Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202210202)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210202

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

27 April 2023

 

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:

  1. the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his bathroom.
  2. the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident has a secure tenancy and has lived in the property, a three-bedroom house, since 1986.

3.     Although this investigation primarily looks at the events during the 12 months leading up to the resident’s formal complaint, in order to fairly investigate this complaint the Ombudsman has acknowledged and reviewed evidence regarding the damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom spanning over a six year period.

4.     The evidence shows that the resident reported mould and condensation in his bathroom each year from 2017, during both the winter and summer months. Each year the landlord carried out an inspection and/or ordered works such as anti-fungal washes.

5.     In July 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection, and advised the resident to avoid drying his clothes indoors and to keep the fans on. It ordered an installation of a stronger fan for the bathroom and ordered a fan for the kitchen.

6.     On 17 January 2022, the landlord carried out another inspection and recorded that:

  1. Mould always appeared every year in winter. Clothes were drying on radiators and every window was wet upstairs. The landlord explained that clothes drying on radiators and a lack of ventilation would result in condensation.
  2. During winter the resident was only using the heating one and a half hours per day so the fabric of the building was not becoming warm enough, to which the resident replied that he could not afford to use heating any longer.
  3. It suggested that the resident avoid drying clothes in every room, used a maiden and placed it in a room that had a fan. It also suggested that the resident dried the windows daily.
  4. There could have been problems with the roof/gutter but the resident did not want it to look at this or to order any work as he was choosing to go down the disrepair route, so no further works were raised.

7.     On the same day the resident made a formal complaint, stating:

  1. He had complained many times about the damp in his property, and on some occasions the landlord installed different fans and used mould proof paints. However none of the solutions worked and as a result he had 32 health problems which were “almost certainly due to the issues.”
  2. He had another visit by the landlord who stated that it wanted to add paint again to the problem areas and told the resident that he did not have the heating on enough. He added that he also had issues in the summer months.

8.     On 21 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that as he had not heard from it, he would be contacting a claims company to resolve the matter.

9.     The next day, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in which it confirmed that it carried out a property inspection on 17 January 2022 and observed the following:

  1. All the upstairs windows were wet and it explained to the resident at the property inspection that the combination of drying clothes on the radiator with no ventilation would result in condensation and create mould. The resident explained that he only used the heating for an hour and a half per day due to increased fuel costs.
  2. Confirmed that the Inspector at the time of the visit suggested to avoid drying clothes in every room, use a maiden in a room where a fan is located and dry the windows daily. In order for the previously applied mould paints and ventilation fans to help resolve the issues, the conditions in the property needed to be correct.
  3. Explained that there may be a problem with the roof/gutter on the rear elevation, however during the visit the resident stated that he did not want the landlord to look or to order any work as he was choosing to go down the disrepair route.

10. On 28 February 2022 the resident called the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The landlord returned his call on 1 March 2022 and noted that the resident was dissatisfied with its stage one response because:

  1. It did not answer all of his concerns.
  2. The damp and condensation issues had been on-going for six years.
  3. Bathroom vents were blocked by the landlord and the kitchen fan had not been fitted.

11. On 23 March 2022, the landlord issued a holding letter as it was unable to issue its stage two response and apologised for the delay. It stated that it had further enquiries to make and expected to be in a position to issues its stage two response by week commencing 4 April 2022. It stated that during the January inspection it offered to treat the bathroom wall and check the rear gutter for any issues, and re-offered these actions to the resident.

12. The resident replied on the same day, confirmed that he had already had the bathroom wall painted five times and added that:

  1. He had videos and pictures that showed damp around five or six years ago and he was still waiting for answers. The landlord removed the vents in the walls and windows and advised him to put the heating on in the summer.
  2. He was concerned that the landlord was now conducting its complaint process in its own timeframe. He tried to follow the landlord’s procedures which it failed to follow.

13. On 8 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It stated that:

  1. It was satisfied that the resident’s complaint at stage one was thoroughly investigated, and that the response provided was appropriate.
  2. It reviewed the damp and mould issues relating to the resident’s property over the past six years and confirmed that it responded to the issues by carrying out inspections and issued works when needed, such as treating the walls with anti-fungal wash. It also made arrangements in 2021 to install fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom and the kitchen fan was fitted on 2 March 2022.
  3. It appreciated that the resident was frustrated that he continued to experience issues with mould and explained that it was not uncommon for properties to experience condensation and mould on an ongoing basis, requiring further treatment.
  4. It reiterated its earlier sentiments about the humidity and poor ventilation and  noted that there was condensation in other rooms, not just the bathroom.
  5. To prevent condensation and further mould it was important to ensure that the property was appropriately heated and ventilated, which involved opening windows and ensuring that the fans were used. It also recommended that windows and other surfaces were wiped dry if condensation was on them.
  6. That mould could build up at any time of year if the room was not ventilated and there was humidity, particularly in rooms such as bathrooms and its offer to treat the walls remained open.
  7. It could install a PIV (Positive Input Ventilation) system in the resident’s property, which would assist in reducing the humidity in the property. It confirmed that as the system used electricity there may be an additional cost that the resident would have to take into account.
  8. The old blocked vents would be old vents and the installed fans would replace them as a ventilation system.

14. On 8 April 2022, the landlord responded to a voicemail it received from the resident. In response it:

  1. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns that its stage two response was delayed and confirmed that it apologised for the delay in its response.
  2. Explained that it could be dealing with many complaints at one time and therefore it was not always possible to respond to every complaint within its target of 15 working days and, when it was unable to do so, it would issue a holding letter to advise when a response could be expected.
  3. It would not always need to speak to the resident, if the complaint was clear, which was the situation in this case and it apologised if the resident was expecting to speak to it.
  4. It would make further enquiries about the lining paper the resident mentioned.

15. On 11 April 2022, the resident said that he was not happy with the stage two response and how it was handled, stating that:

  1. The landlord had not contacted him to discuss the case when it stated it was making further enquiries and the complaints team had not seen the damp in his property, so he was concerned that they were unable to make a decision.
  2. He was concerned that the landlord needed more information and time to investigate. The two vents from the bathroom were removed by the landlord, cavity wall insulation was installed and he explained that he had solar panels and used a dryer, not radiators.
  3. He had asked many times for the landlord to fix the problems and it failed to do so many times.
  4. He had asked for the landlord to call him but it decided to email him instead and he asked for the matter to be escalated to senior management.

16. On 13 April 2022, the landlord responded to the resident, and it:

  1. Apologised for the delay in issuing its stage two response.
  2. Confirmed that it was not standard practice to contact the resident as part of its complaint process, and only would do so if it needed further information from the residents or if the resident asked to speak to the investigator.
  3. Confirmed that it is not the position of the stage two investigation to assess whether the property had mould or not, as its purpose was to investigate how the resident’s complaint was handled at stage one of its complaints procedure. Therefore, it was satisfied its stage two response was investigated in accordance with its normal procedure.
  4. Noted that some additional points were raised in the resident’s email on 11 April 2022 which did not form part of his original complaint, therefore it had requested a further inspection.

17.  After the final response, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it contacted the resident to carry out an inspection by a different surveyor. As the resident was not available at the time, it left its contact details for the resident to contact it when it was convenient for him to do so.  

Assessment and findings

18. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident attributes some of his health concerns to the landlord’s inactions to deal with the damp and mould within his property. Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to make a definitive link between the condition of the property and the health issues that have been reported, the medical information provided has been noted and it is clear that the situation is causing the resident and his family significant distress.

Policies

19. The landlord’s complaint policy stated it would acknowledge the resident’s complaint upon receipt and confirm its understanding of the complaint. It also aimed to provide its stage one response within 10 working days of receipt of the resident’s complaint. However, if it is unable to do so, it stated that it would write to the resident advising them the reason of the delay and provide an estimated timescale it would be able to respond. It aimed to provide a stage two response within 15 working days of receipt of the resident’s request.

20. The landlord’s responsive repairs standards stated that it aimed to get all repairs right first time and encourage feedback which it would learn from.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his bathroom

21. The landlord repair logs indicate that the resident reported damp and mould on many occasions within a six year period. Although it was evident that the landlord inspected and ordered reasonable remedies such as anti-fungal wash, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out detailed and/or independent inspections of the property. Its records from its inspections were sparse and only focused on what it observed of the resident’s living conditions.

22. The Ombudsman’s Damp and Mould spotlight report (2021) which is available on our website, states that “landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust.” The landlord’s records do not reflect that it had taken robust action and explored all potential causes of the damp and mould.

23. Although the resident reported issues with his bathroom many times through the years, it was only in 2021 that the landlord ordered a stronger bathroom fan, and it suspected that there may be issues with the guttering in 2022. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord’s inspections over the years to include checks such as these, evidenced by a detailed record on its system. This would build a history of the property, which would benefit the landlord and the resident.

24. As this service’s damp and mould spotlight report states, the landlord should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident and satisfy itself that it is taking all reasonable steps to address the issues reported. The landlord did not demonstrate this.

25. Moreover, when the landlord identified that there may have been an issue with the roof or guttering which may have contributed to the damp/condensation, it did not pursue this potential issue because the resident refused as he wanted to pursue the disrepair route. Whilst the Ombudsman notes that the resident did not want the landlord to investigate further as he wanted to proceed with a disrepair claim, it was the responsibility of the landlord to explain to the resident that it had a repair obligation, and needed to fully investigate any potential problems that it had identified. The landlord failed to do so in this case and therefore, failed to thoroughly investigate any potential issues that may have contributed to the damp and mould. The Ombudsman understands that ultimately the resident did not pursue a disrepair claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

26.  The landlord’s records indicate that it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. Its stage one response also did not acknowledge that its response was outside its own timescales detailed in its policy. As it did not issue a holding letter to update the resident on the status of his complaint, the resident had to contact it for an update. This exacerbated the situation, and could have had a negative impact on the resident and landlord relationship. 

27.  As the resident made a formal complaint on 17 January 2022, the landlord should have issued its stage one response by 31 January 2002. Instead, it responded on 22 February 2022. This is 26 days after the resident made his formal complaint and 16 days over its set response timescale.

28.  The landlord’s stage one response echoed the advice it gave the resident at the time of the inspection in January 2022. However, it failed to demonstrate that it took an independent investigative stance, as it would have been appropriate to order an independent inspection or a different surveyor to inspect the property at this stage of the complaint. This approach is outlined in the Ombudsman’s damp and mould report, which notes that “the landlord should seek an independent inspection when the resident and landlord cannot agree on the cause of issues.”

29. Whilst the landlord issued a holding letter to explain that it needed more time to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint at stage two of the complaints procedure, the holding letter was issued late in the process. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 February 2022, therefore the landlord’s response was due on 21 March 2022. The landlord issued its holding letter on 23 March, which is two days past the date it was supposed to issue its formal response. The landlord failed to keep the resident informed of the progress of his complaint in a timely manner, which may have added to his distress.

30.  The landlord issued its final response on 8 April 2022, which was 29 days from the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. Therefore, it was 9 days late. As the landlord issued a holding letter explaining this, this did not have a significant impact on the resident’s situation.

31. The stage two response echoed its stage one response, but offered to install a PIV (Positive Input Ventilation) in the resident’s property, which was an attempt to put things right. However it failed to recognise again that, as the resident reported damp and mould for many years, an independent inspection at this stage would benefit the landlord and its resident. This would have been a reasonable addition to try and put things right for the resident.

32. Although the landlord acknowledged that the resident may have felt frustrated due to the situation, it failed to recognise that damp and mould can be a stressful situation for its residents which can at times lead to health conditions. The resident mentioned that he had health conditions, which the landlord did not acknowledge. Therefore the landlord missed an opportunity to fully explore the impact the issue may have had on the resident.

33. Moreover, the landlord advised the resident that its stage two consisted of a review of how it conducted its stage one investigation and was not to decide whether there was mould or damp his property. An effective complaint handling procedure should be resolution focused, and by narrowing the focus of its stage two response in this way, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the review should take into consideration and look at the complaint as a whole and satisfy itself that it had taken all necessary measures to identify any potential causes of the damp and mould within the resident’s property.

34.  As it did not identify at stage two that the investigation stage did not include either an in independent inspection or an inspection from a different surveyor, or acknowledge that it had missed the opportunity to investigate the guttering further under its repair obligations, the landlord failed adequately to review its stage one investigation and response at stage two. 

35. Overall, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the delays in the stage one response and the lack of communication added to the resident’s distress. It also failed to consider what it could to do to fully put things right which would satisfy itself and the resident and bring the complaint to a satisfactory conclusion.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his bathroom.

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

38.  The landlord failed to take an objective approach to the resident’s damp and mould issues which he reported over many years. It put the onus on the resident to solve the issues without conducting a thorough inspection of the property. When it identified that there may have been issues with the roof/guttering that may have contributed to the damp/mould, it failed to investigate further, progress the PIV, or consider any other steps to resolve the issues.

39. The landlord failed to acknowledge that the delays in the stage one response and lack of communication added to the resident’s distress, and at its stage two response it failed to identify that it had missed opportunities within the complaint process to put things right, such as the benefit of having a different/independent surveyor inspection of the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

40. The landlord shall carry out the following orders within four weeks of the date of this report:

  1. Pay the resident compensation of £300, which comprises of:
    1. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his bathroom.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

41. Arrange an independent inspection which includes the resident’s concerns and its offers of previous inspections of the roof and make a copy available for the resident and this Service.

42. Review its approach to complaint handling in the light of the findings and comments in this report and with reference to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This should include ensuring that any relevant policy and procedure is updated and training is carried out. The landlord should provide an update to the Ombudsman on the actions it has taken in respect of this order within eight weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

43. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord takes the following actions:

  1. Review the Ombudsman Damp and Mould Spotlight report 2021 and follow up report in 2023, and ensure relevant staff receive training on the findings and recommendations outlined in the report.
  2. Ensure its staff are familiar with the Ombudsman’s guidance on Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims and service complaints.