Wandsworth Council (202229840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229840

Wandsworth Council

29 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s application for rehousing.
2. Reports of damp, mould, draughts, and lack of insulation within the property.
3. Reports of pests within the property.

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 will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint about her request for rehousing falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident complained that her property was overcrowded and not suitable for the needs of the household. She was concerned that the medical conditions of all occupants were not fully considered within her application for a move.
The application and management of a council’s housing allocation policy concern the council’s actions as a local authority as opposed to a landlord. Complaints about local authorities and their assessment of housing needs are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
The LGSCO considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and covers assessment of such applications and the award of points.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
Based on the above, this complaint falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. She said she has lived in the property since 2009. The landlord is a local authority.
At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in the property with 3 children. Her fourth child was born in 2023.
The resident explained all household members have an allergy to mould and 3 children suffer with respiratory tract viruses, constant colds, and coughing. One child has asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and joint pain. Another child has provisional autism spectrum disorder (ASD), rhythmic movement disorder (RMD) and eczema.
The resident said she has several medical conditions, including but not limited to fibromyalgia, asthma, anxiety, depression, incontinence, dyslexia, chronic pain, and mobility issues.
The landlord is aware of the medical conditions of the household.

Scope of investigation

The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted the health of her and her family. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
Within her submission, the resident has referred to repair issues in the property since 2012 and previous complaints. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the previous complaints completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) or were referred to this Service.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states 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.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 7 June 2021 onward. This is 6 months before the resident submitted a complaint form to the landlord on 7 December 2021. This investigation considers matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 28 February 2022. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
Within the resident’s recent correspondence, she expressed concerns about:
1. The landlord’s response to her request for tree maintenance.
2. Drain and kitchen works.
3. Delays installing a PIV system.
4. The landlord’s handling of her request for a temporary decant in April 2022 and the subsequent decant which took place in January 2024.
5. Concerns about the condition of the property in February 2024.
As the concerns listed in paragraph 19 did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord in December 2021, these are not matters we can consider within this investigation. The landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident directly through its internal complaint procedure. It is open for the resident to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.
This is a complex complaint. Both parties stated that the main cause of the mould is condensation and at the time of the complaint, 4 people (each with vulnerabilities) lived in the 1-bedroom flat. Since then, the resident has had another child, and the property is overcrowded. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident and acknowledges her challenging circumstances.
To resolve this complaint, the resident asked to be moved into a property more suitable for her circumstances. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to move a resident immediately as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness. It is recommended for the landlord to continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property.

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s repairs procedure states it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of residents’ homes. It explains residents are responsible for keeping their home clean and in a good state of repair or decoration. There are no repair timescales stated in the policy provided to this Service.
On the landlord’s website, it says it will clear pests/infestations of mice, rats, cockroaches, pharaoh ants, squirrels, and pigeons. Its residents should report concerns about the above to its area housing team.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions document explains that the resident must allow access at reasonable times for its employees, agents, or contractors to inspect the property or carry out repairs. It states if a defect is reported, it will take reasonable steps to put it right within a reasonable time.

Summary of events

It is evident the resident reported damp and mould within the property on many occasions from 2011 to 2024. The landlord’s records indicate mould washes took place over the years, in addition to the installation of extractor fans.
The resident provided medical evidence to the landlord in 2011, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.
On 8 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that mould within the property was growing rapidly, destroying her possessions, and impacting the health of the household. On 19 July 2021, a work order was authorised for a mould wash to the bedroom, living room and hall “as required”.
On 15 November 2021, the resident reported a surge of “gunk” entering her bath, sink and toilet from the drain. She also reported cracks around the skirting of each wall through which spiders, silverfish, booklice and biting flies entered the property. She stated there were significant draughts within the property and mould continued to grow, impacting the health of all occupants. A work order was raised the same day for a drainage contractor to attend urgently. A CCTV survey was conducted, and the drains were jetted.
A contractor attended the property on 7 December 2021, following the work order raised on 19 July 2021 for a mould wash. Work was not completed at this time as the contractor did not have unobstructed access to the walls.
The resident made a formal complaint on 7 December 2021. She said:
1. The contractor reported that the entire walls in the hallway, bathroom, bedroom, and front room needed to be treated for mould then painted thereafter, in addition to the front door and skirting.
2. The contractor reported each room must be cleared of the resident’s belongings. It would need 6-8 hours to dry once treated for the mould, and a further 6-8 hours for the oil-based paint to dry properly. In addition, the repairs would take 7-14 days for all works to be completed and during this time, the room circumference must be clear.
3. She was concerned the fumes from the mould wash and paint were hazardous and would impact the breathing of the household. She reiterated that asthmatics live in in the property.
4. The property was overcrowded, and she was unable to clear the rooms of belongings.
5. She reminded the landlord that she was disabled, and her children had medical conditions. She asked the landlord to explain how the repairs could be done while they were occupying the property.
6. The property was also impacted by draughts and infested with insects.
Records indicate the landlord spoke with the resident on 9 December 2021 and arranged for a property inspection to take place the following day. This appointment was then cancelled the morning of the appointment.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord told the resident it was going to respond outside of its complaints process as it felt it related to service matters which it could handle quicker as a standard respond from its deputy housing manager.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day. She did not consent to her complaint being handled outside of the complaints process. She said she was living with damp, mould and insects whilst being overcrowded, which was impacting the metal and physical health of the household.
The landlord spoke with the resident and confirmed on 16 December 2021 that the complaint would be handled formally. An inspection was arranged for 17 December 2021 with a housing manager and building inspector. The landlord later said that only the housing manager attended. A report from this inspection has not been provided to this Service.
Records show a further inspection was scheduled for 12 January 2022 with the building inspector. A report from this inspection has not been provided to this Service.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 January 2022. In summary, it said:
1. The resident contacted the landlord about mould within the property in July 2021, September 2021, October 2021, and November 2021.
2. A contractor attended the property on 7 December 2021 to complete a mould wash. However, this did not go ahead as furniture was against the walls restricting access.
3. When the landlord inspected the property on 17 December 2021, the walls were tested with a damp meter and found to be dry, although mould was present. This was consistent with condensation.
4. The resident confirmed she could not remove furniture in her property to enable the mould wash to be completed.
5. On 12 January 2022, a further inspection with the building inspector took place, including the external parts of the block. It confirmed that while the presence of mould was consistent with condensation, it would investigate further as the resident had reported that her floor was damp.
6. An inspection of the external areas of the block was scheduled for 24 January 2022 to assess whether there were any external problems contributing to the issues the resident was experiencing in her property.
7. The work to treat the mould had taken longer than the landlord expected, and the lockdown restrictions were a factor. Additionally, there was a repairs backlog once restrictions were lifted. As such, the complaint was partially upheld.
8. It would further investigate the issues experienced by the resident but in the meantime, a mould wash should take place. Mould treatment and redecoration can be completed with tenants in occupation.
A thermal imaging survey took place on 24 January 2022 to investigate whether cold bridging was causing damp within the property. The report is dated 26 January 2022 and features internal and external photos. The report referenced mould and condensation on the external walls in the bedroom, living room, bathroom, and floor slab. It recorded there was no ventilation in the bathroom and no insulation to the walls or ceiling. It said that possible solutions could be, “internal wall insulation including new skirtings and extending electrical sockets etc. Insulate ground floor slab and install floating floor.” It stated the property was occupied by 4 people living in a very crowded condition, with beds, furniture, and clothes everywhere.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 February 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had not resolved the issues relating to major repairs within her property, including external walls, poor insulation, significant draughts, mould, and damp. There was an infestation of biting insects.
2. Her family had developed substantial health issues as the property was unsuitable for them.
3. She initially moved into the property as a solo person in 2009 and since then had 3 children. She outlined the health conditions of the members of the household and the impact of their living conditions.
4. She was informed during the inspection on 24 January 2022 that the property was constructed with concrete and brick, with no insulation.
5. In the corners of the rooms, the floorboards were soaking wet without water pouring onto them.
6. To resolve the matter, she wanted to be rehoused to suitable accommodation that met the needs of her family. She also wanted compensation for the damage to her personal belongings and the impact on the health of her and her family.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 February 2022. It said:
1. Following the inspection on 24 January 2022, no issues with the damp proof course were identified.
2. The issues experienced by the resident were due to condensation.
3. It would continue with the works already outlined, including a mould wash and redecoration of the affected areas.
4. There may have been some miscommunication surrounding repair timescales previously. It apologised for any confusion or distress caused.
5. Contractors had been trying to contact the resident to make a mould wash appointment for 1 to 3 March 2022. Once completed, redecoration works would be arranged and should take around 2 days.
6. It recognised the resident reported issues with pests. It asked her to confirm the problem so that its pest control team could investigate.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 February 2022. It summarised the background of the complaint and said:
1. Contractors proposed a mould wash to take place on 1 to 3 March 2022. The landlord has arranged for the contractors to help move items so that the works could be completed. Following this, redecoration would be arranged.
2. It apologised for the works not being carried out within a reasonable period.
3. It did not address the resident’s concern about pests within the property at stage 1, however it noted that in recent conversations with the resident about her complaint, she had not mentioned this. It said it had requested further information from the resident and once she responded, it would ensure the relevant action is taken.
4. A further inspection took place on 24 January 2022 in which it was confirmed there was no penetrating or rising damp at the property and the mould was condensation related.
5. A significant factor in the build-up of condensation was the number of occupants and personal belongings in the property, restricting airflow and ventilation.
6. It partially upheld her complaint and would continue to liaise with the resident regarding outstanding repairs.
7. It identified learning from the complaint in that work orders should be monitored through to completion to ensure repairs are concluded within a reasonable timeframe.

Events which occurred after the end of the complaints process

On 28 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she was not available on the proposed dates for the mould wash. She reiterated that she wanted to be contacted via email only. She said she was available the week commencing 14 March 2022.
The landlord responded on 2 March 2022 to confirm the mould wash had been booked in for 14 and 15 March 2022. It asked the resident to confirm whether she was still experiencing a problem with insects in the property.
The resident cancelled the appointment for 14 March 2022. This was rescheduled to 21 March 2022.
The resident later reported that the fumes from the mould wash triggered their asthma and the lack of space and change in routine had caused behavioural difficulties in her children. She said she had arranged for the remaining redecorations to the hallway and bedroom take place in May 2022 and wanted to be reaccommodated during the works.
The resident reported further mould within the property during 2022. In November 2022, she agreed (via her solicitor) to have a further mould wash and a work order was raised. The resident asked for temporary accommodation as she felt her children’s breathing would be affected by the mould wash chemicals.
A third-party advocacy service contacted the landlord in July 2023. It explained the resident was pregnant with her fourth child and was living in a one-bedroom flat with severe damp and mould.
The landlord raised another work order for a mould wash in August 2023. It arranged another inspection to investigate the resident’s reports of issues within the property. During the inspection, it said it took damp readings and did not identify a leak. Condensation was identified as the cause of the mould.
Following the inspection, the landlord said it would install a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system and complete a mould wash.
The resident continued to inform the landlord that she and her family could not stay in the property while mould works were completed. She provided medical evidence which the landlord referred to its medical advisor. The medical advisor stated the mould works could take place on a room-by-room basis with screening in place.
In November 2023, the landlord agreed to temporarily decant the resident and her family for 2 days to enable the mould wash to take place. The resident responded with several questions and said her baby was due on 9 November 2023. The landlord explained the offer of temporary accommodation was for the duration of the mould treatment only.
The resident asked the landlord to complete all remedial works and not just the mould treatment when her and her family were decanted. She said she had a newborn baby in addition to 3 children with medical conditions, as well as being disabled herself.
The resident said the PIV system was installed in the living room, bedroom, kitchen, and bathroom in November 2023. In an email to the landlord, the resident described she felt stressed, overwhelmed, and anxious about how her and her family would cope remaining in the property during remedial works.
The landlord referred to its medical advisor who stated a temporary decant was not medically necessary.
On 14 December 2023, the landlord reiterated that the temporary accommodation was for the duration of the mould work only and it would not provide temporary accommodation during the decorative works. It said the temporary accommodation would be a basic hotel.
The resident responded on 27 December 2023. She said she would not agree to stay in the property during the remedial works. She explained her baby had recently been in hospital as they struggled to breathe, and she was concerned about the paint fumes.
Temporary accommodation was arranged in a hotel in January 2024 for the duration of the mould wash and decorative works.
The resident informed this Service in February 2024 that she had returned home, however she remained concerned about mould inside the walls and under the wallpaper.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman is aware the landlord implemented a damp and mould procedure in January 2023 to outline how its staff should deal with reports of damp and mould. Additionally, it set up a mould removal team which residents can contact directly. Further, it self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s recommendations within our spotlight report on damp and mould. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service within this report. However, we expect the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its future service provision.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, draughts, and lack of insulation within the property

The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case.
Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required.
Within this complaint, the resident reported damp and mould in July 2021, but the landlord did not attend the property until December 2021 – 5 months later. It is noted that this appointment was for a mould wash and not to inspect the property or explore the reason for the mould. This was inappropriate in the circumstances.
As similar issues had been reported during the resident’s occupation of the property, it should have put the landlord on notice that the damp reported again in July 2021 required active management and close oversight. While this report does not assess the historical incidents of mould, it provides context that the landlord’s records should have put it on notice of potentially ongoing issues and a potential risk to health. The recent report of damp should have been treated with the appropriate urgency, having known the history of the property and the vulnerability of the occupants. On balance, it must also be noted that the landlord’s records indicate the resident had previously refused its attempts to complete a mould wash in the period prior to this complaint.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that works to treat the mould were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and there was a backlog of repairs once restrictions were lifted. While this Service acknowledged the significant extra challenges faced by landlords at this time, it is noted that updated Government guidance issued to social housing residents on 11 May 2020 stated that “landlords should (now) be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households”. This guidance was further updated on 1 June 2020, stating that landlords can “now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken with public health advice.”
Whilst this Service appreciates the landlord may have had backlogs because of the COVID-19 restrictions and may have needed to prioritise urgent works once restrictions were lifted, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this does not fully account for the 5-month delay in the initial response to the resident’s report of mould. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord communicated effectively with the resident during this time nor managed her expectations, despite the resident chasing for updates. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on the resident.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with detailed records of what happened when the contractor attended the property on 7 December 2021 to complete a mould wash. It is surmised that the resident would have been aware of the need for the contractor to have access to the walls on the appointment date, especially as records show a mould wash had previously been completed during the resident’s occupation of the property. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord in advance of the appointment to explain that she was unable to move her personal items. The Ombudsman recognises that when the landlord was aware of this, it offered for its contractor to help move furniture and personal items away from the walls for a future appointment, which was appropriate.
Information provided by the landlord suggests it arranged for inspections of the resident’s property on several occasions and identified areas of condensation. However, apart from the thermal survey dated 26 January 2022, the landlord has not provided documentary evidence of this. Damp readings were loosely referenced within the landlord’s internal emails; but records of the specific moisture readings or dew point calculations have not been provided. This Service expects a landlord to have retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook (whether visual or technical) such as by retaining photographs, written notes, or a report.
The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s record keeping, since the records provided do not include all details of what happened at every appointment or inspection. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations.
The Ombudsman understands there are two main categories of factors that will affect the risk profile of a property when considering damp and mould – structural and occupancy. This is stated within our spotlight report. We are aware that certain types of properties such as buildings of concrete construction or traditional solid type construction are more susceptible to damp and mould than others. Additionally, we recognise the challenges faced by landlords with regards to overcrowding. Nonetheless, occupancy factors do not mean that the landlord has no responsibility. We expect landlords to take reasonable steps in partnership with residents in these circumstances, to consider improving ventilation or other appropriate measures.
While the landlord installed a PIV system in November 2023 to combat the condensation within the property (around 89 weeks after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response), it is a concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord has not evidenced that it considered this option within the scope of this complaint, especially considering the vulnerabilities of the household and the history of mould at the property. Moreover, within the thermal survey completed in January 2022, the landlord has not evidenced that it considered the recommendations contained within (internal wall insulation, insulating the ground floor slab and installing a floating floor). Further, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the report said there was no ventilation in the bathroom or take appropriate action to investigate or remedy this within a reasonable period. Taken altogether, the Ombudsman finds the landlord missed opportunities to consider appropriate measures.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about draughts and the lack of insulation within the property. While the landlord arranged for a thermal survey, it failed to respond to these complaint points within its formal complaint responses. As such, the landlord failed to act in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which requires a landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
The resident’s distress and concern of her and her children’s health is present within almost every piece of her correspondence with the landlord on the matter. She repeatedly described the living conditions as “inhabitable” and described the mould spores limiting their breathing, the damp worsening her body, becoming “more and more sick”. She said, “it feels like torture as each of our health is impeded severely and although we evidently cry and have expressed our pain, it seems as if my family circumstances is falling on deaf ears.”
It is of particular concern that the landlord neglected to assess the property at the earliest opportunity to evaluate habitability, considering the length of time the resident and her family had been living with damp and mould and the number of rooms affected within the 1-bedroom property. There is no evidence to suggest that the hazard of damp or mould, and the impact upon the resident and her children were appropriately considered by the landlord as a social housing provider. The lack of a risk assessment and exploring options with the resident early on indicates a lack of regard for the household vulnerabilities. This is a significant failing.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to ensure it treats residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy, reflecting the distress and inconvenience experienced in its tone and approach. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns and offer comments like, “we are sorry to hear of the issues you are experiencing”. It also arranged for its contractors to help the resident move furniture and items so that the mould wash could be done. This was appropriate in the circumstances considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, after considering all the information available, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord did not go far enough to recognise the impact on the resident or respond accordingly.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to tell the resident that it would handle her complaint outside of its complaints process. This caused the resident distress and suggested that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. As a result, the resident spent further time and trouble contacting the landlord to insist that her complaint was handled formally.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not fully acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident by living for a prolonged period in conditions which she perceived as a health risk to her and her children, and which impacted their use and enjoyment of their home. It also failed to recognise its failures within its complaint handling, as described above. As such, an offer of compensation to reflect the delays and the distress and inconvenience experienced would have been appropriate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pests within the property

While there are historical reports of pests within the property, this investigation is limited to the period from June 2021 onwards, as explained in paragraph 18.
On 15 November 2021, the resident reported that there were, “spiders, silverfish, booklice and biting flies” within the property and all occupants had been bitten and had rashes over their skin. She also mentioned insects in her email to the landlord dated 13 December 2021. The landlord recognised that it failed to respond to the resident’s pest concerns at stage 1 and asked her on two occasions if she was still experiencing problems.
The Ombudsman notes at stage 2, the landlord gave the resident the direct email address of a staff member who could review the issue of insects. However, the landlord recently informed this Service that no work orders for pest control had been raised, and that it would not treat a tenanted property for mould eating insects, silverfish, booklice, or spiders. The Ombudsman recognises this is in line with its approach to pests, as explained in paragraph 25. However, the landlord provided no evidence to demonstrate that it managed the resident’s expectations in this regard or clarified its position regarding pests from the outset. This was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her application for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp, mould, draughts, and lack of insulation within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests within the property.

Reasons

The resident complained that her property was overcrowded and not suitable for the needs of the household. The application and management of a council’s housing allocation policy concern the council’s actions as a local authority, not as a landlord. Complaints about local authorities and their assessment of housing needs are a matter for the LGSCO and not this Service.
The landlord failed to react with appropriate urgency to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, despite being aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident and her children. While the landlord arranged a mould wash and redecorations, it failed to evidence that it considered other measures within the period of the complaint. The landlord partially upheld the complaint but did not make a reasonable offer of redress or acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident. It also did not respond to all the resident’s complaint points.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s report of pests in the property at the earliest opportunity. It did not address the reports of pests at stage 1 and did not manage the resident’s expectations.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report. Within this letter, it should also provide details of its dedicated mould team for future reference.
2. Pay the resident £900 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay responding to her report of damp and mould in July 2021 and its failure to consider alternative measures at the earliest opportunity.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by not formally addressing the resident’s concerns regarding draughts and insulation.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble spent by the resident in ensuring her complaint was handled formally.
  4. £50 for the service failure in its handling of reports of pests.
3. Write to the resident to respond to her concerns about draughts, the lack of insulation within the property and the damage to her personal possessions. It must outline what further works it is and is not willing to complete, and its reasoning for these decisions.
4. Complete a damp and mould risk assessment.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.