Leicester City Council (202007082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007082

Leicester City Council

7 May 2021 (Amended following review on 9 September 2021)

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom maisonette.

Summary of events

A new kitchen was installed at the property in January 2020, following which, the resident first raised concerns about damp in the property in March 2020. Following delays as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic, the landlord’s contractor visited the property in the weeks commencing 3 August 2020, and 20 August 2020, to inspect the damp and mould.
On 14 August 2020, a damp and mould inspection was carried out by the landlord, during which damp and mould was observed in the hall, kitchen and dining room at the property. The application of a mould treatment and fungicidal wash to affected areas was advised and advice was also provided to the resident on condensation management. The survey report indicates that the recommended timeframe for completing the treatment works to the affected rooms was “within 8 weeks of inspection”.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that, following its visit to the property earlier that day, it felt that the issue “goes beyond” the kitchen installation in January 2020. This was due to the mould growth being “all around the property”, and not just in the kitchen. It had discussed this with the tenant who advised that the mould had been there previously, but that this had “excelled in recent months.”
On 11 September 2020, the resident sent her stage one complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. The resident had a new kitchen installed on 15 January 2020 and following this she had identified damp in the kitchen cupboards. This was reported to the landlord’s contractor in March 2020; however, they were unable to visit the property to carry out work due to the restrictions imposed following the corona virus national lockdown.
2. The damp had spread to every kitchen cupboard, which the resident had to clean every two to three days because of the smell, as well as spreading to her kitchen and dining room walls, flooring, and skirting boards.
3. The resident had sent pictures to the landlord’s contractor; however, she had not heard anything in response.
4. She felt that she needed to raise a complaint as “nobody [was] taking ownership of these issues”.
5. The resident was concerned for the health of her children as a result of the mould and damp.
On 29 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
1. The landlord and its contractor had visited the property in August 2020 following the relaxation of the corona virus restrictions, including a damp inspection on 14 August 2020. It apologised if the resident was not advised of the next steps following these visits.
2. It was believed that the issues with damp and mould may be linked to a wider issue, having been advised that it was unlikely the installation of a kitchen would cause this to spread throughout the property.
3. It would arrange for remedial works to be carried out, including mould treatments to some affected areas, while it continued to investigate. However, it highlighted that it needed to identify the cause before addressing the other areas. A further visit was scheduled for 7 October 2020, and it committed to keeping the resident informed of any findings and actions to be undertaken.
4. It was “very” sorry for the length of time that it had taken to investigate this, and for any lack of contact.
The landlord’s records confirmed that, following the inspection on 7 October 2020, it believed there to be up to two leaks due to dampness being seen in different areas of the property. It suggested that the leaks could be to the district heating pipework, and another to the pipework behind the sink, but it would need to remove the units to be able to know.
On 7 October 2020, a further damp and mould inspection was carried out by the landlord. It found evidence of penetrating damp linked to a building defect. It was unable to find the leak, and therefore the matter was referred back to the landlord as an ongoing issue.
Following this, the landlord requested further investigation into the possible leak by a specialist contractor on 8 October 2020.
On 13 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to submit a complaint about a separate matter. This did not form part of the complaint referred to this Service, and therefore will not be detailed within this report. However, the resident felt that the issues with mould and damp at the property have “had an impact on the health of [her] children”. As a result, she was “desperately concerned” for the health and wellbeing of her family.
On 16 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that its specialist contractor had investigated the above damp problem and reported no signs of leaks from the district heating pipework. It did identify the improperly sealed drain gulley and surrounding slabs outside the kitchen to be a possible cause of damp, as well as a raised area outside which had been built over the damp-proof course with damp rising in the brickwork.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord inspected the property and found no leak from the heating system or hot and cold water supply, but it identified kitchen sink and washing machine waste water discharging into the blocked gulley that was overspilling and soaking the brickwork and bridging the damp-proof course. To address the issues identified, it would clear the gulley, inspect the drains for damage, and clear the raised area outside to bring this within the boundary of the damp-proof course, so that this was not breached and to allow waste water to discharge into the drains without soaking the brickwork.
On 30 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that, further to its email dated 16 October 2020, there would be a delay of five days in its response to her subsequent complaint to it.
On 5 November 2020, the landlord provided its first final stage complaint response to the resident, stating the following:
1. Further to its stage one response of 29 September 2020, a second damp inspection had taken place, which had ruled out a leak from the heating system.
2. During its inspection on 29 October 2020, it had found a blockage in the drain gulley from the kitchen sink and washing machine. It would therefore unblock the gulley and check for damage, as well as clearing a raised area at the side of the property. Once the cause was identified, it would carry out the required works inside the resident’s property.
3. It advised that the resident “would not ordinarily” meet the criteria for a temporary move to be considered, as there were no vulnerabilities or medical issues from her file or its recent discussion with her that would give cause for this, and it was understood that the resident simply wished for the work to go ahead.
On 7 December 2020, the resident responded to the landlord to state the following:
1. Although the drain gulley was unblocked on 10 November 2020, issues were still being seen with water gathering around the property’s external drainage, wall and concrete flooring.
2. An extractor fan had been fitted in the kitchen, and the resident had received a dehumidifier. She requested that new fans be installed in her toilet and bathroom, which she was advised previously that she would receive. There was already a fan in her bathroom, but this was “very old and hardly work[ed]”.
3. During its visit on 30 November 2020, the resident was informed that an elbow/bend on the pipe into the drain was missing and may be a possible cause for the damp and mould, which was fitted during the visit. She was “surprised” that this missing piece was not identified during the earlier inspections.
4. She confirmed that, having lived in the property for 14 years, there had been no damp or mould prior to the installation of the new kitchen there in January 2020. This had now spread to every room in the property.
5. Items had been damaged as a result of the damp and mould, including laminate flooring, blinds, food items, bedding, bags, clothing and furniture. The expanding and lifting water-damaged flooring in the kitchen had become a trip hazard, with both the resident and her young son tripping over this. Electrical sockets were also wet that caused her to fear electric shocks.
6. The resident highlighted that the kitchen was fitted almost a year ago and was therefore keen to understand when internal work would start, as she felt that it was affecting her children’s health.
The landlord’s records confirmed that its operatives had then visited the property to carry out mould treatment works and isolate an electrical socket on 8 December 2020. It also found a leaking isolation valve within the wall; however, this was not deemed sufficient to cause the issues seen but was reported to its kitchen contractor to attend to investigate.
On 21 December 2020, the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its complaints procedure again and advised the following:
1. It acknowledged the “considerable length of time” it had taken to resolve this, and apologised for her son falling, and for the effect that these issues had on her family’s health and wellbeing. It enclosed a public liability claim form for the resident to claim for damages to her possessions and any injuries.
2. Its electricians had attended to ensure that the property’s electrical sockets were safe.
3. Since its previous final stage response on 5 November 2020, it had carried out external works to the property’s ground level that had been lowered to ensure that there was no breach of the damp-proof course, cleared the gulley, added a bend to the discharge pipe, and fitted an extractor fan in the kitchen. It was unable to upgrade the fan already installed in her bathroom, and the layout of the resident’s toilet meant that it was unable to install one in there. It highlighted that the issues experienced with drainage were as a result of the blockage. However, it accepted that the addition of the elbow pipe would improve the drainage, and it suggested that this was not identified earlier due to the blockage and overflow making it difficult to do so.
4. It had attended on 8 December 2020 and only was able to carry out some mould treatment work due to the condition of some of the plasterboard. This led to the discovery of a leaking pipe in the wall. This was investigated further on 10 and 11 December 2020, and led to the discovery of a further leak with the mains water connection within the floor on 14 December 2020, which was repaired. This was followed by a meeting between it, its contractors and the resident on 15 December 2020 to discuss and plan the timescale for the remedial works required.
5. It believed the leak within the floor to be the “main contributory factor to the damp issue, exacerbated by the gulley blockage and external ground levels, and minor leak to internal pipework”.
6. It confirmed that the source of the leak had been rectified, but that the fabric of the building needed to dry out prior to the completion of the required repairs. This included the repair of the flooring and plasterboard, as well as replacing the kitchen worktop and units. The new flooring and wallpaper would also be supplied and fitted by the landlord’s contractors.
7. It was “very sorry” for the length of time taken, which it had attributed to the “complexities surrounding this case”, with the restrictions imposed following the corona virus national lockdown. It was assured that the delay was unavoidable and needed to ensure that the water ingress had been resolved prior to subsequently completing the internal repairs.
The resident then complained to this Service about the internal damage caused to the property by the leak remaining outstanding, that the landlord had taken nearly a year to find the source of this and that the new kitchen and frequent contactors’ visits were an inconvenience to her, as well as that the damp and mould in the property were affecting her family’s health. The landlord went on to inform us that its contractor had agreed to carry out the above remedial works and decorating at the property as soon as possible once corona virus restrictions allowed, which it offered to discuss with the resident from 31 January 2021.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has highlighted concerns that the damp and mould at the property have had a negative impact on the health of her family. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to order the payment of damages for these items in the way that a court or insurer might because we do not have the expertise or authority to do so. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

Agreement and policies

As per the landlord’s conditions of tenancy, it will maintain the structure and exterior of the property. This includes drains, gutters, pipes, external and internal walls, and floors.
It also confirms that the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of her property, such as furniture and belongings. It highlights that it is “not responsible for loss or damage to your possessions”.
The landlord’s priority of repairs details that routine repairs, such as repairs to kitchen units, are to be completed within 10 working days. Programmed repairs to guttering are to be surveyed within 10 working days, and completed within 8 weeks to 12 months, according to the job.
As per the landlord’s corporate compensation policy, it has the power to remedy injustice where it considers the following:
1. That action taken by or on behalf of the landlord in the exercise of its functions amounts or may amount to maladministration, and;
2. That a person has been, or may have been adversely affected by that action.
3. If only one of the above conditions are met, it will not normally be appropriate to consider awarding a payment or other benefit.
The landlord’s corporate compensation policy confirms that maladministration is considered to include delays and failures to take any action, follow procedure or provide information.
It further confirms that any injustice experienced by the resident would have to relate directly to the landlord’s fault, and may include distress, worry, inconvenience, as well as time and trouble in pursuing a justified complaint.

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

Following the reports of damp at the resident’s property, the landlord was obliged by its above conditions of tenancy and priority of repairs to investigate the cause of the damp and mould there, and to remedy the structural and external causes of this, along with any damage caused to fixtures and fittings. This did not include the resident’s possessions.
It is understood that the resident had initially raised her concerns over damp with the landlord’s contractor in March 2020, with the first inspection taking place in August 2020. In view of the restrictions imposed following the corona virus outbreak, this delay was understandable. The resident has confirmed that the landlord visited at least twice in the week of 3 and 20 August 2020 to inspect the damp and arranged for a damp and mould inspection report. This was completed on 14 August 2020, with evidence of penetrating damp being seen in multiple rooms in the resident’s property. It advised that the mould in these rooms should be treated within eight weeks of the inspection.
As the resident had received no communication regarding the outcome of these inspections, she submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord on 11 September 2020. In its response of 29 September 2020, it advised that it would arrange for a mould treatment to be applied. It also advised the resident that additional internal work would be completed once the cause of the damp and mould had been identified. Due to the risk of the damp and mould returning, it was reasonable for the internal work to be suspended until the cause of the issue has been identified.
The landlord acted fairly in arranging for a further damp and mould inspection on 7, 16 and 29 October 2020, which found further evidence of penetrating damp at the property, as well as a possible second leak within the wall there, contributing to the issues experienced by the resident. It also highlighted possible causes to be within the drain gulley, as well as a raised area outside which had been built over the damp-proof course.
The landlord acted reasonably and cleared the drain gulley on 10 November 2020 and addressed the raised area on 30 November 2020, demonstrating a desire to address any possible causes in order to address the resident’s complaint. During the latter visit, it had identified a missing elbow pipe within the drainage. The landlord acknowledged that this pipe would benefit the drainage from the property and duly installed this during the visit; however, this was not considered to be the cause of the issues seen.
Further pipework leaks were found in both the property’s wall on 8 December 2020 and in the flooring there on 14 December 2020, with the latter considered to be the cause of the other issues. Having identified the cause of the damp and mould, the landlord was then obliged to repair the cause of the leaks by its conditions of tenancy and priority of repairs and to ensure that this had resolved matters. These repairs were completed by 14 December 2020.
The landlord demonstrated a commitment to resolving the resident’s complaint by arranging for frequent visits to the property to establish the cause of the damp and mould, and providing a dehumidifier and a kitchen extractor fan by 7 December 2020. However, it did not provide her with an update following its visits in August 2020, which resulted in her stage one complaint. It is also noted that in her complaint of 7 December 2020 the resident reported that the damp and mould was now present in all rooms of the property, including the bedrooms. There is no evidence that the landlord attended to inspect and plan treatment to the newly affected areas when it was notified that the issue had spread.
No documentary evidence has been provided to show that the landlord committed to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom of the property and to install a new fan in the toilet. In the absence of supporting evidence, the Ombudsman cannot prefer the account of one party over another. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to why an extractor cannot be fitted in the toilet. Although the landlord has indicated that a suitable fan is currently installed in the bathroom, the resident reported that this was hardly working and so the landlord should have attended to inspect this to ensure that it was in good working order before refusing a replacement.
The landlord has accepted that resolving the damp and mould issues required a lengthy investigation, with there being a clear adverse effect on the resident. It is understandable that issues of mould and damp can often require further investigation, which in turn may result in a longer than usual response time to resolve the matter. However, no compensation has been offered for the distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of the delays seen in addressing the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
As per the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, compensation awards of £50 to £250 may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, with an example being a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact on the overall complaint. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, as well as delays in getting matters resolved. In view of this, the landlord should have offered compensation for the above identified failings in order to provide adequate redress to the resident by recognising these financially.
In short, the landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident. It clearly recognised and accepted that it had taken a lengthy time to address the damp and mould, and the actions that it took to remedy this were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being its failure to offer compensation to the resident. Accordingly, while the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was good overall, the omission of a fair and reasonable consideration of compensation for its recognised failings was a service failure.
The landlord has therefore been ordered below to compensate the resident for any distress and inconvenience that she experienced from its delays and lack of updates in resolving her reports of damp and mould, as well as to reinspect the property for damp and mould and to carry out any necessary treatment or works to all affected areas. The landlord is also ordered to inspect and carry out any necessary repairs to the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord acted appropriately on 21 December 2020 by giving the resident a public liability claim form for her to claim for damages to her possessions and any injuries instead of compensating her for these items itself, as its conditions of tenancy did not permit it to do so, and so it has also been ordered below to re-invite her to submit such a claim if she has not yet done so.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Reasons

The landlord has not offered compensation to the resident for her distress and inconvenience as a result of the delay in addressing the damp and mould at her property.
The landlord failed to update the resident following its inspection in August 2020, resulting in the complaint from the resident.
The landlord has not evidenced that it inspected all areas of the property for signs of damp and mould and recorded its findings. It has also not evidenced that it inspected the bathroom extractor fan, which the resident states is not functioning correctly.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident £250 compensation within four weeks in recognition of any distress and inconvenience that she experienced from its delays and lack of updates in resolving her reports of damp and mould.
2. Inspect all areas of the property for signs of damp and mould and complete any necessary treatment, remedial or redecoration works within four weeks.
3. Inspect the bathroom extractor fan at the property to determine whether it is in good working order and carry out any necessary repairs or replace the fan if it is found to be beyond repair, within four weeks.
4. Contact the resident within four weeks to re-invite her to submit a public liability claim form to it to claim for damages to her possessions and any injuries, if she has not done so already.
The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks of the date of the final determination to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.