Thurrock Council (202217533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217533

Thurrock Council

9 November 2023

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould and associated remedial works.
2. Property transfer request.
3. Request for reimbursement of damaged personal possessions.
4. Request for a medical banded property transfer.
5. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint may not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The resident applied for a medical banded property transfer in August 2022. The landlord initially rejected this application as her family members were not considered to meet its criteria. The resident was granted a higher banding following a review in January 2023 and has been bidding on properties. This report refers to the resident being approved for choice-based letting, which allowed the resident the option of bidding for a property and receiving medical priority. Any reference to this within the report is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and is a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to consider.
The resident duly made a complaint to this Service about the landlord’s handling of her request for a property transfer. However, this falls outside of this Service’s jurisdiction and falls under the remit of the LGSCO on the basis of medical grounds.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a second floor, 2 bedroom apartment. The tenancy commenced on 16 May 2016.
The resident lives with her partner and 2 children. The resident informed her landlord her partner suffers from a mental health condition and her daughter has autism.

Landlord Obligations

The landlord’s operates an emergency, urgent and routine repairs policy. It aims to repair or make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete urgent repairs within 5 working days and complete routine repairs within 20 working days. In respect of reports of damp and mould it states:
1. Where there was severe cases of dampness or mould growth, a survey would take place by the landlord’s building surveyor. Any required repairs identified by the surveyor would be completed as a routine repair within the 20 working day target time.
2. Minor mould growth caused by condensation and attributed to housekeeping would be addressed under a batch programme following a review by its contracted delivery partners.
3. All residents have a responsibility to maintain the property to a good condition. This includes managing the environment in the home to prevent the occurrence of condensation related mould. If mould does occur residents should clean it down using a fungicidal wash solution.
The landlord’s repairs policy and The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) states the landlord is required to:
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling.
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas, and electricity.
3. Keep in repair and proper working order, the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
The Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) states any residential premises should provide a safe and healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle, a dwelling should be designed, constructed and maintained with non-hazardous materials and should be free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 days and stage 2 complaints within 20 days. It excludes consideration of complaints where it refers to a matter which:
1. Has already gone to court or could have gone to court.
2. The resident has advised that they intend to, or have, initiated legal proceedings against the council in relation to the substance of the complaint.
The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the following:
1. The resident is responsible for moving furniture and lifting carpets to allow repairs to be done.
2. Where a decant is necessary the landlord would “assist with the removal and storage of personal possessions which were non-essential during the decant period. Some items may remain in the property as long as it does not interfere with the work. However, the landlord does not accept any liability or responsibility for damage caused to items whilst they remain”.
3. The resident must not allow more than 5 people to reside at the property.
Under the landlord’s tenancy policy, the following criteria would normally require the tenant be decanted:
1. Essential facilities such as the bathroom, cooking facilities, water, electricity or gas cannot be used for more than 24 hours; or
2. Staying in the property would significantly adversely affect the customers health or safety; or
3. The circumstances of the case require it.
Under the tenancy policy, residents are encouraged to make their own arrangements for temporary accommodation. If this is not possible, the landlord will assist the customer to arrange a temporary move to another council property or, if that is not possible, to a private sector property.

Scope of investigation

This Service understands the resident feels the landlord has failed to properly address issues which has impacted living in the property and health, and we recognise the concerns she reports have affected and caused distress to her and her family.
In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role or expertise to assess whether a property has specific defects. This is because this Service does not make findings on technical aspects in relation to a property or repairs. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The resident previously complained to this Service on 6 January 2022. She provided a stage 2 complaint response dated 14 December 2020. This complaint was determined to be outside of the jurisdiction of this service as it was brought more than 12 months after the landlord issued its final response. The complaint could therefore not be considered.
The resident made 2 formal complaints dated 3 August 2022 and 5 November 2022, about the landlord’s handling of matters in relation to damp and mould. The resident has provided information confirming these issues were present for over a timeframe of 8 years and provided detail about previous works. Whilst this information provides important background and context to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position on this matter, this Service is unable to investigate all of the historic reports of damp and mould.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the matters complained about from 29 July 2022, when the resident put the landlord on notice she was unhappy with the time it had taken the landlord to complete agreed repairs with her solicitor. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure have been mainly referenced for contextual purposes only.
This report will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer and its actions to signpost the resident as part of the landlord’s housing management process. It does not involve the local authority’s choice-based lettings process and is fully administered by the landlord within its housing management function. The transfer process sits outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996.

Previous reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s insurance claim form dated 8 September 2022 states in February 2016, the previous tenant at the property reported damp and mould. Damp and mould treatment was completed in February 2016 before the resident moved into the property.
In November 2016, the resident reported water dripping down the walls from the corners of the ceiling with associated mould. The resident states the landlord blamed the cause on condensation and the living environment. It said it would inspect the loft insulation and fit more insulation if necessary. She stated she did not receive confirmation the landlord did this.
Between November 2016 and November 2019, the resident stated she continued to suffer from damp and mould. She bought a dehumidifier and wiped off the mould weekly. However, the damp and mould would get worse every month.
In November 2019, the landlord’s repairs log notes there was a leak at the property causing mould. On 22 January 2020, the landlord carried out mould treatment to affected areas of the property.
On 28 January 2020, the resident reported a leak from the ceiling of the main bedroom. She also reported mould had returned to both bedrooms and the bathroom. On 3 February 2020, a plumber confirmed a tile was missing on the roof and caused water ingress to the main bedroom. The landlord arranged for a guttering repair programme to repair around the chimney stack to stop the leak.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord’s repair log noted reference to an audit completed by the landlord. Mould treatment to the living room, kitchen, hall, bathroom and both bedrooms was scheduled. However, the note stated the resident refused the mould treatment. On 2 February 2021, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord asking it did not carry out mould treatment to preserve evidence ahead of an inspection by its expert.
In February 2021, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord confirming it had been instructed by the resident to pursue a legal disrepair claim which included concerns about damp and mould in the property.
In March 2021, the landlord instructed its employee, a building surveyor to produce a report following inspection of the concerns raised at the property. The resident also instructed a chartered surveyor to inspect and report on the reported concerns. The shared findings of both reports were:
1. The property suffered from damp and mould as a result of severe condensation.
2. Mould growth should be removed with bleach solution or anti-fungicidal product to the affected areas.
3. The pattern of staining to the ceilings indicated poorly laid or missing insulation in the loft space. An inspection should be undertaken with a view to re-distribute the loft insulation and remove cold spots.
The resident’s survey report stated the family suffer from respiratory problems. It also suggested the areas of persistent mould growth to perimeter walls would be improved by installing insulated backed plasterboard lining. It also recommended an extractor fan be installed in the kitchen area as one was not present.
On 27 July 2021, a legal repair was logged into the repairs log. It noted a kit window would be measured for an extractor fan and a full inspection of the communal loft over the property. The works order was agreed between the landlord and the solicitor. It advised that no claim was issued.

Summary of events

On 29 July 2022, the resident requested to be moved to a new property. On 2 August 2022, the resident requested to be moved onto the waiting list for a transfer. She also requested a medical assessment for her husband for a medical transfer. The landlord responded to her request for a medical assessment by listing the information and documentation required. It explained this would be sent to an independent medical expert to make an assessment on whether the banding criteria could be met.
On 3 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming completion of the following works which were agreed with the resident’s solicitor. It was signed by the resident. The listed repairs were:
1. Mould treatment to the kitchen, living room hallway, WC (including stripping of wallpaper), bathroom, master bedroom and second bedroom.
2. Inspection of the communal loft space (padlocked at survey) with view to re-distribute the loft insulation and remove cold spots.
3. Overhaul of the bathroom window as it was stiff in operation.
4. Hack off plaster at low level between coal store and front entrance door. Allow further inspection to review the condition of the masonry wall.
5. Undertake a repair to the external soffit board to remove current hole.
An addendum letter was also attached to the listed repairs which added further works agreed with her solicitor which was to:
1. Access the loft space to insulate cold spots within loft and ensure cold water pipes and services are insulated.
2. Treat and remove all existing mould within the dwelling.
3. Upgrade the bathroom extractor fan with humidistat type extractor.
4. Install a kitchen mechanical extractor fan.
The addendum contained comments by the landlord which stated it did not feel the bathroom extractor fan was required and blamed the resident for not keeping the bathroom door closed and heating the property. However, it agreed to it as it was a minor matter.
On the same date, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the delays to complete the agreed repair works which were agreed between her solicitor and the landlord around July 2021.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising her to report concerns she had relating to delays in carrying out repairs to her solicitor, as there was an ongoing legal case. It did not accept her complaint.
On 19 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance department to request reimbursement of damaged personal possessions as a result of the damp and mould. The landlord provided the resident with a claim form.
On 6 September 2022, the resident submitted her insurance claim form and evidence to the landlord. On 8 September 2022, the landlord acknowledged the claim and confirmed it had been referred to its public liability insurer.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord’s legal team emailed the landlord. It explained it received a letter before claim from the resident’s solicitors on 2 February 2021. Surveyors from both sides inspected the property and agreed a schedule of works. It explained from a legal position, there was no active claim and its file had been closed.
On 4 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain. She explained:
1. Whilst repair works had previously been completed to remove mould and install a kitchen extractor fan, the insulated backed plaster board was not arranged following her solicitor recommendation.
2. The walls and ceilings of her flat were dripping with water and mould was resurfacing.
3. Her son slept on the top bunk and water from the ceiling dripped onto him. She referenced in the past, the dripping became worse and continued to drip. She feared the same would occur again and mould would continue to form.
4. She wanted to be moved to an alternative 3-bedroom property.
On 8 November 2022, a medical allocations officer emailed the resident to confirm it was appointed to facilitate the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
On 16 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to report:
1. There was a smell of damp in the property.
2. The walls were wet and she attached photographs of this along with mould showing on the walls, in between tiling and on the windows and windowsill.
3. A pillow on her daughter’s bed was soaked and full of mould.
4. One of her children was 6 months old and was constantly coughing and choking on mucus. They also struggled to breathe at night since the damp returned.
On 18 November 2022, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord stating the family have reported breathing problems when inside their property.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord conducted a survey of the property to investigate the occurrence of mould in the lounge, bedrooms, and bathroom. Photographs accompanied the survey. It concluded:
1. Mould spores were evident on the ceiling and wall within the children’s bedroom on and behind the wallpaper.
2. The bathroom had blown paintwork above the shower area and mould spores growing in the window. The extractor fan was functional. The surveyor stated he believed the mould to be caused by condensation.
3. The master bedroom had water stains on the ceiling next to the side flank wall and window wall. The surveyor believed this to be from condensation and not ingress of water from an external source.
4. Loft insulation could not be checked for the correct thickness at the time of the survey. It would arrange for further inspection of this by another appointment.
5. The living room was observed to have the same issue of water staining and run marks on the right-hand side flank wall, specifically in the alcove located on this wall.
6. In line with the above recommendation, it would raise works for thermaline plaster boarding to be installed in this area.
The required works identified by the survey were:
1. The resident was required to strip the wallpaper in the children’s bedroom prior to the commencement of works. The wall and windowsill would then be treated with three-stage mould treatment. The landlord’s repairs contractors would discuss this with the resident and would provide support if necessary.
2. Improvement of thermal capacity of the master bedroom and living room walls to raise the surface temperature and raise the dew point to prevent condensation, by installing thermal line plasterboard to the large flank wall and window walls.
3. The ventilation unit in the kitchen would also be tested and left in a functional condition.
The landlord booked an appointment for contractors to attend the property on 30 November 2022. However, the contractors could not access the property on this date. A new appointment was arranged for 8 December 2022.
On 9 December 2022 and further to her email of 18 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with further issues as part of her complaint. She explained:
1. She did not feel the surveyor seriously considered the condition of the property and only recommended insulated plasterboard to the master bedroom and a small patch of plasterboard to the living room.
2. The surveyor suggested mould treatment to other areas of the property affected by damp and mould and repainting the walls. She explained this had been done in the past, suggesting it did not work.
3. She said the contractor who attended her property to measure up the works informed her he was surprised only a small amount of work was scheduled.
4. The contractor indicated the required works would take a number of days to complete and would ideally be completed in an empty property. She said this was not explained to her by the surveyor. The resident felt the property was too small to move furniture around whilst still living in the property.
5. She reported her family had recurring illnesses from living in the property. At the time of writing, they were all chesty and have phlegm. Her son’s eye was itchy again and her youngest child’s eye was sticky, which she had believed was a result of the mould.
6. The walls in the property were very cold and the property cannot be heated up due to this.
7. The mould caused damaged to furniture, clothing, and other personal possessions.
On 13 December 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Within the acknowledgement, it confirmed it would only consider the complaint point relating to the assessment carried out by the surveyor in November 2022. It stated the other matters raised had previously been considered by its complaints procedure.
On 29 December 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It stated:
1. Upon being contacted on 8 November 2022 with concerns of recurrent damp and mould in the property, an appointment was arranged for the landlord’s surveyor to attend the property on 22 November 2022.
2. The surveyor recommended the following works:
  1. thermaline board walls, to lounge alcove RHS of chimney breast
  2. thermaline board master bedroom walls (large wall and window wall)
  3. mould wash wall/ceiling to children’s bedroom (3 stage treatment) – wallpaper to be removed by tenant prior to these works
  4. mould wash ceiling to bathroom above shower and in window reveal (3 stage treatment).
3. It raised the works with its contractor on the same date of the survey. An appointment was booked with the resident for 30 November 2022 to inspect the property ahead of scheduling the works. However, the contractors could not access the property and a new appointment was provided for 8 December 2022. The resident explained she was not spoken to about this appointment.
4. On 8 December 2022, the contractors assessed the level of works required. It reported 1 plug socket in the bedroom and 2 sockets in the living room needed to be capped off. Also, 1 radiator and pipework to the bedroom would need to be removed before works could be carried out. Appointments were made for this to be completed on 10 and 11 January 2023. The resident was advised of this on 20 December 2022.
5. It apologised for any inconvenience the resident experienced. However, the surveyor acted in line with its policy and raised the identified repairs.
On 9 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She stated:
1. She believed her property should receive more insulated plasterboard than advised by the surveyor and the problems would not be resolved by the plasterboard itself.
2. The mould had returned and she has not been updated when it would be cleaned off. She was still awaiting the mould to be cleaned in her children’s bedroom before works commenced.
3. The works would take approximately 5 days to complete which she did not expect when the surveyor attended. She cancelled the appointments scheduled because she did not want the plug sockets and radiator out of use, as it would be cold and she would not have Wi-Fi or use of the TV. She explained one of her children was undergoing tests for autism and they relied on the Wi-Fi to watch videos which help with their sensory needs.
4. Her son suffered from itchy and swollen eyes from sleeping under the dripping wet patches on the ceiling. The planned works did not state insulated plasterboard would be put in her children’s bedroom after she informed the surveyor this was the coldest room in the property.
5. The property was too small for a family of 5 to move furniture around so works could be completed.
6. The works were not being completed to the bathroom, which she stated was the worst affected room with mould.
7. Moving homes was her main priority and she was in the process of bidding on alternative properties. The family medical team had sent evidence regarding her partner’s mental health along with a doctors letter for her son and a letter from her daughter’s portage worker, stating an urgent move was necessary due to her sensory and behavioural needs.
The landlord’s repairs log confirmed the resident cancelled the scheduled appointments. The appointments were rearranged for 19 January 2023 however, the resident cancelled the appointment. A new set of appointments was scheduled for works to take place between 24 and 27 January 2023. However, on 20 January 2023, the resident called to cancel the appointment.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It stated:
1. Whilst the resident was unhappy the plug sockets needed to be capped, it was necessary for safety reasons. Not all sockets in the property were to be capped and therefore some were still available for use.
2. It was confirmed by its contractors that the furniture needed to be moved to allow for access and the works to be completed. It was the resident’s responsibility to allow access to the required areas. It would not provide assistance to store the resident’s belongings during the time works were being completed.
3. Whilst her friend at a different property, received a different set of repairs to resolve a similar issue, it was following the recommendations made by its qualified surveyor which were relevant to the resident’s property. It reassured the resident the recommendations have been made by a qualified surveyor. If any issues continued, a further assessment and review would be undertaken as required.
4. It confirmed there was no temporary mould treatment work that can be carried out pending the works commencing on 24 January as any application of treatment before the scheduled appointment would not cure in time for the works to proceed.
5. Whilst the resident stated the contractor believed works would require the resident to vacate the property, the landlord has not had recommendation of this by the surveyor. A decant had not been recommended at that stage. It would however reconsider this if following commencement of the works, this was raised as necessary.
6. It asked its allocations team for an update on the resident’s housing application. The medical officer has reviewed the evidence and a decision was made to award a welfare band based on her daughter requiring her own space.
7. It had not identified a service failure in the handling of the resident’s case as the works progressed in line with its policy.
On 23 January 2023, a telephone conversation between the landlord and resident took place. It discussed issues raised by the resident following the stage 2 response. The information during the call was that:
1. Works would be carried out to her property between 24 and 27 January 2023.
2. It would not arrange removal and storage of her items and furniture ahead of the works. It asked her to move these herself or source her own storage if required.
3. The resident was concerned electricity sockets to several areas of the apartment would be capped and this may affect her partner and children’s routine with items they needed for their mental health conditions. The landlord advised the use of extension leads from the working sockets.
4. The resident was concerned the planned work to fit plasterboards was to be completed before mould treatment was carried out, therefore mould would come back. The landlord agreed to query this with the relevant department.
The landlord provided a new set of appointments between 21 February and 24 February 2023. On 21 February 2023, it was advised by its contractor the resident requested to cancel these appointments.
The landlord’s repair log noted further appointments to complete the scheduled works were scheduled in March 2023, but these were also cancelled by the resident.

Post internal complaints procedure.

On 4 April 2023, the landlord’s insurer refused the resident’s claim for reimbursement of damaged items on the basis the mould was caused by condensation rather than damp.
On 13 June 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service and provided additional information on the present position and to provide context of its actions relating to some of the complaint issues. It explained:
1. The resident continued to deny access to the property and the works identified in November 2022 had not been completed. It made a referral to the tenancy management team to assist with access to the property.
2. It was confirmed by the technical services team that no decant was required in order for the required works to be undertaken. The team explained that given the level of works that were required, it was considered reasonable it could sequence the works to avoid significant disruption to the resident, including the disruption that any decant would pose and avoid any additional delays that a decant may have caused.
3. The property inspection report dated November 2022 should be referred to as evidence of a risk assessment which confirmed no decant was necessary.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

Reports of damp and mould and associated remedial works.

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 carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Where the source of damp and mould was not immediately obvious, it would be reasonable that the landlord took steps to eliminate potential root causes.
The landlord was on notice the resident’s property was affected by historic damp and mould and the resident had previously reported the same issues on several occasions. The repairs log confirmed the landlord had also previously recommended a mould wash and redecoration as its response to several of the historic reports of damp and mould, only for the mould to return. In the knowledge that the damp and mould was a recurring issue, the landlord should have conducted additional monitoring after repairs were completed in August 2022, in line with its obligations under HHSRS. There is no evidence the landlord did this, nor did it consider the mould wash treatment was insufficient to resolve the mould, suggesting something more needed to be done.
Had the landlord monitored the property, it would have been able to manage any spread of damp and mould and consider alternative solutions prior to the resident’s complaint of damp and mould recurrence in November 2022. The landlord was aware that previous cleaning of the damp and mould had not been effective in resolving the issue, showing that this was not likely to be an enduring repair. This Service would have expected to see the landlord making an informed decision on the type of treatment required, pulling on its data and performance of previous similar treatments.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord instructed its employee to carry out a mould inspection survey in line with its damp and mould policy on 22 November 2022. It also raised the works request with its contractors on the same date. Whilst the landlord surveyed the property, this was a delay of 18 days from the date it was reported. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a timescale on when it would arrange a survey of reported damp and mould. This is something this Service would expect to see within the landlord’s repairs policy.
Despite this Service’s request for evidence of all contact logs between the landlord and the resident, the landlord has not provided evidence of any detailed contact notes or email chain with the resident regarding the appointment, providing context for the delay to arrange an inspection. This is information which should be recorded and actively available. This is evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy, whilst silent on the time it would take to arrange an inspection of reported damp and mould, states works would be undertaken within 20 working days after inspection. The landlord was on notice of the historic damp and mould at the property, the resident’s family suffered from vulnerabilities and there were 3 young children in the property. In light of these circumstances and the associated health impacts of damp and mould, this Service would expect an inspection of the damp and mould to have taken place sooner than 18 days after it was reported. Furthermore, if there were issues which delayed the inspection, this should be properly recorded within the landlord’s evidence and an explanation provided to the resident.
The surveyor concluded that the damp and mould was caused by condensation in the property. However, the mould was recurring throughout the property and in each room, not just an isolated area. The landlord was also aware the resident was using a dehumidifier which was not improving matters. Whilst condensation can lead to mould spores, given the history of the property and the spread of the damp and mould, this was clearly a more significant issue that would require more than reapplication of a mould wash treatment. Even if condensation was the primary factor, the landlord needed to work with the resident and support them to manage the damp and mould in a more effective way. It should also identify works which would assist with this.
The property inspections of both parties dated March 2021, put the landlord on notice there was likely cold spots in the ceiling caused by the loft insulation above the property, which may have been a cause of the mould and the water staining on the walls and ceiling. The loft could not be accessed at the time of those surveys. However, an inspection formed part of the agreed repairs which took place in August 2022. The surveyor in November 2022 also could not access the loft during inspection, noting it was padlocked and would therefore arrange for a later inspection. The landlord should have considered the previous issues to inspect the loft insulation and provided the surveyor with a key to access this at the time of inspection. This is evidence of poor record-keeping and impacted the quality of its survey.
Furthermore, this was another missed opportunity by the landlord to explore a possible route cause or contributing factor to the level of condensation, which it had been on notice of since March 2021. This is a significant failing and caused ongoing detriment to the resident. The landlord was unable to identify if this was a contributing factor and agree if any necessary works were required. This indicated the landlord did not take the matter seriously enough and was suggestive it blamed the resident’s lifestyle as the driving factor.
There is no evidence an inspection of the loft insulation took place. This Service would expect to see evidence the landlord conducted a full inspection of the loft insulation and the reported findings. Specifically, the landlord should be able to evidence the insulation was correctly spread, that it was fit for purpose and of the correct thickness. If it required a specialist contractor to conduct this investigation, it should have done so. The lack of evidence suggests the inspection did not occur. This is unreasonable and should there be poor quality of insulation in the roof, this may be a contributing factor to the damp and mould. This is evidence of poor record-keeping and repairs management.
Landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage. Resolving an issue such as damp and mould at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. There is no evidence of attempts in this case to thoroughly discuss the issues with the resident, evaluate the situation, or instruct independent specialist contractors together or to approach the issue in any joined-up or solution-focussed way.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould explains that landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
Whilst the landlord’s representative who undertook the inspection had the title of a building surveyor, the survey produced lacked sufficient detail confirming a thorough investigation with various methods of testing took place, such as using a protimeter to assess the level of damp. The surveyor relied on his professional opinion, rather than informed evidence such as the results of tests carried out. This Service would expect to see a more robust position which sought to address the cause. Whilst the surveyor recommended installation of thermaline plasterboard, the recommendation was previously made by the resident’s legal expert in March 2021. At the time, the landlord did not agree it was an appropriate measure to improve the condition of damp and mould at the property. This suggests the landlord’s approach to damp and mould is not customer focussed and does not seek to quickly identify appropriate interventions and effective solutions to tackle damp and mould and condensation. The landlord lacked foresight to seek an enduring repair and appears to be focused upon addressing the symptoms, such as cleaning the mould, rather than identifying and remedying the cause.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould actively discourages inference or blame onto the resident for causing damp and mould within the home. Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. It should evaluate what mitigations it can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves, they are taking all reasonable steps. The evidence provided to this Service suggests the landlord placed sole responsibility on the resident to manage the condensation herself and it did not demonstrate it tried to jointly work with her to address the issue. This was an unreasonable approach in line with the commitments set out in this Service’s publications about damp and mould, and in line with the landlord’s HHSRS obligations.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould explains that where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage.
The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence it completed separate risk and decant assessments of the family’s vulnerabilities following both the reports of damp and mould and also the concerns raised by the resident in response to the planned repairs.
Within the resident’s complaint, she reported the wet patches were dripping onto her son whilst he slept. In additional emails between 16 November 2022 to 9 December 2022, the resident reported the property smelt of damp, she attached photographs showing mould present in each room of the property and a pillow of her daughter’s was wet and covered with mould spores. She notified the landlord her baby was coughing and choking on mucus, struggling to breathe at night since the damp and mould returned. She and her GP both also reported the family suffered from breathing issues when indoors at the property.
Whilst this Service cannot determine health matters, the landlord was on notice several times of potential health concerns the resident and her GP associated to damp and mould in the property. This Service would expect the landlord to have promptly conducted a risk assessment, especially where young children were in the property as there could be significant detriment to them, more significant than somebody without these characteristics as through exposure to damp and mould. This failure to actively listen to the resident’s concerns suggests the landlord was not taking the matter seriously or assessing the impact upon the family. Whilst an assessment of the risk may not have changed the actions taken by the landlord, this Service would expect to see a clear and considered assessment of the risk posed in the short and medium term, to assess if any interim measures could be put in place, for example signposting to support services, advice around heating, ventilation and the use of dehumidifiers.
The landlord states the required works following the landlord’s survey could be completed whilst the family remained in the property. However, the resident reported the property was too small to be able to move the furniture around to allow the scheduled repair works to commence, and for the family to live in the property at the same time. She also requested landlord assistance to store furniture and belongings to free up space in the property. Additionally, she reported the repairs would have prevented the use of some main electrical sockets and a radiator. She referred to her partner struggling with visitors in the property due to personality disorder and that her daughter was undergoing tests for autism. Her daughter had a routine and being without the television and Wi-Fi would be disruptive to her and the family.
A risk assessment would have been a useful tool to identify conditions and vulnerabilities affecting the family at the time, in addition to assessing the risk such repairs would have and whether the circumstances suggested a decant would have been reasonable. The evidence shows that the property was at full capacity with 3 young children living at the property with 2 parents, and there would be at least one room out of use whilst the works were completed. A radiator would also have been capped off during the winter period. The landlord should have taken further steps to assess the risk to the family against its risk and decant procedures. Whilst this Service cannot determine if a decant was necessary, the landlord has not evidenced it adequately considered its decant policy, which allows the landlord discretion to agree a decant if the circumstances of the case allow it. It therefore acted unreasonably towards the resident in light of the reported property conditions.
In terms of the resident not allowing the repairs to go ahead, there is an obligation on a tenant to reasonably allow access for works. In this instance, the resident was understandably frustrated the landlord had failed to put measures in place following her concerns about her family having to live in the property whilst works were carried out. There is no evidence provided to show the landlord empathised with the resident. This caused the issues to remain unresolved and the resident continuing to live in the property. This has led to a prolonged impact on the resident and her family, including unnecessary stress and inconvenience and damage to the landlord-tenant relationship, with confidence and trust in it eroded.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould suggests the landlord did not take the matter seriously. It failed to refer to the history of the property to inform its actions, monitor the property in line with HHSRS obligations or consider alternative measures sooner. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to evidence it has self-assessed itself against the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight on Damp and Mould report. The landlord has also failed to show it supported the resident and her family by completing a risk assessment, decant assessment or signposted the resident to alternative services for support, where it viewed condensation as the cause. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to provide evidence of contact logs with the resident, suggesting it does not have an adequate system in place to record its interactions with the resident. In light of the number of failures which accumulated, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated remedial works to be maladministration. The orders made reflect the maladministration to be at the higher end.

Property transfer request

The resident requested to be transferred to a new property on 29 July 2022. On 2 August 2022, the resident requested to be moved onto the waiting list for a transfer. She also requested a medical assessment due to her partner’s mental health. The landlord responded to her request for a medical assessment by listing the information and documentation the resident needed to provide. It explained this would be sent to an independent medical expert to make an assessment on whether the banding criteria could be met.
On 8 November 2022, a medical allocations officer emailed the resident and handled the matter.
The landlord showed good practice by immediately acknowledging the resident’s request for a property transfer. It confirmed the information it required from the resident. It also informed the resident of the required information upon her request for a medical assessment and allocated her with an officer to manage the application. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request before it was referred to a medical assessment was prompt and reasonable. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.

Request for reimbursement of damaged personal possessions

On 19 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s insurance department to request reimbursement of damaged personal possessions as a result of the damp and mould.
The landlord provided the resident with a claim form. She completed the claim form on 1 September 2022 and submitted it by post on 6 September 2022 with evidence of the damaged items and costings. The landlord acknowledged the claim form on 8 September 2022. It explained it had been referred to its public liability insurer which would investigate the claim and liability.
This Service is unable to investigate the landlord’s insurers decision to reject the resident’s claim. However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement can be considered. The evidence provided by the landlord showed it promptly acknowledged the resident’s request for reimbursement. It provided the resident a claim form which was submitted and acknowledged within approximately 3 weeks of the resident’s enquiry.
The landlord showed good practice in its handling of the resident’s request and did not cause any delays. Whilst this Service recognises the outcome was not favourable for the resident, the landlord’s handling of the request and its referral to its insurers was reasonable. This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of damaged personal possessions.

The associated complaint

On 3 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to complain and raised several concerns with regards to delays to the completion of repairs which were agreed between her solicitor and the landlord. On 4 August 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising her to report concerns she has relating to delays of repairs to her solicitor as there was an ongoing legal case.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. A complaints policy must clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter would not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents, such as legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim, such as the claim form and particulars of claim, having been filed at court.
Whilst the resident had instructed a solicitor to represent her, her solicitor had not filed the claim at court. The solicitor had been engaging with the landlord under the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims. Landlords should continue to use the complaints procedure when the pre-action protocol has commenced and until legal proceedings have been issued, to maximise the opportunities to resolve disputes outside of Court. Landlords should ensure their approach is consistent with this Service’s guidance and their legal and complaint teams work together effectively where an issue is being pursued through the complaints process and protocol.
The landlord therefore should not have refused to accept the resident’s complaint about delays to carry out the repairs. Whilst the landlord’s complaint policy allowed it to refuse complaints on this basis, its complaint policy did not correctly apply the complaint handling exclusions which are outlined in the Code. This is evidence of a complaint handling failure. The issues related to the repair delays reported by the resident have been investigated earlier in this report.
The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 4 November 2022. An acknowledgement of a complaint is an important part of the internal complaints procedure. It ensures the resident receives confirmation her complaint had been received and manages her expectations with regards to the timescales expected as set out within a landlord’s complaint policy. It is disappointing the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. This Service recognises it caused the resident distress and inconvenience. This was a policy failing and was not in line with the Code.
Whilst the landlord did provide acknowledgement of the resident’s email with additional information relating to her complaint on 13 December 2022, it confirmed it would only consider the complaint point relating to the assessment carried out by the surveyor in November 2022, as the other complaint issues had been considered in a previous complaint.
The only evidence of a previous complaint provided to this Service was in December 2020 and has been excluded from the scope of this investigation. Whilst the issues of damp and mould may be a repeat complaint issue, the circumstances of the damp and mould reported by the resident was that it would come back. The resident was therefore reporting new issues of damp and mould at the property. The landlord should not have excluded this from its internal complaints procedure and is evidence of poor complaint handling.
The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response to the resident until 29 December 2022. This was 8 weeks after the resident’s initial complaint on 4 November 2022 and is evidence of poor complaint handling. The landlord did not provide evidence it sought to contact the resident to request agree an extension, nor managed the resident’s expectation and provided a date she should receive the response.
There were failings throughout the landlord’s complaint handling. Its complaint policy was not in line with the Code and caused it to refuse a complaint where legal proceedings had not formally commenced. It refused to consider the damp and mould as new and ongoing issues which resulted in it failing to properly investigate the reported concerns of the resident. It also failed to acknowledge the resident’s second complaint which resulted in it failing to meet its policy timescales. This Service appreciates the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould and associated remedial works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the property transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the request for reimbursement of damaged personal possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a medical banded property transfer is considered outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately consider the history of reported damp and mould to inform its approach and consider alternative remedial action to resolve the damp and mould as a lasting and enduring remedy.
It failed to document inspections of the loft insulation and its communication with the resident is poorly documented. It failed to be proactive or show it understood the impact upon the resident and her household.
It was on notice of possible contributing factors to the ongoing issues and possible solutions but did not act promptly. It also failed to complete any risk or decant assessments and support the resident to manage condensation in her property or signpost her to other services to support her.
The landlord acted appropriately to provide the resident with the information and required documentation to support her with making a property transfer request and a claim to its public liability insurer.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable, and it incorrectly applied the Code’s exclusion principles in its complaints policy and complaint handling, leading to several issues reported by the resident to be refused for investigation as part of its internal complaints process.
It did not acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and took 8 weeks to provide its stage 1 response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1300 in compensation comprising of:
  1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the landlord’s failure to consider her family’s vulnerabilities in its handling of reported damp and mould and the associated repairs.
  2. £400 time and trouble the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of reported damp and mould and the associated repairs.
  3. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The review must include:
1. A review of its risk assessment and decant procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required.
2. Complete a risk and decant assessment on the family in light of the proposed repairs identified in its survey of November 2022.
3. A review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store attendance reports of all attendances from its repairs team and contractors with detailed investigation.
4. A review of its complaints policy to ensure it is updated to reflect the correct position on the exclusion criteria, that it can accept a complaint into its complaints procedure up until court proceedings are issued.
5. Review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its position against the Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report provided on recording reports of repair.
2. The landlord consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the Code.