that:

a.     Appointments referred to regarding the mould treatment were those that had been made and kept.

b.     It had arranged an appointment with the resident on 23 November 2022 regarding the mould treatment works.

c.      The information provided by her midwife had been considered during the complaint investigation.

d.     The appointment made for 13 December 2022 had been attended and the agreed mould treatment works were completed.

e.     It was sorry that its complaint response had contained an error. This had been addressed with its contractors and members of staff with reminders issued about the importance of quality checking information before being provided for its complaint investigations.

Events after the complaint process was exhausted.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2023 to advise that the damp and mould had returned to the property. The following day, the landlord issued a recall notice to its contractor. The contractor attended on 2 February 2023 and completed 5sqm of mould treatment to the bedroom and bathroom.
  2. On 1 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident a link to register for a housing transfer on the council’s website.
  3. The resident’s GP contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023 to advise that the damp and mould had returned to the living room, bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. Also, mould treatment had taken place in January 2023.
  4. The landlord’s records show that on 16 February 2023, it discussed plastering and fixing plasterboard to the bedroom. It noted that the resident would require time to clear the room. Also, 6 tiles behind the shower needed to be replaced.
  5. On 20 April 2023, a surveyor inspection was undertaken to assess the mould in the bedroom and living room. It noted that the previous treatment had been unsuccessful and that it was a small flat with high humidity levels. The inspection concluded that there were no issues with the building fabric and that the resident had been advised to use mechanical ventilation and window trickle vents. The survey recommended a mould wash to the lounge, renewal of plasterboard to the bedroom walls and to repair tiles to the newly installed shower.
  6. The landlord’s records show that on 2 May 2023, its contractor treated the ceiling and behind the fridge in the living room. An appointment was arranged for 6 June 2023 to complete the plastering works to the bedroom.
  7. The landlord informed this Service on 10 May 2024 that it has not received a further report of mould in the property since October 2023.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 19 September 2023 regarding ongoing concerns with mould in the property and damage to her furniture. As this has not completed the landlord’s complaint process, this will not be considered further in this report. This is because paragraph 42(a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. If the resident remains dissatisfied when the landlord has completed its complaint investigation, she may bring a new complaint to this Service for consideration.
  2. It is clear from the resident’s submissions to this Service that she has been distressed by the property condition. The resident believes that the distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problem.
  3. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord are acknowledged and it is not disputed that living with mould in the property would have been stressful for the resident. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and to the formal complaint. In addition, to consider whether the landlord’s responses were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case and in accordance with its polices and obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that it is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. In line with this, its housing repairs and improvements policy states that it will take reasonable steps to make good any faults that affect the structure of the property.
  2. The resident made reports regarding damp and mould as early as December 2021, which was within a few months of occupying the property. The landlord in its January 2022 complaint response acknowledged that it had not acted in line with its repairs policy as it had failed to make a convenient appointment. It agreed to attend the following day to inspect the mould and apologised for its administrative error.
  3. However, there was then a 4-month gap before there was further communication between the resident and the landlord in May 2022. The landlord acknowledged that it had not carried out the repairs that it had agreed to in its earlier complaint response. This was not reasonable as this led to the resident experiencing an unacceptable delay in getting the mould in the property resolved.
  4. The landlord advised that it would get its voids technical team to contact the resident. The landlord’s submission to this Service does not indicate whether this occurred or not. There was a further 3-month gap in communication before the resident contacted the landlord regarding a visit by the surveyor to resolve the mould in the property. The likely distress caused to the resident would have been exacerbated by her concern about the potential health impact on her baby – she had made the landlord aware of this but this did not seem to prompt it to take more pro-active action.
  5. Following a report of a leak to the property on 21 August 2022, this identified that the use of the shower was contributing to the dampness to the bedroom wall. The landlord agreed that the skirting to the bathroom floor should be sealed and the shower rail moved forward, reducing the amount of water escaping the bathroom. The works to the bathroom were completed on 15 September 2022, taking 18 working days, which was within its repair timescale for routine repairs.
  6. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 23 September 2022 and recommended a schedule of mould treatment works to take place to the property. Within 7 days, in early October 2022, the landlord discussed undertaking further works to remove the boxing in the bedroom to assess a leak in the bedroom. This work was apparently not carried out as the resident’s husband informed the landlord that further mould treatment work was not required. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information it had received from the resident’s husband regarding the conditions in the property. There was no reason for the landlord to believe that the mould treatment undertaken or the work in the bathroom had not been effective at this point.
  7. Given the residents were understandably concerned about bringing a new born baby into a property which had signs of damp and mould, it was appropriate for the landlord to diagnose and inspect the property condition on 24 November 2022. The landlord’s surveyor inspection found that the mould had returned to places that had been previously treated and that the dampness to the wall could be related to the use of the shower. The surveyor recommended a 3-stage mould treatment and agreed an appointment for this to be carried out 5 days later on 29 November 2022, which was within the landlord’s repairing obligations of 20 working days of the surveyors visit. The resident contracted COVID-19 and rearranged the appointment to 13 December 2022. This was reasonable as this Service expects landlords to arrange a convenient appointment with its residents.
  8. Evidence seen by this Service shows the bedroom wall was also affected by a leak from the neighbouring property which was managed by an external company. The landlord attended a site inspection in August 2022 and a further inspection occurred before the leak from the neighbouring property was resolved. It is noted that the landlord’s submission to this Service does not provide the exact date that the leak was resolved, but it was resolved by December 2022 when the landlord issued its complaint response. However, while the landlord had no management responsibility for the neighbouring property, it is expected to take necessary actions to ensure that the leak was resolved in a reasonable time frame.
  9. The landlord received a further report in January 2023 that damp and mould was present in the property. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing a recall notice to its contractor to reattend the property as its contractor is expected to provide a full and effective repair, using proper materials to deliver adequate workmanship.
  10. The landlord attended the property in April 2023 following a further report of damp and mould in the property. It identified that there were no structural issues with the property and that high humidity was the cause of the mould growth in the property. It arranged for another mould wash to be carried out to the property and gave the resident advice about ventilation.
  11. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for diagnosing the case of the mould growth and completing the repairs that it was responsible for within a reasonable time. The landlord failed to act appropriately between January 2022 and August 2022 to resolve the resident’s reports of mould in the property. There is no evidence that the landlord treated the damp and mould reports as a sufficient priority during this period.
  12. After this, the landlord has demonstrated that it took appropriate actions as it arranged surveyor inspections of the property and drew up a schedule of works to resolve the mould growth in line with the inspection recommendations. In addition, it gave advice to the resident to reduce humidity levels in the property, carried out work to the bathroom which may have contributed to the humidity levels and resolved the leak to the neighbouring property.
  13. The landlord’s records show that on the whole it acted reasonably in reviewing the performance of its damp and mould contractor. On receiving notification that the damp and mould had returned, it issued a recall notice in January 2023 for the contractor to reattend to resolve the mould reported by the resident. The actions of the landlord were reasonable and focussed to ensure that the works identified to resolve the damp and mould in the property were followed through and to satisfy itself that all reasonable steps had been taken.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 4 January 2022. The landlord responded to the complaint on 19 January 2022. This was a slight delay as it was 1 day outside its published time limits. The landlord’s complaint procedure says that if a resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint should be escalated to the next stage of its complaint procedure within 20 working days of its initial complaint response. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2022. This was outside the published timescale of 20 working days for escalation requests to be received. Therefore, the landlord’s decision was in line with its complaints policy.
  2. However, the landlord did not take this opportunity to either signpost the resident to this Service or log a new complaint – this meant that an opportunity was missed to progress the resident’s complaint. The 20-working day timescale can also be unrealistic in instances where a resident is unaware during this period whether the landlord’s proposals (for instance, to complete works) have been successful in resolving the complaint issues.
  3. The MP contacted the landlord on 22 November 2022, setting out the resident’s dissatisfaction with its response to her concerns about the damp and mould. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the enquiry from the MP as a complaint under its complaint procedure. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day, setting out its understanding of the complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its complaint response on 6 December 2022. This was within its published time limits of 10 working days. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the complaint response and escalated the complaint on 9 December 2022.
  5. The landlord acted in accordance with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) as it contacted the resident on 6 January 2023 to clarify details of the complaint. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 11 January 2023 – again within its published time limits. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the error in its first complaint response clarifying which room mould treatment works had occurred in. It also sought to clarify to the resident that its complaint response stated that it had agreed an appointment to carry out repairs to the property. It went on to explain that the date in the complaint response did not give the actual date that the repairs were completed. This supported the timely resolution of complaints and aimed to minimise any confusion experienced by the resident.
  6. The Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) says that during the complaint process, the landlord should acknowledge any errors and the steps taken to put things right such as offering an apology. The remedy should reflect the impact of the service failure and the impact of the detriment caused to the resident. In this particular case, the landlord acted in accordance with this as it apologised to the resident for the error in its December 2022 complaint response, recognising that it could have been clearer about the mould treatment works carried out to the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:

  1. £300 for its initial delay in carrying out mould treatment to the property;
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failure.
  1. The landlord should reply to this Service to evidence compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should arrange a post-inspection of the resident’s property and consider whether any additional works are needed to address her more recent concerns about damp and mould.