Islington Council (201816165)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201816165

Islington Council

29 April 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of persistent damp and mould issues at the property;
2. The landlord’s handling of various other repairs to the property;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and the tenancy began around 2012. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise block. The landlord is the resident’s local authority.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions show it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes drains, installations for supplying water and sanitation, the internal structure and external decoration. Residents are responsible for internal fittings including skirting boards, bath panels, finishings and decorations.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Typically, a programme of improvement works is the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it will respond to complaints within 21 calendar days at stage one. At stage two, it will respond within calendar 28 days. At both stages, complaints will be acknowledged within three working days (excluding bank holidays). Escalation requests can prompt a review at stage one. Reviews will be completed within ten working days.
The resident and her daughter have vulnerabilities relating to their physical health. Both suffer from asthma and the resident gave medical evidence showing her daughter has mobility issues amongst other conditions. She has said conditions in the property mean it is unsuitable for her family on health grounds. She told the Ombudsman the bedrooms were unusable, so the family slept in the living room. Further, the landlord should either repair the property or help her move.
The resident’s personal representative helped with her complaint for a significant portion of the timeline. The information seen suggests this was no longer the case at the time of the assessment. To improve readability, this report does not differentiate between the actions of the resident or her previous representative.

Summary of events

On 24 April 2019 the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns around outstanding repairs in a stage one complaint response. It referenced damp; garden drainage; bathroom cracks, blown plaster; a leak above a balcony; a ripped carpet and damage to the hallway. The main points were:
1. Throughout 2018 repairs to the property were supervised by the landlord’s Legal Disrepair Team. All damp works were completed accordingly in November 2018. Damp and mould were not present following these works. Since there were no outstanding works orders, the landlord would arrange to survey the property.
2. A surveyor inspected drainage services in the property’s rear garden on
  28 September 2018. They confirmed a drainage outlet was shared with a neighbouring property. No defects were reported, so no repairs to the drainage were required. The resident should ensure the area around the outlet was clear to avoid blockages.
3. The landlord was unaware of cracks in the bathroom, blown plaster or a leak above the balcony. These issues would be assessed during the survey. However, its Legal Team had already investigated the damaged carpet and rejected the resident’s claim. The resident should discuss this situation with her legal representative.
4. The landlord’s contractor attempted to contact the resident in December 2018 about the damaged hallway. It eventually wrote to her, on 2 January 2019, and said she should get in touch to arrange a suitable appointment.
5. The resident’s complaint was not upheld because most of the issues raised were completed by the landlord’s Legal Disrepair Team.
The Ombudsman has not seen the original complaint which prompted this response from the landlord. Because some of the issues it addressed were re-raised later in the timeline, it provides useful background context.
On 20 May 2019 the Ombudsman advised the resident to escalate her complaint if she was dissatisfied with the outcome. No evidence was seen to show this was done. The resident notified the Ombudsman she was in dispute with her solicitor prior to this interaction.
On 9 March 2020 a surveyor inspected the property in response to reported leaks affecting both bedrooms. Their report shows damp was identified in the rear bedroom and hallway. Mould was found in the front bedroom. Hairline cracks, de-bonded plaster and staining were also found on walls throughout the property. The report said some of the staining resulted from previous leaks that were rectified.
It also said moisture readings showed there was no external water ingress into the front bedroom. Further, they suggested the mould was caused by condensation. However, this couldn’t be fully confirmed since the heating was switched off prior to the inspection due to a leak. It said no damp patches were found on the window wall at the time of the inspection.
The report said damp patches on the ceiling in the rear bedroom could be caused by a leak from above or outside. However, further investigation was needed to fully determine the cause. A damp patch in the living room was associated with leaking heating pipes that also affected the lower hallway. It said this leak was rectified prior to the inspection.
The report recommended stripping the window wall in the front bedroom. Washing, treatment and sealing works should then be undertaken to address the mould, allowing wallpaper to be rehung. It said these works would be referred to the insurer (to establish whether they were covered as part of any claim).
It said wet plaster in the living room and lower hallway should be removed, and when dry, reinstated. Redecoration and stain blocking works were recommended to affected rooms.
The report said the resident raised several other issues during the inspection, but many of these problems could not be verified. For example, there was no evidence of water ingress into the front bedroom from an overflow pipe linked to the flat above. There were also no signs the kitchen sink was backing up, or that the unit was water damaged. Moisture readings to an area of concern in the living room showed it was dry.
However, a visual inspection showed signs of pooling water in the middle of the rear garden. Nevertheless, the report made no recommendations in respect of the drainage. The tenant was advised to discuss installation of an additional hallway handrail with the landlord’s Occupational Therapy Team.
On 27 November 2020, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response addressing the resident’s concerns around asbestos. It noted insurance works to the rear bedroom were ongoing following a leak. The resident’s complaint was not upheld, but her concerns about a hallway handrail would be passed to the landlord’s relevant team. Contact details for this team were also provided.
The resident raised a new formal complaint on 1 December 2020. She said she recently received a letter about rent arrears from the landlord. However, in March 2020 it said she could withhold rent because the property was in disrepair. The main points were:
1. The landlord had promised to arrange alternative accommodation if all necessary repair works were not completed by December 2020.
2. An insurance surveyor inspected the property in March and September 2020. They arranged redecoration works to the hall and living room, which were damaged by a leak. Due to issues with the appointed decorator, the parties eventually agreed the resident would arrange the redecoration. The landlord paid for the materials.
3. Multiple promised works to the property were outstanding. These were: installation of air bricks to the front bedroom, a replacement bath panel, a hole in the bathroom wall, installation of drainage in the rear garden, damaged kitchen cabinets and a sink which frequently backed up, a backfilling toilet, damp and mould in the front bedroom and blown plaster throughout the property. Further, the condition of the hallway plaster was preventing an extra handrail being fitted on the stairs. This was necessary due to her daughter’s medical condition.
4. The resident was paying for a two-bedroom property but both bedrooms were unusable due to damp, mould and leaks. She had raised issues from 2012 and previously engaged in legal action against the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 23 December 2020. It addressed the resident’s concerns about insurance works to the property. It said:
1. All insurance related works to the property were complete following water damage to the hallway, balcony and rear bedroom from a burst pipe. The landlord had not agreed to install air bricks as part of these works.
2. The following issues were unrelated to the insurance works: the bath panel, a hole in the bathroom wall, the kitchen sink and damaged cabinets, and the back surging toilet. Any general repair issues should be reported to the landlord’s Repairs Team. While an extra handrail was also unrelated, the resident should contact the landlord’s Occupational Therapy Team to allow any requirements to be assessed.
3. The landlord reviewed drainage services in the rear garden during the legal case. However, any pest infestation should be reported to the landlord’s Pest Control Team. The case also considered damp and mould in the front bedroom and no supporting evidence was found. It had addressed the resident’s concerns around flooring in the same room. The resident should refer to her legal representative for clarification.
4. The legal case superseded the landlord’s complaints process, so it was unable to comment further. The landlord had responded to all the resident’s concerns and her complaint was not upheld.
On the same day, the resident notified the landlord she disagreed with its findings and asked to escalate her complaint.
The escalation request prompted the landlord to issue a review response on
29 December 2020. It said the landlord’s position on the complaint was unchanged, since all insurance works were complete, and the review was undertaken to allow the complaint to proceed to stage two.
The resident updated the landlord on 10 January 2021. She said works were outstanding and “bad” mould was present in the front bedroom. Her update suggests, along with the landlord’s previous correspondence, that mould treatment works to the front bedroom were unrelated to the insurance works prompted by the leak.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint acknowledgement on 29 January 2021. It said the landlord was handling a backlog of stage two complaints, but a further acknowledgement would be issued once its investigation started.
On 8 April 2021 a different surveyor assessed the property for damp and other issues. The inspection report shows moisture measuring equipment was again used to test areas of concern. It said there was no indication of water penetration or leaks, and tested areas were dry. However, mould was growing in the front bedroom on the window wall and ceiling. It attributed this to lifestyle factors including insufficient heating, furniture restricting airflow and a lack of maintenance in allowing the mould to grow.
The report recommended treatment works to the front bedroom and externally below a rear window. It shows the resident asked the surveyor to leave when they attempted to discuss damp and mould prevention methods. Further, she was advised the landlord was unable to install airbricks as this represented a building upgrade. It shows she was advised to arrange an occupational therapy assessment in respect of an additional handrail, and no issues were identified with the kitchen sink.
It confirms the resident raised concerns about the quality of the plaster in several rooms. Sections of the plasterwork were described as “tappy” in the report. It said, though the resident requested removal, replacement and redecoration of the affected areas, the issue was not causing any “visual disturbance”. Further, prior to the resident’s own decoration works, two previous inspections highlighted “the walls were in fair condition and did not need plastering”.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 16 April 2021. A delay in responding to the resident’s concerns was acknowledged. It awarded £50 compensation for failing to respond within its relevant timescale. The main points were:
1. Any repairs associated with the resident’s previous disrepair claim should be pursued with the landlord’s legal team. Any unrelated repairs should be reported in the usual way to allow the landlord to raise corresponding works orders.
2. The landlord did not tell the resident to withhold rent or promise to support her transfer to a new property. Temporary accommodation was offered around March 2020, but the resident declined due to her daughter’s medical condition and the family’s two dogs. The resident was in arrears from 6 January 2020, so she should contact the landlord to arrange a payment plan.
3. Repairs raised in October 2020 were not progressed due to the pandemic. This was because all non-emergency repairs were halted for a time. The property was surveyed on 8 April 2021 to check for mould and damp, confirm the resident completed repairs in line with the landlord’s payment, and to identify any additional repairs required.
4. The resident asked the surveyor to leave because they attempted to discuss how she could manage damp and mould. Though the surveyor was unable to discuss their findings, various repairs were recommended following their report. The resident would be contacted to arrange a convenient time for the works.
5. Repairs to the property were complicated because they were often processed for different reasons, such as legal disrepair, insurance works or general repairs. The resident’s frustration was acknowledged, but the landlord had responded to reported issues, offered appropriate advice and raised necessary repairs accordingly. The resident’s complaint was therefore not upheld.
The resident replied on 18 April 2021. She said the landlord declined to consider video evidence during the inspection and failed to inspect the kitchen worktops properly. She disputed the inspection’s findings in relation to the condition of mastic in the bathroom. The wording of her correspondence suggests she was given a copy landlord’s inspection report.
She also said the landlord failed to address all her complaint points, but no further explanation was given. She said she cleaned the property daily, due to her daughter’s condition, and had spent a lot of money decorating it. She therefore disputed failing to maintain it. She said the landlord declined to install air bricks because the works would confirm there was a leak.
The landlord’s repair history shows a works order raised on 28 May 2021 to carry out mould treatment works, along with an exterior repair, was cancelled. It shows a new order for the works was raised on 3 September 2021 and marked as complete on 24 September 2021. Later evidence confirms the works were not completed. The repair history seen runs from January 2020 to December 2021. It made no further reference to mould treatment works.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 October 2021 in relation to outstanding repairs. It said it noted many of the issues were addressed in a previous legal case that concluded in favour of the landlord. The resident later disputed this description on the basis her proceedings were ultimately halted.
The landlord updated the resident on 27 October 2021. It thanked her for facilitating an inspection that day. It explained one of the attendees was a leader of its Surveying Team. The update shows the landlord viewed the resident’s list of requested repairs and assessed each item in turn. The landlord said it would create a list of required works and prove the resident a copy in due course.
The resident gave the Ombudsman the landlord’s list of agreed works on
7 November 2021. Of more than 60 requested repairs, around 18 were approved. Many approved repairs were to the block rather than the property. The list shows the landlord agreed to treat damp on the walls in the front bedroom. The resident’s accompanying note said the issue was reported on 13 July 2021 and works should have been completed around 11 October 2021.
During a phone call on 5 April 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman damp and mould issues were ongoing at the property.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident has raised multiple concerns about the property over an extended period. Further, that the landlord has undertaken repair works to the property on several occasions. The evidence shows this was for a variety of reasons. It is accepted the situation has been distressing and frustrating for the resident overall.

The landlord’s handling of persistent damp and mould

The resident’s concerns about her family’s health are acknowledged. That said, no evidence was seen to show the property has been declared in need of urgent remedial works, or unfit for habitation, by a professional qualified to make such a decision. The evidence shows the property was surveyed on four occasions between March 2020 and October 2021 by several different surveyors.
The timeline confirms treatment works to the front bedroom were recommended on 9 March 2020. From the information seen, there is no indication these works were ever completed. The evidence suggests the initial error may have happened because the recommended works were not deemed to be part of any insurance claim. It was noted no mould related works orders were raised around the time of the March 2020 inspection.
The above period, between 9 March 2020 and 5 April 2022, represents a delay of around 25 months. It is accepted that lockdown restrictions had a significant impact on the landlord’s operations during this time. On that basis, eight months were deducted to account for the effect of restrictions. This figure included over a month for the landlord’s repair operations to recover. As a result, there were around 17 months during which the landlord failed to take appropriate action to address mould at the property in line with the recommendations of a qualified professional.
This was an inappropriate timescale overall, but especially since mould was again identified during a further survey in April 2021. While no evidence was seen to show any of the bedrooms were unusable during this time, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was unpleasant for the resident and her family. The evidence shows she spent considerable time and effort chasing repairs. It is also reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient.
As a result, this report will order the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where a landlord has failed “over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs…”. This is a reasonable benchmark given the duration of the delay and the impact to the resident.
It was noted the evidence shows the resident has reported damp and mould related issues every year since 2018. In April 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman issues around damp and mould at the property were ongoing. The Ombudsman was unable to fully confirm this with reference to the repair history, which does not include events to date. The resident is encouraged, if she hasn’t already, to report any instances of damp and mould through the landlord’s repairs process.
If damp or mould has reoccurred following treatment works, the landlord is encouraged to implement additional monitoring of the situation in line with HHSRS. This is because it is unreasonable for a landlord to attribute damp and mould problems to a resident’s lifestyle and take no further action. Such proactive monitoring is useful because it captures results in a range of conditions, for example during wet and dry weather, and it should help to conclusively determine the cause of the problem. Ultimately, the landlord may need to explore alternative solutions to the problem and their associated costs and benefits.
In summary, there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its handling of persistent damp and mould issues at the property. It failed to implement a surveyor’s recommendation to complete mould treatment works within an appropriate timescale. No evidence was seen to show these works were ever completed. The information seen suggests an avoidable delay of around 17 months has occurred and the resident was negatively impacted during this time.

The landlord’s handling of various other repairs

In relation to the various other requested repairs, the drain in the rear garden and the extra staircase handrail, along with the reported sink and toilet blockages, stand out as key issues given their safety or hygiene implications.
The timeline suggests the issue of drainage was settled in September 2018 by a surveyor. While the Ombudsman has not seen the corresponding inspection report, no recommendations were made to address the issue in any of the subsequent reports seen. There is therefore no reason to conclude the 2018 findings have been superseded. It is understood the resident is concerned about the quantity of insect larvae in standing water at certain times of the year. It is noted she was advised to contact the landlord’s Pest Control team. This was appropriate signposting on the part of the landlord.
In relation the handrail, the resident was advised to arrange an occupational therapy assessment on several occasions. This is a necessary first step to securing any alterations to the property. Other beneficial alternations may stem from such an assessment. No evidence was seen to show the landlord failed to comply with any recommendations from an occupational therapy specialist to alter the property. It is noted the surveyor’s reports made no recommendations in respect of the “tappy” plasterwork around the property. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of qualified specialists.
The evidence shows the sink and toilet were inspected on several occasions and no issues were found with either facility. As a result, no evidence was seen to show the landlord failed to comply with any associated recommendations from a professional surveyor. Nor to show that it failed to respond to any reported repairs to these items.
Overall, the evidence shows the landlord demonstrated a high level of engagement throughout the timeline in respect of the various other reported repairs. Aside from the four inspections already mentioned, previous inspections are also suggested in the evidence, for example in 2018. Multiple issues were considered during each inspection. No information was seen to show the landlord failed to respond to any repairs it was obliged to rectify in line with the tenancy conditions.
Given the above, this assessment found there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of various other reported repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

This assessment considered the landlord’s complaint handling in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published July 2020). The Ombudsman has only seen sufficient evidence to assess one complaint, raised on 23 December 2020 and addressed at stage two on 16 April 2021, from beginning to end of the complaints process.
Section 3.11 of the Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations in terms of response timescales. It shows landlords should respond within ten working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. If this is not possible landlords should contact the complainant and provide an explanation along with a new response date. This should not exceed ten working days.
It was noted the landlord’s published timescales were not compliant with the Code. These timescales were also found on the landlord’s website at the time of the assessment. The landlord was two days outside of its own response timescale at stage one. While there was a delay of around 12 weeks at stage two, the resident was advised to expect delays in the landlord’s update on
29 January 2021.
No evidence was seen to show the resident ultimately received a further update when the landlord’s the stage two investigation started. However, in its stage two response, the landlord correctly recognised there were issues with its complaint handling, and it awarded the resident £50 in compensation to acknowledge any inconvenience caused. This was reasonable action from the landlord given the delays highlighted above.
Having carefully considered the content of the landlord’s responses, its stage one response said damp and mould in the front bedroom were considered during the legal case and no supporting evidence was found. It is recognised the resident’s complaint was complicated and involved multiple issues, many of which had been raised previously. However, the response overlooked the fact that the resident had reported the issues of damp and mould again.
The evidence suggests the repairs referenced were completed in November 2018. However, mould was identified by a surveyor in the interim period before the stage one response was issued. On that basis, the information in the response had been superseded and was incorrect. This represents another missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould at an earlier stage of the timeline.
On this occasion, the opportunity was missed for the landlord to address any issues with its handling of the damp and mould through its complaints process. Ultimately, it wasn’t fair for the landlord to rely on its response to the resident’s previous legal case as a reason not to fully investigate the resident’s recent and ongoing reports of damp and mould. As a result, there was service failure on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of persistent damp and mould issues at the property.
2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of various other repairs to the property.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to implement a surveyor’s recommendation to complete mould treatment works within an appropriate timescale. No evidence was seen to show the works were ever completed and an avoidable delay of around 17 months appears to have occurred. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience during this time.
In relation to the other reported repairs, the landlord demonstrated a high level of engagement throughout the timeline. Multiple reported issues were considered over several surveyor’s reports. No evidence was seen to show the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any reported issues. Nor to show it failed to respond to any repairs it was obliged to rectify in line with the tenancy conditions.
The landlord’s stage one response included information which had been superseded. Because the information it relied on was no longer correct, the landlord missed an opportunity to address any issues with its handling of the damp and mould through its complaints process. It also treated the resident unfairly by declining to fully investigate based on the incorrect information.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £550 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failures in respect of the landlord’s handling of the persistent damp and mould.
2. £100 for any distress or inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

This is amount is to be reduced by £50 if the landlord’s award from 16 April 2021 has already been paid.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to inspect the property for damp and mould within four weeks. Any outstanding treatment works should be addressed as soon as possible. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its findings, which could include a plan for conducting additional monitoring to determine the root cause of the problem.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its complaints policy in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code within four weeks. This is to ensure the document is compliant and compatible with the Code. The landlord must notify the Ombudsman of the steps it will take to ensure compliance and give a timescale as to when its policy will fully conform to the Code.

Recommendations

The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant teams with a view to learning from the complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders and confirm its intentions regarding the recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.