Wandsworth Council (202317109)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317109

Wandsworth Council

28 June 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. Pests in the ceiling and roof space.
3. Pigeons nesting on the balcony.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant and has resided at the property since November 2009 with her family. The property is a 3-bedroom flat on the third floor in a block which has been marked for regeneration in 2027 at which point the resident will be given alternative accommodation. She currently lives with her adult son and daughter, both of whom have multiple health vulnerabilities. The resident does not speak English and is represented in her complaint by her son and her sister. All parties representing the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report, and we will use “he” and “him” pronouns as the resident’s son has been the main contact throughout.
On 7 November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update on an application he had made for a property move. The resident’s husband had recently undergone chemotherapy and two other residents in the property had vulnerabilities which included mobility difficulties. The property did not have a lift, and all occupants were struggling to use the three flights of stairs. He also advised the landlord of a number of issues within the property including:
1. Mould around the sink
2. Pigeons nesting on the balcony
3. A lack of ventilation in the adapted bathroom.
4. Mould and condensation in 2 bedrooms which led to bugs and resulted in furniture needing to be disposed of.
5. Suspected mice in the ceiling, as they were hearing scratching noises.
The resident sent further emails on 4 and 16 March 2020 to chase pest removal, a replacement bathroom fan filter and repair to holes in the ceiling made by pests. The landlord responded on 17 March 2020 to say that it had raised requests for a fan to be installed in the bathroom, and an inspection to assess the holes in the ceiling and loft space. A timescale of 10 days was given for these to be completed. It also advised that “several” years ago works were completed to the top of the building which it believed resolved the pest issue.
On 25 April 2020 the resident sent videos to the landlord as proof of the pest noise in the ceiling. A work order was raised on 27 April 2020 for the holes in the ceiling to be repaired, however it is unclear what date this was completed.
A formal complaint was made by the resident on 4 June 2020 stating that:
1. The pests had been in the ceiling for 8 years. The noise was very loud due to the plasterboard ceiling which had been causing sleepless nights and anxiety for all occupants.
2. The holes in the ceiling had been covered however the pest issue had not been resolved.
3. The pest contractor had attended and said that, as mice were not entering the property, there was nothing he could do.
4. On 3 June 2020 a contractor attended to assess the pest problem and stated that further investigations could not be completed without taking down the ceilings and the landlord was not prepared to do this.
5. There were pigeons nesting on the balcony which had rendered it unusable.
6. Short term fixes had been completed but there had been no long-term solutions offered.
7. The residents wished to move to a newer building until the regeneration works were complete, at which point they would be happy to return.
8. He requested a proportion of rent to be paid back to him to compensate for the issues over the years plus compensation for emotional distress for all family members.
The landlord responded on 10 June 2020 to say that works were carried out externally to block off the void space and prevent pest access and apologised that previous works did not fully resolve the issue. It stated that it was unclear whether the issues with damp, mould and pigeons nesting were ongoing issues or had been resolved and asked for more information with photographic evidence. The request for a property move was declined as it stated that repair issues were not reasonable grounds for a property move. Additionally, it declined the request for a rent rebate and financial compensation.
There is a gap in evidence provided to the Ombudsman between June 2020 and May 2021. On 10 May 2021 a work order was raised for a mould wash in the property, and on 18 May 2021 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to request an update on works. The resident had advised that contractors had attended to complete the wash but “said the mould was inside the wall” and left. He stated that they were reluctant to buy new furniture as they did not want it to be ruined by mould again and that the noises at night from pests were keeping them awake. The resident asked for a property move earlier than the projected regeneration move date of 2025.
The landlord responded to the MP on 28 May 2021 to confirm that a mould wash was completed, and it had made arrangements for drylining of an external wall as they were prone to condensation and mould. It was hoped the additional layer of insulation would protect the internal environment from mould. It also said that a quote was being found for pigeon proofing, and a pest controller would attend to deal with the pests in the roof void. The landlord also said that the allocations and regeneration teams were looking at alternative properties, however due to the medical needs of the occupants this was proving difficult. Internal notes indicate that a quote was gained on 4 June 2021 for pigeon proofing of the entire block of flats by way of a stainless-steel spike system.
There is no evidence of any correspondence after 4 June 2021 until 30 August 2022 when a carer’s support organisation contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident. They advised that the resident approached them for support as they had complained about their living environment and did not feel the response from the landlord was satisfactory. They summarised the resident’s previous complaints, and requested the resident be given an update on how it would resolve the issues.
The landlord responded to the carer’s organisation on 5 September 2022 to advise:
1. An order had been raised for a specialist pest contractor to attend.
2. It could not assist directly with a property transfer and advised the resident to speak to the regeneration team.
3. The resident could apply for a property move on medical grounds, and the website for this was included in the email.
4. It requested that the resident keep the landlord updated with any further pest issues.
Pest controllers attended the property on 8 September 2022 and provided an update to the landlord:
1. Given the flat was in a block, there would be structural connectivity between the flats.
2. The life cycle of mice was such that they can be born, live, breed and die without ever leaving.
3. The total size of the population would depend on how many food sources they had access to.
4. The recommendation was that the flat was internally pest proofed as there was evidence of the mice entering the property. This would ensure compliance with Environmental Health guidance and also cut off one food source for the mice.
On 29 September 2022 there were discussions between the resident and landlord regarding the pest proofing that had taken place, with differing accounts from the resident and the landlord. The landlord states that it believed the resident had not allowed access to all rooms of the property for pest proofing and asked that the resident permit full access in order to treat the property. The resident stated that the pest controller said that they did not do any work on ceilings or loft areas and only looked in a storage cupboard. The resident also said that the pest controller had advised he check all potential access points however he expressed that he did not want to move all the heavy furniture himself given there was only a small chance of finding anything. He asked again for a property move, as he was experiencing anxiety at the noises coming from the pests in the ceiling.
The landlord responded on 13 October 2022 to say that the full property needed to be pest proofed before it could consider removing ceilings due to how invasive the works would be. It said it appreciated that moving furniture would be inconvenient, however it wished to follow the recommendations of the pest control contractor.
On 17 October 2022 the landlord raised a job for the full proofing to be completed, and for assistance to be given to the resident with moving furniture and appliances. This job was completed on 20 October 2022. Further discussions took place between the landlord and resident on 3 and 4 November 2022. The landlord confirmed that the mouse proofing had taken place and the contractor had confirmed that there was no evidence of mice in the living spaces. It said that the resident should allow some time to determine whether the works had been successful before any other options could be considered.
Following internal discussions, the landlord contacted the resident to state that an essential repair transfer would not be considered as there was no longer evidence of mice entering the property. It advised that it could reconsider its position if there was evidence of mice entering the property in the future and asked the resident to maintain contact. It also confirmed that it would repair the holes in the ceiling which were previously caused by mice, and it would also complete thermal boarding in one bedroom with the aim of reducing the risk of mould and condensation. Consideration was given to install additional boarding in the bedroom ceilings to reduce damp and mould which may also reduce any noise in the void space further. The landlord also provided the telephone number for the council’s housing options department so that the resident could discuss his housing needs.
On 27 February 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the extractor in the bathroom was not working and was in need of repair or replacement. He also asked for an update on a mould wash and the thermal boarding which had previously been proposed by the landlord. Separately, the landlord advised the resident that an order had been placed for scaffolding so that the roof void could be sealed as it believed squirrels were accessing it from outside, and not mice. The mould wash was completed on 31 March 2023 however the boarding was not completed as another contractor was required to remove radiators before it could be completed.
The boarding was scheduled for July 2023 however the resident was out of the country for several weeks, so the boarding was completed on 5 September 2023. At the same time, the landlord sealed gaps behind the skirting board in one of the bedrooms.
On 8 June 2023 the resident made a further formal complaint, reiterating the issues with pests and damp, and pigeons on the balcony. He said that he felt the responses he was getting from the landlord were “scripted” despite the situation being specific to their household. He also stated that he was unhappy with the landlord telling him to open the windows more during winter and that overcrowding was contributing to the mould issue. He felt that it was due to a lack of efficient ventilation, particularly in the bathroom which had no windows. The resident also said that a contractor attended to install an extractor fan in the bathroom, however left without doing so as they said that a communal vent needed to be cleared first. The resident also said that he felt he and his family were entitled to compensation for disrepair and for emotional distress and inconvenience.
In its stage 1 response issued on 22 June 2023 the landlord stated that it could see mould had been a recurring theme, and mould washes were completed in two bedrooms on 7 occasions since the start of the tenancy. It had booked the dry lining for 4 September 2023 at the resident’s request as he was on holiday. It confirmed it would arrange for redecoration of the affected areas once the boarding had been installed. It also stated that it would take some time to establish the effectiveness of the proofing works in the roof void and requested that the resident keep it informed of any further issues. The installation of pigeon spikes was scheduled for 4 September 2023 to coincide with the boarding works. The landlord partially upheld the complaint due to the delays with installing the plasterboard and offered £100 compensation.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 5 July, and a stage 2 response was issued on 8 August 2023. The landlord upheld its decision at stage 1 and stated that it felt £100 was an appropriate level of compensation for the delays with dry lining.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it suspected squirrels were accessing the roof space from trees behind the property and it had requested the council’s tree works department complete pruning. The landlord’s records show that the council responded to say that pruning would take place in ‘winter’ 2023 as they only completed such activities when trees were not in leaf.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 November 2023 to ask that the family be decanted to an alternative property so that ceilings could be removed for further investigations into the squirrels in the ceiling space. He also stated that the communication from the landlord had been inconsistent and he had been given different information on how long to wait before additional works could be considered. On 4 December the landlord responded confirming that removing the ceilings would not be guaranteed to resolve the issue as the roof void was too small for traps and, as its contractor advised against any future works it was not completing any additional works. It also stated that there had been no reports of pests since the roof was sealed. Discussions were ongoing between the landlord and resident on 5 and 6 December, during which the resident stated that he felt the landlord was shifting blame onto his family and not taking their concerns seriously given their vulnerabilities.
The resident maintains that there is a pest problem in the roof void and has approached the Ombudsman for support. The landlord has stated that the last report of pests was on 18 December 2023 and the last report of pigeons was 21 April 2023. The resident’s application for a medical transfer was accepted on 7 February 2024 and the household has been placed in band A for a 3-bedroom property.

Assessment and findings

The resident has informed this Service that there have been issues with pests in the ceiling since 2011. There is also evidence of reports of damp and mould back to 2019, and a number of complaints relating to both areas. While some of these historic incidents have been added to the background of this report for context, we will not investigate them in this report. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we will only investigate issues which were brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The complaint was logged in June 2023 and so we will assess the landlord’s actions for the 12 months prior. While the resident did submit previous complaints to the landlord, they were not escalated to this Service.

Damp and mould in the property

This Service published a spotlight report into damp and mould in October 2021. It was found that landlords were reactive rather than proactive in dealing with mould, and in many cases the onus for preventative measures was placed on the resident. The landlord has informed this Service that it assessed its practices against this report, confirming it had made several changes including:
1. Post treatment inspections for damp and mould are saved onto its system
2. It would consider improvements such as dry lining, improving ventilation, and installing positive input ventilation (PIV) systems.
The reports of damp and mould began approximately 3 years prior to the time period assessed in this report. The landlord completed several mould washes, however there is no evidence that other mould prevention works were considered until the thermal boarding was installed.
This Service has seen no evidence in the landlord’s records that post-treatment inspections were completed following mould washes. Dry lining was proposed as a long-term solution in May 2021, however this was only completed in September 2023. While it is understandable that there was a delay from June to September 2023 as the resident was out of the country, this Service has seen no explanation for the delay between May 2021 and June 2023.
There is no evidence that the vulnerabilities of the residents were taken into consideration when considering what action would be taken to improve the damp and mould. The occupants of the affected rooms had been diagnosed with anxiety and other physical health issues. Given the highly publicised nature of damp and mould concerns, it is understandable that the presence of mould in the property would be a cause for concern. While the mould washes may have temporarily improved the situation it did not resolve it, and the resident stated in his correspondence that he had approached the landlord in the hope of a permanent solution.
There is no evidence of a damp survey being completed in the property, so it is not clear to this Service if any other resolutions were considered prior to ordering dry lining. While under normal circumstances the lack of a working extractor fan may not have directly contributed to mould issues in the bedrooms, the central position of the bathroom in this property means there is a higher chance of moist air affecting bedrooms. Although the fan was only non-functional for approximately 46 working days during the period investigated in this report, the lack of a window meant that damp air was more likely to negatively affect the property.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the compensation of £100 offered to the resident did not adequately reflect the level of detriment experienced by the resident, considering the length of time the damp and mould had been an issue in the property. The dry lining was ordered by the landlord on 28 May 2021 and completed on 4 September 2023. While this Service recognises that the landlord attempted to schedule the works in July 2023 and was unable to complete it as the resident was out of the country this was still a period of over 2 years where the works were not completed. We have seen no evidence of why this delay occurred. There is also no evidence of the landlord completing a full assessment on the property to see if any other measures could be implemented.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord should consider carefully what it invests in however it has a responsibility to ensure that residents of properties marked for regeneration do not receive a lower standard of living, and the properties are free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
This Service finds that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property. The landlord should have completed a full damp survey of the property to determine what long-term solutions could have been implemented. Although it did commit to dry lining a wall in the smaller bedroom, there were unacceptable delays which resulted in additional damp and mould. It also did not consider the effect of damp and mould on the residents given their individual vulnerabilities.

Pests in the ceiling and roof space

During the time period covered in this report, pests in the ceiling were a primary concern for the resident as he stated that the constant noises were causing increased anxiety for the family. There is evidence that the landlord attended to attempt to resolve the issue and did undertake a number of works in order to block access to the property.
The original pest issue was mice, which had entered the main property through the ceiling leaving holes. The landlord sent pest controllers to the property on several occasions and ensured that any pests were no longer able to enter the property. It also rectified the holes in the ceiling, however this was not completed until full pest proofing had been undertaken.
This Service understands that it was difficult for the resident to move all of his furniture and appliances to allow full internal pest proofing. It was reasonable for the landlord to propose proofing the full property as a solution, however the landlord should have taken into consideration the health needs of the family and offered support with moving belongings from the outset. From the evidence provided it seems that no evidence of pests was found within the property at that time, however it was a sensible precaution for the landlord to check.
The landlord’s notes indicate that the pest controller advised that if the situation did not improve the plasterboard ceiling could be removed to examine the void, determine whether pests could still access it and seal any entrance points. The contractor advised that this work was not recommended at that time, as time needed to be allowed to demonstrate whether the full proofing works had any impact. At the same time, it was discovered that squirrels had been entering the property from the roof and works were taking place to seal any gaps. The council had also been contacted to prune overhanging trees with the aim of minimising the access for squirrels. The landlord ultimately decided against removing the ceiling due to the invasive nature and the fact that no additional reports of pests had been made.
The landlord has stated that no other residents on the same floor had experienced similar issues with pests, and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to the contrary. While this Service does not dispute that the resident’s anxiety may have increased as a result of hearing pests in the roof space, we accept that action taken by the landlord should be proportional. The decision not to remove ceilings at that time was reasonable, however it should have assessed whether dry lining the ceiling would have provided any kind of acoustic dampening effect. Additionally, it could have considered other exploratory options such as CCTV being fed into the roof space to confirm which pests were present and the population. This may have also provided context for the landlord on why the resident was experiencing such disruption and enabled it to make an informed decision on whether the property was still appropriate for the family.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests in the ceiling and roof space. Positively it attended to ensure that there were no points of access into the living space and completed a full pest proofing. However, it should have considered the impact on the resident given the pests could not be removed, and considered whether sound dampening measures internally would have minimised the resident’s distress.

Pigeons nesting on the balcony

The original reports of pigeons nesting on the resident’s balcony were made prior to the period investigated in this report, as was the original quotation for preventative works. However, additional reports of pigeons accessing the balcony were made until April 2023. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when or if pigeon spikes were installed at the property, as there was no corresponding job completion note listed in the landlord’s records.
The resident has informed this Service that he installed metal netting around the balcony which was keeping pigeons away however they had moved to window ledges. He also informed this Service that in approximately January 2023 a contractor visited the address and said that the window ledges were too high for a solution to be implemented and scaffolding would not be approved for one property. In the quote, which was compiled on 4 June 2021, scaffolding was not specifically mentioned.
Based on the evidence provided, as the rodents in the roof space and damp were more of an acute concern to the resident, the external issues were overlooked by the landlord. Once the quote was received, it should have informed the resident whether it would be completing the works and providing a clear reason if not. The landlord has confirmed that the resident was reporting pigeons on the window ledges until April 2023, which was approximately 21 months after the quote was provided.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion pigeons gathering on the external aspects of a property do not necessarily render a property unusable, or unsafe for habitation. It is not disputed that it could be frustrating or annoying for residents dealing with these pest issues, however with multi-storey properties this is a problem that cannot always be avoided. In this case the landlord had begun to take action and gained quotes for work, but failed to communicate to the resident whether it would complete this work and if not, why.
For the reasons above the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pigeons nesting on the exterior of his property. The landlord’s record keeping on this issue was not suitably accurate, and it did not effectively communicate to the resident what it could or could not do to remedy the situation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in 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 in the ceiling and roof space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pigeons nesting on the exterior of his property.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
  1. Pay the resident the sum of £1000, inclusive of the £100 already offered in relation to the landlord’s service failures in the handling of the damp and mould.
  2. Complete a damp survey of the property and assess whether any other works can be completed to prevent future damp and mould. A copy of this report must be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  3. Contact the resident to confirm whether there are still issues with pigeons nesting on the exterior of the property. If so, it must advise on what works it can or cannot do to improve the situation and provide a copy of this action plan in writing. A copy of this plan must be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
  4. Contact the resident to confirm whether there are still issues with rodents in the ceiling void. If so, it must consider whether any other works can be completed such as internal acoustic plaster boarding to improve conditions for the residents.
2. The landlord should confirm compliance, with evidence, with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should review its damp and mould processes, and the actions it has taken following the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, to ensure that appropriate preventative actions are considered in all cases. Particular attention should be paid to properties which are earmarked for renovation, to ensure its residents are not at a disadvantage.
2. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of this report.