Wandsworth Council (201900330)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900330

Wandsworth Council

2 September 2021


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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a third-floor three–bedroom flat.
  2. The resident had made historical reports of issues relating to damp, mould, and condensation to the landlord since 2014. The Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a complaint about dissatisfaction with a landlord within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, while some historical information may be included for context, this investigation will focus on events from July 2019 onwards, this being six months prior to the current complaint being raised by the resident.
  3. The landlord inspected the property on 7 February 2018 and noted that the heating there was obstructed, the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not working, and the windows were closed. It concluded that the damp and mould reported by the resident were the result of condensation and gave her advice on how to reduce this. The landlord also arranged for the replacement of the extractor fans and for a mould wash of the affected areas. On 26 February 2018, it attended to carry out the mould wash, which was refused by the resident, and on 4 April 2018 it recorded that it could not gain access to her property to replace the fans and asked her to contact it to make an appointment for this.
  4. The landlord carried out a joint visit to the resident’s property on 25 May 2019, where it concluded that the causes of the reported mould issues were lifestyle and lack of ventilation. She reported that she could not open windows due to her disability. Remedial works were raised which included carrying a mould wash, applying stain block, replastering, renewing a bath panel, and repainting. These works were completed in August 2019. Window opening adaptations were installed in the property on 1 July 2019 and the extractor fan in the property was replaced on 14 June 2019.
  5. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 12 January 2020 about its response to her reports of damp and mould. She said that it had attended her property in August 2019 to carry out a mould wash and painted three of her walls. However, by November 2019, the mould had returned and was “spreading very fast”. The resident said that the landlord’s treatment had not remedied the mould, which was a constant problem. She wanted it to provide a permanent solution to the problem. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the following day, advising it had forwarded the matter to another team who would respond directly.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 November 2020 to say that she had not received a response to her complaint. It replied to her on 12 November 2020 to advise that the complaint was not passed to the correct team until 6 November 2020. The landlord relayed to the resident that it proposed to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system to the property to improve the airflow and reduce the condensation within this. It informed her that it had raised a request for its contractor to contact her to arrange access and install the PIV unit. Additionally, the landlord explained that it was not currently carrying out visits to properties due to the corona virus pandemic and asked her to send it photographs of the mould-affected areas.
  7. The resident provided photographs of the areas affected by mould at her property on 26 November 2020.
  8. After receiving contact from the resident, this Service intervened on 26 January 2021 to request that the landlord provide a response to the resident’s complaint.
  9. The landlord’s contractor emailed the resident on 2 February 2021 to advise that they had been attempting to contact her to arrange an appointment for the installation of the PIV unit, and that they had left a voicemail message for her offering an appointment for 4 February 2021. She was asked to confirm if this appointment was convenient for her.
  10. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 18 February 2021, in which it referred to its inspection on 7 February 2018 where it had found no evidence of penetrating damp at the property and found that high levels of condensation were responsible for the mould there. It provided advice to her on how to reduce condensation in the property, which included using extractor fans, maintaining background heating, and not drying clothes on radiators.
  11. The landlord noted that the resident had reported mould and damp to it again on 12 January 2020, but that she did not make further contact with it about this until 12 November 2020, when it raised a work order to install a PIV unit at the property. It advised her that this unit was “highly effective” in reducing condensation levels in properties, and it noted that it had received no response from her to its contact to make an appointment for this installation.
  12. The landlord found that it had “responded promptly when [the resident] had brought matters to [its] attention”. It, therefore, did not uphold the complaint and urged her to respond to its appointment request to install the PIV unit.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure on 1 March 2021. She said that it had not responded to her since her last contact on 6 November 2020 about the mould and that it had not contacted her nor carried out repairs within a reasonable time.
  14. The landlord’s contractor emailed the resident on 16 March 2021 to reschedule the appointment to install the PIV unit at her property. They offered an appointment for 10 May 2021 and asked her for confirmation if this was suitable.
  15. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 25 March 2021. It relayed to her that, in response to her contact on 6 November 2020, it had emailed her on 12 November 2020 to advise that it had arranged for a PIV unit to be installed at the property and requested photographs of the damp and mould there. The landlord said that it had received the resident’s stage one complaint on 28 January 2021, and that it had found that there had been a delay in arranging the PIV installation due to a communication issue with its contractor. 
  16. The landlord noted that it had then contacted the resident on 2 February 2021 to arrange a date to install the PIV unit but had received no response to this. It asserted that there was no penetrating damp at the property and that the damp and mould was caused by condensation. The landlord said that the level of condensation there was within the control of the resident.
  17. The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s contact on 12 January 2020, and it said that this was an error on its part and that it had misplaced the complaint. It apologised for this. The landlord asserted that it did respond promptly to the resident’s subsequent contact on 6 November 2020 and that, while there was a delay in arranging for the PIV unit to be installed, some delay was to be expected due to the impact of the corona virus pandemic. It said that, once it had discovered the communication error leading to a delay, it had made efforts to contact her urgently about the installation.
  18. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s final stage complaint, as it considered that it had taken reasonable actions in response to her reports, but it acknowledged that it did not action her complaint sooner. In recognition of this, it offered her compensation of £100. The landlord assured the resident that it had a new centralised complaints process, which would prevent a recurrence of her delayed complaint response.
  19. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord had not addressed the issue of damp in her roof space, remedied the damp and condensation throughout her property or repaired and decorated the areas affected by this. She added that it had rescheduled repair appointments, and that it had offered her a level of compensation that did not reflect the amount of time that it was taking to carry out repairs or the damage caused to the property by damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s housing policy and procedures confirm that residents are responsible for keeping their homes clean and in a good state of repair, and that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of their properties but may carry out repairs that are its residents’ responsibility if they are unable to do so due to their age, disability or other special reason.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction with the [landlord], however expressed”. This procedure provides for a two-stage complaints process, with written responses to be issued to the resident within 20 working days at stage one of the process and within 15 working days at the final stage of the process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

  1. When a landlord receives a report of a repair issue, its first response should be to inspect the matter. In this case, however, it was reasonable for it not carry out a visit in person following the resident’s damp and mould reports of 6 November 2020 onwards due to the challenges posed by the corona virus pandemic, and to instead examine photographs of the problem reported by her on 26 November 2020.
  2. It was also suitable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its suitable qualified staff and contractors, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to conclude on 8 February 2021 that the reason for the resident’s reported damp and mould issue was still condensation, based on the above photographs and on its staff’s and contractors’ previous inspections on 7 February 2018 and 25 May 2019.
  3. As confirmed by the landlord’s housing policy and procedures, above at paragraph 21, the resident was responsible for keeping the property clean. The landlord had an obligation only to repair defects in the structure and exterior of the property. As there was no evidence that the damp and mould was a result of any defect in the structure of the property and was instead found to be as a result of condensation due to the resident’s use of the property, it would have had no obligation to repair this.
  4. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to do so, as the policy and procedures permitted it to repair this for the resident if she was unable to do so due to age, disability or other special reason, with its contractor reporting difficulty with contacting her to arrange the repair appointments that she complained that they had rescheduled.
  5. The landlord, therefore, acted in excess of its obligations to carry out works to address the levels of condensation in the property. As such, it responded reasonably to the resident’s report of damp and mould by proposing to install a PIV unit to reduce this from 12 November 2020 onwards. This may have been an improvement to the property and that was no obligation on the landlord to carry out. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure in the actions taken by it in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould as, although it is of concern that it her complaint about this of 12 January 2020 was only dealt with from the above date onwards, this delay was addressed in its below response to its complaint handling.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord did not log a stage one complaint from the resident when she first complained to it on 12 January 2020, and it did not do so until intervention from this Service on 26 January 2021. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. In this instance, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the work done by the landlord to combat the mould at her property. Therefore, it should have recognised that this was a complaint about its service and treated this accordingly. The fact that the landlord did not do so was therefore a failure in its handling of the complaint, contrary to its complaints procedure above at paragraph 22.
  2. While it is noted that the resident did not subsequently follow up on her stage one complaint to the landlord with it again until 6 November 2020. Nevertheless, she was not required to expend further effort for it to address her concerns, which had instead inappropriately delayed the resolution of her complaint until after the above date.
  3. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for this and offered her compensation of £100 on 25 March 2021. There was previously no evidence of further contact attempted by the resident with it until 6 November 2020 to enquire about her complaint, at which point it responded to her reports of damp and mould promptly from 12 November 2020 onwards. Although the landlord failed to respond to the stage one complaint until 18 February 2021, which was unreasonable.
  4. Nevertheless, the above offer of compensation was reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case, and this proportionately reflected the likely inconvenience caused to the resident by the above delay in addressing the complaint. This is because the amount is broadly in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact”. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord was an offer of reasonable redress to the resident.
  5. It is of concern, however, that the resident reports that the landlord had not addressed the issue of damp in her roof space, remedied the damp and condensation throughout her property or repaired and decorated the areas affected by this. It has therefore been recommended below to contact her to respond to her concerns about this, as well as to pay her the above compensation and re-offer her the installation of the PIV unit at the property.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of damp and mould by proposing to carry out work to address this which was in excess of its obligations.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to handle the resident’s complaint promptly and made a reasonable offer of compensation in recognition of this.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Re-offer the resident the installation of the PIV unit at her property to address the condensation there, if this has not yet been installed.
    3. Respond to the resident’s reports of outstanding damp in her roof space, damp and condensation throughout her property, and repairs and decorations in the areas affected by this.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.