Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202410129)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410129

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

25 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Concerns about asbestos.
The landlord’s complaint handling is also considered.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that started on 8 February 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom, second floor flat which the resident shares with her partner and 3 children. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s children have respiratory conditions. The resident also has asthma.
The evidence shows the property has a history of damp and mould dating back to approximately 2012.
The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 4 March 2023. The landlord attended on 7 March 2023 and carried out a ‘clean and shield’ (a mould clean and application of a barrier substance to affected areas).
The resident told the local authority environmental health on 15 February 2024 that she believed the property was unfit for human habitation.
On 16 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about severe and persistent damp at the property, which she said had caused her children to develop asthma.
On 26 February 2024 the landlord confirmed the complaint was about damp and mould, untreated asbestos and the presence of a ventilation unit in the family’s living room. It carried out a damp, mould and ventilation survey at the property on 7 March 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024. The landlord said it would arrange an air testand for the damp-affected areas to be cleaned. The landlord said it would undertake an asbestos survey on 20 March 2024. The landlord awarded £150 compensation.
On 15 April 2024 the resident rejected the landlord’s compensation offer and asked for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2.
On 22 April 2024 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint escalation request.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It acknowledged the damp and mould issues at the property dated back to 2012. The landlord said that following the resident’s complaint it had conducted an air flow test and asbestos survey. The landlord awarded £2,100 compensation for service failures over a 12-year period.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

The resident has raised concerns about the effect of damp, mould and asbestos on her family’s health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Response to reports of damp and mould

The landlord has said there is a history of damp and mould in the property that dates back 12 years. It has said that the resident reported issues with damp and mould during this period. The landlord has said it attended after each report and treated the damp and mould, however, the issues reoccurred.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The landlord has said the resident made a further report of damp and mould at the property on 4 March 2023. The landlord then attended on 4 May 2023 and carried out a ‘clean and shield’ at the property.
The landlord’s website states that it will complete ‘emergency’ repairs within 24 hours and ‘normal’ priority repairs within 20 working days. The ‘clean and shield’ was carried out 42 working days after the resident reported the damp and mould. The landlord has not provided the repair records detailing the report or the categorisation of the repair. The evidence suggests the landlord attended as a ‘routine repair’. The landlord acted inappropriately by exceeding its target response time by 22 working days.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord conducted a visual inspection, which found mould in the bathroom, entrance hall and toilet. The inspection report stated the property had no structural or mechanical issues. No damp or humidity measurements were recorded. The report attributed the damp and mould to the resident’s behaviour and the flat being heated inconsistently. The resident has disputed these conclusions. The resident has said the heating was on constantly, but that an extractor fan in the living room produced cold air, which lowered the temperature in the property.
The landlord has not provided repair records for the property. It has, however, acknowledged the history of damp and mould issues and said that although it attended in response to every report, the issues reoccurred.
As the property had been affected by damp and mould for an extended period it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have investigated whether there was an underlying reason for the recurrent issues. Furthermore, the failure to record damp measurements in the property meant the landlord did not have a baseline against which to establish if any remedial measures were effective.
On 15 February 2024 the resident told Environmental Health that she believed the property was unfit for human habitation. The resident said there had been persistent condensation, mould and damp at the property for over 13 years. The resident said the landlord had installed a large ventilator in the living room, which blowed cold air into the property. The resident detailed her children’s health conditions which included asthma, respiratory issues, severe allergies and skin conditions.
The resident complained to the landlord on 16 February 2024 about severe and persistent damp at the property, which she said had caused her children to develop asthma. The resident also provided letters from a children’s wellbeing worker, and the hospital treating that was caring for her daughter. The letters were addressed to the landlord. The hospital letter expressed concern that the daughter’s living conditions were exacerbating her asthma and “could lead to a severe life-threatening asthma attack”. It said that due to environmental triggers in the property the hospital was unable to adequately control the daughter’s symptoms. In her letter, the children’s wellbeing worker stated she believed the family’s housing situation, the property’s condition and overcrowding were contributing to the family’s health conditions.
The landlord said that it raised a work order for a damp and mould survey on 20 February 2024.
The landlord’s mould and damp policy dated 22 June 2023 sets out a series of objectives. These include for the landlord to act quickly (within 48 hours) once notified of mould and damp, and to visit all homes treated for damp and mould within 6 months of the initial treatment.
The resident reported ongoing damp and mould in her complaint on 16 February 2024 and the landlord raised a work order for a survey 4 days later. The landlord did not therefore meet its target timeline of responding within 48 hours.
Following a conversation with the resident on 21 February 2024, the landlord confirmed the complaint was about unresolved damp and mould and the presence of a “huge” ventilator in the living room, which emitted cold air and heightened her children’s respiratory problems. The landlord said the resident was seeking compensation and a lasting resolution to the disrepair.
The resident told the landlord on 24 February 2024 that as part of the resolution she wanted to be rehoused in a property that was safe and mould-free.
A contractor carried out a damp, mould and ventilation survey on 7 March 2024. The survey report noted mould throughout the property and recorded humidity levels more than 74 percent. The report said the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were not functioning properly and the toilet had no ventilation unit. It noted the resident’s concerns about severe damp and mould and a leak in the toilet ceiling, which it said might require further investigation. The report did not include an assessment of the ventilation unit in the living room. It recommended a new ventilation system, which entailed the installation of new or replacement fans in the kitchen, bathroom, toilet and bedrooms. A mould sterilisation treatment and the application of barrier paint were also recommended.
The landlord confirmed on 26 February 2024 that it had amended its complaint record to show the resident wanted to be rehoused permanently.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024. The landlord said it had carried out a ‘clean and shield on 7 March 2023’ but the mould had returned to the same areas. The landlord said it had arranged a survey of ventilation at the property and assessment of the unit in the living room and would contact the resident when it received the survey results.
The landlord went on to say that for a mould wash to work it would need to remove the wallpaper and asked for the resident’s approval to do so. The landlord said it could arrange for a ‘decoration pack, so the resident could redecorate after the works. It said that for the condensation to be addressed the property needed to be heated and ventilated adequately, and the steam from the kitchen and bathroom contained. It asked the resident to adhere to the recommendations in the survey report. The landlord awarded £150 compensation and provided a ‘cost of living’ leaflet’.
On 15 April 2024 the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation and asked for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2.
On 8 May 2024 the resident told the landlord her daughter had attended A&E because of breathing difficulties and that she struggled to breath when in the property. The resident said that no matter how much she cleaned, the mould returned. The landlord responded on 13 May 2024 and said the repairs team would contact the resident within 5 days.
On 14 May 2024 the landlord raised a work order for a mould treatment and the installation of ventilation equipment at the property.
The evidence indicates the landlord agreed the survey report recommendation that a new ventilation to be installed in the property. The landlord had, however, committed previously to investigate the living room extractor fan. The report did not contain an assessment of the unit and there is no evidence the landlord undertook a separate assessment. The landlord’s records do not set out why in the absence of this assessment it believed the proposed resolution would be sufficient.
On 15 May 2024 the contractor told the landlord that ventilation works were scheduled for 30 May 2024, however, the toilet window would not be replaced in this timeframe.
The landlord had committed to update the resident with the results of the ventilation survey. There is however no evidence that the landlord provided an update to the resident prior to raising the work orders. The landlord’s failure to share the report denied the resident the opportunity to raise questions about the works. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to communicate effectively and in line with the commitments it had made. The landlord acted unreasonably in not doing so.
On 20 May 2024 the landlord asked the contractor to proceed with the mould treatment. The contractor contacted the resident on 21 May 2024 to advise it could attend that afternoon, however, the resident was not available until the following week. On 28 May 2024 the damp and mould works were put on hold pending the receipt of the asbestos test results.
On 29 May 2024 the resident asked the landlord if it could clean the damp and mould in the living room. The landlord responded the same day and said a mould wash alone was unlikely to be effective as the damp and mould would have penetrated the wallpaper.
On 16 June 2024 the landlord confirmed to Environmental Health that the resident had declined the damp and mould works.
On 18 June 2024 Environmental Health confirmed to the landlord it would inspect the property on 21 June 2024. The landlord has not provided the results of any subsequent inspection.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It acknowledged there was a history of damp and mould at the property. The landlord reiterated the steps it had taken in response to the resident’s reports and said it was unable to complete some of the works because of the resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos.
The landlord apologised to the resident and awarded £2,100 compensation for failing to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould and poor communication, over a 12-year period. The landlord said a full internal and external inspection would be carried out to establish the cause of the damp and mould. It said the contractor would contact the resident to arrange the outstanding ventilation and treatment works. It said that a post works inspection would be conducted, and 12-week inspections carried out thereafter to ensure the issues did not reoccur. The landlord said it would contact the resident to discuss her transfer request.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 24 June 2024. She said the service failures meant her children had required hospital care, and the compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate.
On 5 August 2024 the landlord offered the resident a viewing of an alternative property, which the resident subsequently declined as she wanted her case to be considered by the local authority housing panel.
The landlord’s decant policy states that if a property is being refurbished residents will only be decanted if the extent of the works means it is not feasible to stay in the property, or if a medical assessment advises they should not remain. The policy states that the landlord will discuss all options with the resident being decanted.
The landlord has said subsequently that it first offered the property to the resident as a permanent decant and then offered it as a temporary decant. There are no contemporaneous records of these offers. The resident does not agree the landlord’s account and has said she would have accepted a temporary decant in order to expediate the damp and mould works.
The landlord has said that the resident subsequently refused access on 14 august 2024, 31 October 2024, 15 November 2024 and 17 November 2024. The resident does not agree this account. The resident has told this Service she was concerned that the works could exacerbate her children’s health conditions, and had communicated this to the landlord.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and/or compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has said that prior to resident’s complaint on 16 February 2024 it had failed over a period of 12 years to affect a lasting resolution to the damp and mould in the resident’s property. The landlord apologised for this service failing and awarded £2,100 compensation. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance considers this level of award appropriate in cases of severe maladministration, where there has been long-term impact to the resident. The landlord acted reasonably in apologising and awarding compensation that was commensurate with the level of failure.
The landlord acted reasonably in committing to affect a lasting resolution to the damp and mould, and in arranging a survey of the ventilation in the property. The evidence does not, however, demonstrate that the landlord fulfilled its commitment to communicate the results of the ventilation survey to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord had said it would assess the extractor unit in the living room, but this assessment did not take place. There is also no evidence that the landlord followed up the report of a potential leak. By the landlord’s own admission, there was a long history of damp and mould at the property. It is reasonable in such circumstances to expect the landlord to have undertaken a comprehensive survey and have considered all aspects of the problem in order to have the best chance of affecting a lasting resolution.
Had the landlord’s recordkeeping and communication been more effective it could have addressed the resident’s concerns about the scope of the works, which would have allowed the damp, and mould works to take place sooner. Instead, there was confusion regarding the mould treatment and why the resident was reluctant for this to go ahead. The landlord’s handling of these issues undermined its relationship with the resident.
The landlord has said it offered the resident a permanent and then a temporary decant. The resident does not agree this account. The landlord has not provided a record of the offer. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have communicated the offer in writing and for these records to be clear and accessible.
This Service understands the remedial works remain outstanding. There is no evidence that the inspection of the external gable end wall, which the landlord committed to undertake in its stage 2 response has been completed.
As a result of these failings there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £450 compensation. This is calculated in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos

On 15 February 2024 the resident told Environmental Health she was concerned about the presence of asbestos. The resident then raised a complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2024 about the handling of untreated asbestos at the property.
Landlord’s need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved. The presence of asbestos in some, but not all circumstances can be a hazard.
The landlord raised a work order on 5 March 2024 for an asbestos ‘refurbishment’ survey to the living room at the property.
The landlord’s asbestos procedure states it will ensure the appropriate level of asbestos survey is completed before a protect starts. The landlord’s asbestos register shows that on 8 September 2019 a surveyat the property confirmed the presence of asbestos material in the living room ceiling. The landlord acted appropriately in ordering a refurbishment survey be completed.
In its stage 1 complaint response, provided on 11 March 2024 the landlord said that when it received the results of the asbestos survey it would advise the resident if further steps were required.
The landlord conducted an asbestos ‘refurbishment’ survey on 19 April 2024. The survey was a visual inspection and found no suspect materials located in the ceiling of the living room.
There is no evidence the landlord spoke with the resident about the purpose of the survey prior to it taking place. The survey report stated the resident asked that samples were not taken to avoid damage to the walls. However, when the contractor, and later the landlord spoke with the resident, it was apparent she was concerned about the asbestos being disturbed.
The landlord subsequently told Environmental Health that it spoke with the resident on 17 May 2024, and she said she understood there was asbestos present and asked that works be paused until tests were completed. The landlord also said the resident told it she did not trust the survey that had already been undertaken. The landlord said it then consulted the asbestos database and confirmed no materials were present and that works could therefore commence.
It is unclear why the landlord consulted the asbestos register after it commissioned the survey and raised work orders. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of its actions therefore it is difficult to get a clear and complete picture of the sequence of events. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have maintained accurate records to demonstrate it followed the correct procedure.
During the conversation with the landlord on 17 May 2024 the resident said she did not want the wallpaper removed because of the asbestos. The resident said at the time of previous works she was told the asbestos was safe, if it remained undisturbed.
In its stage 2 complaint response provided on 18 June 2024 the landlord summarised the resident’s concerns about the asbestos and about the initial visual survey that was conducted. The landlord said it had agreed to arrange a further survey with an alternative contractor that would test for the presence of asbestos. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to carry out further tests in order to allay the resident’s concerns and provide confidence in its actions.
The asbestos survey was carried out on 25 July 2024.
An email exchange between the landlord and Environmental Health on 12 August 2024 noted that the survey had identified asbestos under flooring in 2 areas of the property. Environmental Health said that the damp and mould works could proceed if the 2 areas were not disturbed. The landlord confirmed the works were not intrusive and the areas would not be disturbed. The landlord said that as no asbestos would be removed and therefore it would not be carrying out an air test.
In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the presence and management of asbestos materials by arranging a refurbishment survey. This was an appropriate response, however, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the purpose or findings of the survey effectively. The landlord missed the opportunity to provide clear information to the resident and address her concerns. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing a further survey and it confirmed to Environmental Health that that the proposed works would not disturb areas where asbestos was situated. As a result of the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively, this leads to a determination of service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay a further £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to communicate, in what is an emotive subject that the resident would legitimately be concerned about. This level of compensation is calculated in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 16 February 2024.
The landlord provided a written acknowledgement of receipt of the resident’s complaint on 25 February 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy states that it will acknowledge the resident’s complaint in writing within 5 working days. The policy states that the landlord will provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and provide a response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 5 working days after receipt. It provided a stage 1 complaint response 10 working days thereafter. The landlord acted in accordance with the timelines set out in its complaints policy.
On 15 April 2024 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 22 April 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2024.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint escalation request 5 working days after receipt, which was in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response 39 working days thereafter. This was 19 working days after the response timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
In summary, the landlord took too long to provide a stage 2 complaint response and did not adhere to the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. As a result there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delays. This is calculated in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to concerns about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £575 compensation. This is in addition to the compensation awarded at stage 2 and comprises:
  1. £450 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the failings in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. £75 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s response to concerns about asbestos.
  3. £50 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and should not be offset against a rent or service charge account.

Provide an updated schedule of works for the remaining internal and external works and remedial repairs. The schedule should set out how the landlord will address the issues with the living room ventilation unit raised in the resident’s original complaint. The landlord should set out how it proposes to ensure the works minimise any debris that could aggravate respiratory conditions. The necessary works should commence no later than 8 weeks from receipt of this order.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service within the specified dates above.