Wandsworth Council (202309321)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309321

Wandsworth Council

1 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. At the time of the complaint, he lived in a 3-bedroom flat.
  2. In December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord concerned about the condition of his property. He asked to be moved because of the repairs required and the disruption they would cause.
  3. The landlord and the building maintenance manager inspected the property on 30 January 2023. The inspection found no mould on the walls and confirmed that the property was thermally boarded in 2017. Mould was evidenced on the lounge’s bay windowsill, which was caused by condensation. The resident was advised to turn the bathroom fan on when showering, and the landlord noted that because there was no shower curtain, there was a wet patch on the floor. The landlord raised a work order to apply a mould wash to the lounge window, kitchen and hallway. The works were scheduled for completion on 27 February 2023.
  4. The resident contacted his MP on 6 February 2023 because he felt he was being blamed for the condition of his property. He requested support to be moved. In response to the MP, the landlord reiterated its findings of 30 January 2023 and confirmed that the repairs were minor and the property was habitable and in reasonably good condition.
  5. Some months later, on 2 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said that despite reporting problems, the property was not habitable. The property had been inspected, but he had heard nothing more.
  6. The resident contacted our Service to help with his complaint. We requested that the landlord provide the resident with a formal response.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 6 March 2024 and reiterated the findings of its January 2023 inspection. In correspondence relating to his complaint, the resident confirmed that he could only accommodate a property inspection on a Sunday or after 18:00 on a weekday because of his work. The landlord confirmed that a senior manager would contact the resident to discuss the repairs.
  8. The resident escalated his complaint because repairs had not been completed, and he disagreed with the landlord’s findings that there was no mould on the walls.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 24 April 2024. It received the photographs sent by the resident but needed to inspect the property to determine the repairs. The resident was reminded of his tenancy conditions to allow access.
  10. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint and consider whether the landlord should have offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint is that damp and mould in the property have exacerbated the resident’s medical conditions. We acknowledge the concerns and distress this would have caused. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. We have not sought to establish liability in this case but have considered how the landlord responded to his health concerns.
  2. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed that he only considers damp and mould issues outstanding and that the other complaint issues have been resolved. Accordingly, this investigation has focused on and assessed the circumstances of the outstanding issue.  
  3. The resident has referred to ongoing damp and mould issues for 11 years. We have not seen any evidence that previous complaints completed the landlord’s internal complaints process or were referred to our Service. Considering this and the availability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from December 2022 onwards and considers matters until the landlord’s stage 2 response in April 2024.
  4. The landlord does not dispute that the resident has been reporting issues with damp and mould for some time. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, while the resident stated that the damp and mould had been ongoing since he moved into the property, the assessment focuses on events following the resident’s reports in January 2020 and the completion of the landlord’s complaints process in June 2023.

Assessment

  1. The landlord’s website details how residents can prevent condensation and mould, including heating and ventilating the property and reducing moisture levels. It explains that if residents already have condensation and mould, they may use a dry cloth to wipe away moisture from windows, sills, mirrors or walls each morning and remove and clean mould.
  2. The inspection on 30 January 2023 confirmed the presence of condensation-related mould on the lounge window. Given its findings, the landlord advised the resident to prevent condensation and regularly remove moisture from windows, which was in line with the landlord’s published information. The records also confirm that the resident was advised to turn the bathroom fan on to remove moisture, and the landlord noted that water was pooling on the bathroom floor because there was no shower curtain. These were reasonable observations to make. However, the resident expressed feeling blamed for the conditions in his property, which can be a sensitive area.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report highlights the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it does not apportion blame or use language that implies blame. We cannot determine if this occurred, but we expect to see evidence of an investigation, such as notes and records of conversations with all parties on which the landlord based its findings. There is no evidence that this was done. Additionally, the landlord failed to address this in its complaint response and demonstrate that it had taken the report seriously. This would have caused distress to the resident.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord faced challenges in arranging repairs. Although not directly related to the mould, the landlord did attempt to schedule bathroom repairs after the January 2023 inspection. There were no access appointments (broken appointments), and the resident cancelled some appointments. Whilst there may be legitimate reasons why residents are not available for appointments, the landlord would not be responsible for any delays caused by this
  5. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained the difficulties it encountered in arranging repairs but did not provide specific reasons for the prolonged completion of the mould wash. The landlord did not complete the mould wash until 24 October 2023, 9 months after the order was raised. The resident disputes that the mould wash was completed. The landlord has provided a repair record with the work’s completion time and date. The Ombudsman cannot conclude with certainty that the mould wash was not completed based on the available evidence. Therefore, we cannot criticise the landlord for not completing it. However, it took an unreasonable amount of time to complete.
  6. Access issues may have delayed completing the mould wash. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to remind the resident of his obligation to allow access as per the tenancy agreement. Since several appointments were missed, the landlord should have informed the resident about the potential consequences of repeated cancellations or broken appointments.
  7. The resident expressed his concern about taking time off work and mentioned the practical challenge this caused. The landlord informed the resident that it would see if an inspection could be completed after 18:00 on a weekday. This was a reasonable response, considering the landlord is not obliged to offer appointments outside of working hours. However, the resident should have been informed once the landlord determined it could not offer a later appointment. There is no evidence that the landlord informed him of this, which would have caused him inconvenience as he was left not knowing if an appointment could be agreed.
  8. The resident proposed sending photographs so the landlord could review the repairs needed. The landlord accepted the photographs but reiterated that any subsequent work must be scheduled between 9:00 and 17:00, Monday through Friday. The landlord appropriately reaffirmed the terms of the tenancy agreement to allow access or arrange for someone else to provide access in his absence. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the resident must allow access at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice to inspect the property’s condition or any installations or to carry out repairs or other works to the property.
  9. The information provided does not indicate if, when or how this was followed up or how the resident came to move to a different property 6 months later. We accept that the landlord could not always access the property for reasons outside its control. Still, the delays in completing the mould wash, limited efforts to investigate concerns about the comments of the inspecting officer, and omission to identify any failures have resulted in a finding of maladministration. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation between £100 and £600 is recommended when there were failings which caused distress and/or inconvenience but had no permanent impact on the resident. Therefore, we have ordered £200 compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. It confirms that complaints submitted by a third party, such as an MP, will be dealt with in line with its policy and procedure for customer complaints.
  2. The resident contacted his MP on 6 February 2023 because he was worried that the condition of his property was being attributed to his lifestyle. We understand that the landlord responded directly to the MP. However, given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident about his complaint and ask if he wanted it to log a stage 1 complaint.
  3. 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 issues in his property and the reported inference that the problems were due to the resident’s lifestyle. Therefore, it should have recognised this complaint about its service and treated it accordingly. As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord has not provided evidence that it took reasonable steps to address the resident’s statements and concerns about being blamed for the property’s condition. It also did not appropriately consider, or evidence that it considered, whether its actions could have exacerbated the detriment the resident was caused.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 October 2023, expressing dissatisfaction with the property’s condition. Despite reporting problems, the landlord did not address his concerns. In February 2024, the resident had to contact our Service for the landlord to provide a formal complaint response, which then failed to address all aspects of the complaint. The landlord’s handling of the complaint prolonged the complaint process for the resident.
  5. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its complaint handling. As a result, we have reviewed the failings, in accordance with our remedies guidance, to compensate for the inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident due to the delays in addressing the complaint and have awarded £75.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £275 comprising:
      1. £200 for the delay in completing the mould wash and the missed opportunity to acknowledge its failures.
      2. £75 for the time and delay caused by its complaint handling. 
    3. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears (unless he prefers otherwise).
    4. Review its complaint handling procedures and provide training to its staff to ensure that complaint responses comply with and are addressed at the earliest opportunity, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requirements.
    5. No orders have been made in relation to repairs at the property as the resident has moved.