Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202336653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336653

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

30 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and odour in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupied a bungalow under an assured tenancy which had begun on 17 April 2018. The landlord had recorded for the resident that she had mental health issues.

The complaint:

On 23 October 2023, the resident made a complaint that:
1. She had complained every year about mould and smell “coming from” her bedroom.
2. The landlord had not identified the underlying reasons. In 2022, it had told her there was no damp and its surveyor had advised her to leave her heating on constantly which was costing her “a small fortune”. She was told to telephone the landlord if the smell got worse.
3. It had suggested that the smell could be coming from raw garlic that was growing outside the property although there was no garlic.
4. She had replaced her bedroom and landing carpet with laminated flooring which cost £1,000, her curtains with blinds and had decorated her room every year and twice that year alone. She had replaced her bed less than six months ago but it was already covered in mould as were her clothes, furnishings and mattress. She had purchased a dehumidifier at a cost of £100. It ran 24 hours a day. It held 5 litres of water and she emptied it every morning.
5. The conditions were having a detrimental effect on her health with respiratory and allergy issues and it was affecting her mental health.
6. She wanted to move.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord replied as follows:
1. It set out the steps it had taken to date in relation to her reports of damp and mould and the smell.
2. It did not uphold the complaint as there was “no breakdown to either the external /internal fabric, or any component”, which was causing or contributing to the mould formation in the property.
On 21 November 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint and added that the landlord had blocked vents into the property.
On 19 December 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It noted that her complaint was that it had failed to complete works that were supposed to have been carried out in 2018 and the wall vents had been blocked off.
2. Works that were raised in October 2023 had been completed on 24 November 2023.
3. It set out the steps it had taken and the contents of its inspection reports.
4. It partially upheld the complaint as the landlord had closed her case in 2022, contrary to its “Procedure for the Reporting of Damp, Mould and Condensation” and it apologised. However, it had inspected the property and had been unable to identify any issues.
5. It offered £100 for this failure which it asked the resident to accept in “full and final settlement”.
6. It referred the resident to a specialist team in relation to her claim for compensation for her personal belongings.

Documents.

The investigation has considered and will refer to the following documents:
1. Damp and Mould report by the landlord 20 December 2018 (the “2018 Report”).
2. Damp and mould questionnaire, being a report taken by the landlord and dated 4 October 2022 (the “2022 Questionnaire”).
3. Damp and Mould report by the landlord dated 30 October 2023 (the “2023 Report”).
4. Emails and correspondence between the parties.
5. Extract repair records.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

We would not normally investigate historical complaints. That is because we expect residents to make complaints within 12 months of an event complained about. That is because records may be missing and memories fade. It is also so that the landlord can respond in a timely manner to the event complained of. We will, however, look at the circumstances when considering the scope and extent of our investigations.
There was a dispute as to whether the landlord had stated in 2018 that it would arrange to install a replacement cartridge for the resident’s kitchen fan and a constantly running fan for the bathroom. It is noted that the 2018 Report did not indicate that any works were planned and there was no evidence that the resident ever chased these works, which might have evidenced whether or not they were promised to her.
In this case, the resident was complaining about a lack of specific action following a specific event (promise of repairs) rather than an ongoing issue. In the circumstances, we will not investigate the 2018 events but we will refer to them for context and where relevant to further events.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and odour in the property.
While the resident had stated she had complained every year, there was no evidence of reports or complaints by the resident of damp and mould other than those in November 2018, October 2022, and October 2023, when the resident made her complaint.
There was no dispute that there was damp and mould in the property, although there was a dispute about the level of mould. The photographs attached to the reports did not indicate significant amounts of mould but the photographs are not conclusive as they are not comprehensive. The 2018 report confirmed the presence of condensation and mould in the bedroom and living room.
The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the next report by the resident of 3 October 2022 within a reasonable period. It appeared that the landlord completed the 2022 Questionnaire following her report of 3 October 2022 of a “bad smell”. The 2022 Questionnaire stated that she had referenced previous reports of damp and mould. It noted that “she did not say there was mould but the smell was really bad again”. This was treated as an issue about damp and mould. An inspection that took place on the same day focused on smell. The repair records referred to the landlord’s, or contractor’s, operative advice to keep heating on, which indicated that the operative considered that there was a link between the smell and mould. The notes did not record whether or not there was any mould, which was poor record keeping in that instance. It was unreasonable, given the resident stated that she could not afford to have heating on all winter, not to have offered a referral for money advice at that time. However, we cannot definitely conclude there was significant mould in the property at that inspection.
According to the landlord’s internal notes, it was agreed on 12 October 2022 that the resident would telephone the landlord if there were further concerns about the smell. There was a dispute about whether the resident was to call if the smell got worse or whether it returned. However, it was agreed that it was open to the resident to call back.
In its Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should not have closed its case in October 2022. Its position, however, was that it would not have done anything anyway as it had established there was no underlying disrepair that had caused the mould. Whilst it was appropriate to consider any underlying repair issues, the landlord had not considered what steps it could have taken in order to alleviate the mould and condensation, such as examining the vents, and installing and/or improving extractor fans.
While the 2022 notes could have been clearer, it was reasonable that the landlord was able to demonstrate in its 2018 and 2023 reports the condition of the property and what actions it took. The reports confirmed that the landlord, appropriately, checked the damp course. They also evidenced the readings by a combination of a detailed notes and photographs.
There was no evidence that the resident made a further report until her complaint in 2023. The 2023 report stated that the only mould was a “very, very slight mould on the window frame in the bedroom and lounge” and there was no sign of discolouration. The resident reported that she had wiped off the mould on the morning of the visit. This meant there was no evidence of significant mould at that time. Given this, the landlord’s response was reasonable, in that it arranged works to improve the ventilation.
In 2018, the landlord investigated the garlic-like smell by removing the vent covers and covered the vents with PVC. The resident put to the landlord that the closure of the air vents in 2018 would have affected ventilation. There was no evidence that the landlord checked the air vents in 2022 or 2023. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this or rebutted the resident’s concern. The complaint response did not address this point or make reference to the repair in October 2018 when the landlord removed the vent covers and covered the vents with PVC to stop the smell. We cannot say how much of an impact this would have had on the level of ventilation, and therefore the mould, but sealing vents would not have assisted the ventilation. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not investigate this aspect.
It was disputed as to whether the resident kept her heating on and opened her windows. The 2018 Report noted that the central heating was off, the window trickle vents were closed and the extractor fans were working. In the 2022 questionnaire, the resident wrote that she could not afford to heat every room and keep the windows open. The 2023 Report noted that the window vents were open in the bedroom and the trickle vents were open.The ambient temperature was higher but the humidity and “dew point” were as in 2018. The thermostat was set at 19 degrees. It also noted that the resident informed the surveyor that she was not able to“purge ventilate” due to this making her feel “insecure” in the property.
Furthermore, the surveyor’s notes of 8 December 2023 recorded that, on 6 and 7 December, there was condensation on the windows and the windows were closed. He had advised her to ventilate for approximately 20/30 minutes a day and ensure the trickle vents remained open and not to keep the windows open all day and over ventilate. It noted on the inspection that the heating programme was on the constant setting. However, the boiler was not extracting fumes, initially indicating that it had not been on. The air temperature was 15/16 c. The Ombudsman is sympathetic that energy costs are high and the resident was having difficulty with her energy bills. It was, however, reasonable for the landlord to conclude that, while the ventilation had improved, the heating was not kept on as advised.
However, balancing ventilation and heating is difficult, as is demonstrated by the landlord’s advice including keeping the heating on constantly, to ventilating only for short periods and not having the humidifier on. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord provides a clear explanation in terms of balancing heating and ventilation.
While the landlord did not identify any underlying cause for the damp and mould,this does not absolve it from its responsibilities, as the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should consider other measures, such as improving ventilation of the property.
Though the fans were working, the landlord took the view they could be more efficient. It was reasonable that the landlord ordered works to improve ventilation, made a referral for financial assistance and advice, and resolved issues that arose in relation to the works including:
1. Replace cartridge in kitchen fan
2. Replace wet room fan with a specified fan.
3. Remove and adjust shower rail to accommodate the new fan.
4. Install a positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the hallway.
While the landlord should have considered acting sooner, it was reasonable that the landlord installed measures to reduce the humidity in the property. There was evidence in December 2023 that the improvements by the landlord had begun to have an effect. The surveyor had noted there was no dehumidifier in the property this time. He considered that the relative humidity had fallen due to the installation of the PIV. It was reasonable that after the works were carried out, the landlord considered the resident’s reports that the constantly running ventilation was reducing the temperature around the thermostat and gave reassurance that the ventilation was directed at the ceiling not the thermostat.
The landlord also acted reasonably in arranging, according to its note of 8 December 2023, for the installation of additional ‘baffle’ into the PIV outlet and, additionally, demonstrated that no air from the unit was directly falling onto the thermostat.
The Ombudsman refers to the landlord to our Spotlight report on damp and mould 2021. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). One of the prevalent issues identified in the Spotlight report was attributing blame to the resident for how they managed the property, in particular regarding heating and ventilating, often referred to by landlords as the resident’s “lifestyle”. It is noted that the 2018 report was headed “lifestyle” and this was removed by the time of the 2023 report indicating a change of approach. The landlord carried out a damp and mould self-assessment. It is also noted that the landlord produced a report in November 2023 to look at its approach to damp and mould.
Heating and ventilation are important factors in damp and mould caused by condensation and therefore the landlord’s advice was reasonable. Our Spotlight report notes that the greatest barrier to heating a property is fuel poverty. This was as true in 2022 as it was in 2023. It is noted that in 2023, the landlord referred the resident to its money advice agency and other support. Blame is not attributed to the landlord for energy costs. However, a landlord can still offer assistance. It was reasonable that, in 2023, in both its surveyor’s inspection and complaint responses, it referred the resident to money advice and other support, but again, this should have been considered sooner.
While it was reasonable that the landlord carried out works to improve the ventilation in the property and made appropriate referrals, it should have considered takingthese steps sooner, in 2022. There was no evidence that it considered applying anti-mould paint. In addition, it should also have investigated the issue of the vents covered by PVC in 2018. For that reason, the Ombudsman finds maladministration. The Ombudsman will make an order for compensationbut it will reflect the level of mould evidenced and the improvements that the landlord made in 2023.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint response was prompt and set out the chronology of events in detail, which fairly reflected the landlord’s records overall. The offer of £100 reasonably recognised it did not follow process in 2022. It was also reasonable to refer the resident to its specific insurance team to consider the damage to her possessions as it would be better placed to consider the evidence in detail and weigh up liability. The Ombudsman is unable to make definite findings about what impact the mould had on the resident’s belongings and what proportion of fault can be attributed to the landlord.
This investigation found that the complaint response was not sufficiently thorough. The resident’s complaint was that the landlord covering up the vents in 2018 had impacted on the property ever since. The response did not refer to the repair or address the resident’s point in that regard at all or explain why it did not do so. It was relevant to the complaint as the resident attributed the condition of the property to the covering up of the vents. It was not sufficiently self-reflective in that it did not address whether the landlord should have considered installing mitigating measures sooner but rather focussed on the property not having underlying defects which caused condensation.
It was inappropriate to refer to an offer of compensation as “full and final settlement” as this gives the impression that if the resident accepts it, she is bound by it. That is not the case, as a resident may refer the matter to this Service or even, if she wished to, to a court. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation accordingly.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and a smell.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £500, including the £100 offered in its Stage 2 response and consisting as follows:
  1. £100 if offered in its Stage 2 response, if not paid already.
  2. £300 in relation to its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should inspect the property and consider unblocking the wall vents and taking any other preventative steps such as applying mould paint.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should write to the resident with a clear specific advice on heating and ventilation the property and use of humidifiers, taking into account any double-glazing and provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
4. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with a schedule of any works with a reasonable timescale for completion.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 week and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendation:
1. The landlord should consider removing reference to a “full and final settlement” from its offers of compensation unless both parties intend to enter into a legally binding agreement and the resident is aware of the consequences.
The landlord should provide feedback on this recommendation to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.