Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Gravesham Borough Council (202014010)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014010

Gravesham Borough Council

9 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Mould and damp at the property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. A request for rehousing. 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about a request for rehousing is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in his opinion:

‘Fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.’

  1. This complaint is best suited for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO considers complaints about local authorities and complaints which fall under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. These complaints include applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which includes housing associations). This includes complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord is to acknowledge within five working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can appeal the decision, and this would be acknowledged within five working days and a response provided within 10 working days. If the resident remains unhappy, the matter may be referred to the Chief Executive for review and a response provided within 10 days.
  3. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the home, this includes roofs, chimneys, chimney stacks, flues (but not sweeping), exterior walls, floors, ceiling, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside walls and paths. The landlord also has an obligation to repair kitchen and bathroom fixtures, heating and water heating equipment.
  4. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors had caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.
  5. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
  6. The landlord’s repair policy sets out the response times which it aims to attend to repairs including emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. An example of an emergency repair is any other incident that could seriously damage the resident’s health (such as risk to life) or the fabric of the property.

Summary of events

  1. There had been recurring reports of mould and damp at the property from the resident soon after the start of the tenancy. On 1 April 2019, a professional mould survey was undertaken and it was determined that the mould issues were caused by the resident’s behaviour and not due to structural defects at the property. The landlord provided the resident with a number of methods for combating mould including wiping down surfaces, ventilating the property and using heating to prevent condensation.
  2. On 19 November 2019, upon further reports of mould and damp from the resident the landlord conducted an internal damp and mould inspection and questionnaire. It was noted that the resident was not using the methods provided by the mould specialist in April 2019 (above) to reduce mould growth at the property.
  3. On 29 November 2019, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord about mould issues at the property. She raised the following:
    1. That she had contacted the landlord on three separate occasions between 27- 29 of November 2019 and had not received a response. She advised that there was mould on the wall behind her bed, on a bunk bed and on the carpet which had become progressively worse.
    2. The landlord advised that the mould was due to the number of people occupying the bedroom and that it had done everything that had previously been advised by its mould specialist. It stated that the property was only fit for one to two people.
    3. She stated that there were three people living in the property and that she had previously provided the landlord with a copy of her daughter’s birth certificate. She stated that she had been bidding for a two-bedroom property for two years only to be told by the landlord that she had to submit all her evidence again as the information was with the Allocations Department and not the Housing Department.
    4. She raised that the mould was causing health problems for her daughter and herself as they both experienced asthma.
  4. On 9 December 2019, the landlord provided the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following issues:
    1. It advised that after it received the damp and mould report, it was established that the resident was not using the heating at the property in order to prevent condensation. It acknowledged that the resident was struggling to afford heating however it stressed the importance of using the heating to combat the issue. It accepted that the pictures provided by the resident suggested a deterioration of the situation which could be due to the heating not being used as required. It highlighted that having an extra individual at the property on the weekend could make the situation worse.
    2. It confirmed and recognised that the resident needed a bigger property and that she had been issued with a band C in her housing transfer application. It advised that there was a shortage of two-bedroom properties and it could be a considerable time before the resident obtained an alternate property. 
    3. It confirmed that the Allocations Team had a copy of her daughter’s birth certificate on file and it would be shared with its Housing Teams. It apologised that the resident was incorrectly advised that she would need to advise the teams separately and its current procedures would be reviewed to ensure that this does not happen in the future.
  5. On 13 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be progressed to stage two of its complaints process.
  6. On 14 February 2020, a mould and damp survey was carried out at the resident’s property. No building defects were found and the survey found that issues were due to internal conditions. The expert advised that the resident should take the following precautions including using ventilation when showering, dry washing outside, do not dry laundry on the radiators, use cross ventilation while cooking and use heaters on a low temperature for longer and close windows and vents.
  7. On 18 March 2020, proposed mould prevention works were scheduled at the property for April 2020 including a deep clean, new lining paper and anti-fungal treatment. These works were cancelled due to Covid-19 restrictions coming into place.
  8. On 19 June 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two formal response and addressed the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in progressing the resident’s complaint and stated that it was due to a combination of factors including a change in management structure and the subsequent impact of Covid-19. It advised that whilst it had not responded in a reasonable time, its team continued to work with the resident to identify and prevent the cause of the mould at the property.
    2. It acknowledged the resident had tried to act upon the recommendation from the mould report but, due to financial reasons, found it difficult to maintain the required levels of heating specified in the reports. It advised that this coupled with the number of people living at the property was making the mould issue worse.
    3. It advised that it was now able to complete the mould prevention work, specified in Paragraph 17 above, and if the resident kept to the recommended heating and cross ventilation the mould issue would be resolved. It advised that it would provide the resident with information in regard to reducing her energy cost and could supply her with a ‘Mould-less Metre’ to help monitor the situation in the bedroom.
    4. It reviewed the resident’s circumstances in relation to her position on the Housing Register and determined that she was correctly placed on band C. It recommended that she consider looking at mutual exchange options as people on occasion look to downsize.
    5. It was sorry to hear of the resident’s and her daughter’s allergies and the information had been passed onto the Housing Allocations Team which would determine the impact on the resident’s housing need and whether their conditions lead to a change in housing priority.
  9. On 15 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be progressed to stage three of its complaints process and raised the following:
    1. That it was unacceptable that four people had to reside in a one-bedroom flat and that the landlord had failed to assess people in accordance with their needs.
    2. She stated that the mould problem was getting worse due to the number of people living at the property and it had caused damage to her furniture. She advised that the landlord said that mould works needed to be carried out, yet it had been two months and she had not been contacted in regard to the issue.
  10. On 28 July 2020, contractors completed specialist mould treatments and the redecoration of the resident’s bedroom as a good will gesture.
  11. On 20 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage three final response and addressed the following:
    1. It apologised for the delay in communication throughout the complaint and explained that the Covid-19 pandemic had a severe impact on its ability to respond to complaints. It acknowledged that on occasion the resident needed to chase a response. In recognition of this it offered the resident £50 goodwill gesture as a form of compensation.
    2. It addressed the ongoing mould and damp at property and highlighted that it had taken active steps to address the problem including inspecting the property, performing a specialist mould and damp survey, providing the resident with advice to alleviate the issue and undertaking the recommended works as outlined in Paragraph 17 above. It was disappointed that the resident did not follow the specialist’s instructions to heat the property in an attempt to alleviate the mould. It acknowledged that it did not complete the recommended works as quickly as it would have liked but this was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It offered the resident £40 to contribute to the initial rise in electricity cost of the resident running the heaters and also redecorated the resident’s bedroom as a goodwill gesture.
    3. It addressed the resident’s request to secure larger accommodation and advised that her current situation did not meet the statutory definition of overcrowded. It advised that the medical evidence that the resident supplied did not change the banding and the resident was correctly established as Band C. It acknowledged that the resident’s housing situation had not been ideal and as she was currently pregnant it would increase the resident’s priority to ‘Band B priority’ and backdate it to October 2017. It instructed the resident to continue to bid on properties as she had been doing.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident had reported ongoing issues with damp and mould at the property in April 2019, in response the landlord arranged for a professional mould survey to be undertaken. It was identified that the mould was caused by condensation and it appropriately gave the resident advice on how to help prevent the mould. The resident raised further issues in regard to mould at the property in November 2019 and the landlord conducted an internal damp and mould inspection and questionnaire. It was concluded that the issues persisted as the resident was not using the methods provided by the mould specialist and the situation was being exacerbated by the number of people staying at the property. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to follow the mould specialist instructions in order to alleviate the problem.
  2. The resident raised further complaints about mould on 13 January 2020 and the landlord and the mould specialist performed a joint inspection at the property on 14 February 2020. During the inspection no building defects were found and it was advised that the mould was a result of condensation and environmental factors and that the resident should take precautions to reduce condensation, as highlighted in Paragraph 17. After the inspection the landlord took a resolution focused approach and scheduled mould prevention works for April 2020 however due to the Covid-19 pandemic the works were cancelled in line with government regulation.
  3. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of its mould specialist and the outcome of the three inspections that had been carried out and conclude that the mould was being caused by condensation. The landlord was not obliged by the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement or Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act to take steps to remedy the condensation. However, the landlord was required to consider whether the mould amounted to a hazard as defined by the HHSRS and whether it needed to take any steps to reduce it. The evidence indicates that the landlord did consider its responsibilities in this regard as it agreed to carry out preventative mould treatment works.
  4. On 28 July 2020, the landlord completed the specialist mould treatments at the property and redecorated the resident’s bedroom as a goodwill gesture. The landlord took a proactive approach and offered the resident £40 to alleviate the initial rise in cost from running the heaters in accordance with that recommended in the mould report. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that overcrowding was a contributing factor to the mould growth and therefore increased the resident’s banding to assist her to find a more suitable property.
  5. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of mould and damp as it had specialists investigate the issue, diagnose the problem and supply the resident with the appropriate information to alleviate the issue. It also arranged for mould treatment works to be carried out and provided the resident with £40 to contribute to the cost of adequately heating the property. It also decorated the resident’s bedroom as a good will gesture.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. The landlord aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at all stages of the complaints process. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident was made on 29 November 2019 and the landlord provided a formal response on 9 December 2019 in line with its complaint process.
  2. The complaint was not able to be resolved and was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 13 January 2020. The landlord provided a written response on 19 June 2020 which represents an extensive five-month delay. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay and outlined that it was due to a change in management structure and the subsequent impact of Covid-19. This service accepts that Covid-19 had a significant effect on the landlord’s complaint response times, and notes that its team continued to work with the resident in relation to the mould at the property.
  3. On 15 July the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage three of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided a formal response on 20 August 2020 which represents a 3-week delay in providing the resident with a response. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in communication throughout the complaints process. In recognition of this the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation and an apology which was reasonable and proportionate to put right the communication failures.
  4. Overall, the length of time that passed was not appropriate as the landlord is expected to operate a timely and efficient complaints process that complements its overall service delivery. The landlord however appropriately made an offer of reasonable redress of £50 for the delay and failures in its complaint handling. The amount offered by the landlord was proportionate to its delays throughout the internal complaints procedure and sufficient to put right this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the handling of the reports about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of mould in line with its repairs policy and organised for specialists to investigate the issue. The property was inspected on three different occasions. The problem was diagnosed as being environmental and it supplied the resident with the appropriate information to alleviate the issue. It arranged for mould treatment works to be carried out and provided the resident with £40 to contribute to the cost of adequately heating the property.
  2. There were delays at both stage two and three of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord explained the significant effect that Covid-19 had on its customer response times and that its staff had continued to work with the resident. It offered the resident an apology and £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused which was reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord reoffer the resident the £50 for its complaint handling failures if it has not already been paid.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord currently has a three stage complaints procedure. It is recommended that it considers implementing a two stage complaints procedure, in line with good practice as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. See link https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/