Leeds City Council (202102384)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102384

Leeds City Council

20 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. On 10 January 2020, the resident reported to the landlord about damp in the property. An inspection was raised to be attended on 14 January 2020, however, the appointment was cancelled as the agent could not gain access to the property, and the landlord was unable to rearrange the appointment before COVID restrictions came in to force in March 2020.
  3. On 11 June 2020, an order was raised for a new extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom, however, this was delayed as all ‘non-urgent’ repairs were placed on hold by the landlord during COVID restrictions. On 15 October 2020, the landlord conducted a property inspection to investigate the reports of damp, during which its agent noticed that there were signs of condensation and raised a job for gutter clearance. The gutter clearance was completed on 24 November 2020 and no signs of water ingress were reported by the contractor at that time.
  4. On 29 April 2021, the resident contacted this Service to explain that she only had use of one room in the property due to the damp issue. The resident had not made a formal complaint to the landlord at that stage; the landlord regarded this Service’s subsequent correspondence with it as the stage one complaint. The landlord offered its response in the form of a phone conversation with the resident on 17 May 2021, but it also completed a written summary of the complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint as the fitting of the extractor fan had not been completed since the previous year.
  5. The landlord also offered an apology to the resident and explained that the backlog of repairs due to COVID had caused the delay. The landlord also confirmed that an agent had visited the property that day and had offered advice on how to heat and ventilate the property correctly in order to minimise condensation. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that there would be a visit the following day. The agent identified evidence of black mould on this visit and arranged to have it cleaned which was done on 3 June 2021. An order was also raised for the installation of new extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
  6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage two through this Service. The landlord issued its final response on 14 September 2021. It apologised again for the delay in installing the extractor fans. It also offered information and advice on how the resident might avoid damp and condensation within the property.
  7. Once the internal complaints procedure (ICP) had been exhausted, the resident wrote to this Service on 13 December 2021 to explain that the issue had still not been resolved and that her clothes had been ruined due to mould. A visit from the landlord on 15 December 2021 showed the new extractor fans had been installed correctly in October and there was no evidence of damp or mould at the property. It provided information for the resident to make a claim for damages with the landlord’s insurer even though this had not been brought to the landlord’s attention during the ICP.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 10.8 of the landlord’s Tenancy Agreement Booklet states that if the resident is unhappy with the repairs service, ‘[the resident] can complain using the [landlord’s] complaints procedure.
  2. Section 10.10 of the Tenancy Agreement Booklet states that ‘[The resident] must make sure that at all times there is adequate ventilation and heating within [the resident’s] home and follow any advice given by the [landlord] to prevent condensation.
  3. It is stated on page five of the landlord’s Compliments & Complaints Policy that the landlord should ‘respond in full to [the resident] within 15 working days’. It is also stated that ‘[the landlord’s] response can be provided by letter, email, face to face or by telephone’.
  4. Page seven of the landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook states that an extractor fan not working in the kitchen or bathroom is classed as a “priority” repair and the landlord will carry out the repair within seven working days.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has stated that personal possessions had been damaged due to the damp and mould in the property. However, the Ombudsman will not normally investigate issues that have been raised following the completion of the complaints process under investigation. This issue of clothes was brought to the landlord’s attention on 23 March 2022 and there had been no mention of this during the ICP or during any visits to the property by the landlord. In addition, the landlord’s later correspondence confirmed that this issue would progress through an insurance claim process and the Ombudsman will not assess any issues that have progressed down such a route as the Housing Ombudsman Scheme does not provide the authority for an Ombudsman assessment of liability/negligence issues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

  1. The resident’s first report of damp was given to the landlord on 10 January 2020. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore it is expected that a landlord should respond to these types of reports with urgency.
  2. The landlord booked an inspection within a reasonable timeframe (14 January 2020) but the inspection was cancelled as the agent could not gain access to the property. It was not specified why the landlord could not gain access. The landlord said that it was unable to rearrange the appointment before COVID restrictions came into force. However, the government’s order to ‘stop non-essential contact and travel’ was issued on 16 March 2020. This would have given the landlord a window of two months for the inspection to be rearranged. The landlord’s failure to do so meant that the opportunity to identify and potentially address any issues within the property were missed prior to the national lockdown.
  3. The restriction of contact and movement during the recent pandemic is, in most cases, a reasonable cause for delay in services by the landlord. However, given the fact that the inspection had been raised as an urgent issue, it is unclear why it could not have been booked again within the two months prior to restrictions being introduced, and the landlord did not offer an explanation as to why this was the case.
  4. It is important for the landlord to ensure that communications with residents are clear and timely and that they be kept updated of developments regarding ongoing. This helps manage the expectations of residents and, additionally, helps to improve the resident/landlord relationship. This is particularly important in potentially complex cases such as this, due to the hazards that damp and mould can impose, and the obvious constraints of COVID at the time.
  5. The landlord has stated that on 11 June 2020, an order was raised for a new extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom, but this was delayed as all ‘non-urgent’ repairs were on hold during the COVID restrictions. The landlord’s Repairs & Maintenance Handbook states that this type of repair would have been classed as a ‘priority repair’ and it is not known whether such repairs would fall in to the landlord’s classification of ‘urgent’ repairs.
  6. Additionally, there is no indication as to what led to the decision that a new extractor fan needed to be installed. The landlord has not provided any evidence of an inspection preceding this decision and has not offered an insight as to how it concluded that a new extractor fan was needed. Had the landlord done so, this would have provided reassurance and clarification to the resident as to why this would solve the issues he was experiencing. Additionally, it is important for this Service to understand why a landlord has decided to act upon an issue, the severity of the issue, and the time taken to resolve the issue from the point of it being identified. The landlord’s failure to provide this information highlights a concern with the landlord’s record keeping, an essential aspect of any landlord’s overall service delivery.
  7. On 15 October 2020, the landlord conducted a property inspection to investigate the reports of damp in the property. The landlord identified signs of condensation in the property and as a precautionary measure, it raised a work order for a gutter clearance. This work was completed on 24 October 2020, but no signs of water ingress were reported at that time. As well as this precautionary measure, the landlord should have ensured that the outstanding work to install the new extractor fan was completed, however, it failed to do so and the work was delayed further.
  8. The landlord confirmed in its stage one response (17 May 2021) that it had offered advice around heating and ventilating the property to reduce the presence of condensation and mould growth. The Ombudsman’s guidance for landlords is to attempt to be proactive on possible damp/mould issues and to be careful about the wording it uses in discussing such issues with residents. Although the landlord’s reasoning has not been presented to this Service, the landlord had deemed it necessary in the previous months for a new extractor fan to be installed in the bathroom. This would suggest that poor ventilation (an issue suggested by the landlord as the cause for the damp and mould) was not solely the fault of the resident. Had the landlord been proactive in solving the issue by installing the extractor fan, there is a possibility that the ventilation might have been improved, irrespective of any lifestyle changes the resident enacted.
  9. The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged that the fitting of the fan had not been completed since the previous year. The landlord offered an apology for this, though it did not offer any form of compensation to the resident in recognition of the delay. This would have been both reasonable and appropriate as the delay had been almost one year by this time, during which the resident continued to experience damp and mould. Although it is understandable that the COVID restrictions would have had some impact on the landlord’s ability to conduct repairs and installations, it still had the opportunity to implement the work at an earlier point and failed to do so.
  10. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedy guidance suggests that service failures that impact the resident in ‘distress and inconvenience, time and trouble… and delays in getting matters resolved’ would warrant a payment of compensation between £50 to £250. In this case however, the amount of compensation this Service will order the landlord to pay has been calculated with regard to the impact that the COVID restrictions may have had on carrying out repairs.
  11. It should also be noted that a key aspect of the resident’s initial complaint was that she said she only had use of one room in the property. However, there is no evidence that this issue was addressed by the landlord in its response. Although it is stated that the resident was ‘happy’ with the inspection and the response, this Service would expect to see an investigation into all aspects of the resident’s complaint, and an explanation as to whether or not the landlord agreed that the resident was unable to use the other rooms in the property.
  12. On 18 May 2021 the landlord conducted a property inspection to investigate the reports of damp. The landlord found evidence of black mould and raised an order to have it cleaned. This was completed on 3 June 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this, however, the landlord suggested again that this was due to inadequate heating and ventilation in the property. The landlord has presented no evidence to suggest this was the case. Additionally, if it was the case that the resident was the cause of the damp and mould, the landlord would be expected to support the resident in tackling the issue by taking a proactive stance, including working with the resident to identify any issues he might be experiencing in following guidance/advice provided by the landlord.
  13. The order to install the extractor fans was cancelled in June 2021 (date unspecified) as the contract with the landlord’s contractor expired on 30 June 2021. It was cancelled as the contractor could not install the fans before the contract expired. The landlord would be expected to inform the resident of this further delay as it is vital to keep residents informed on where the landlord stands with regard to any planned work on the property. This helps to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the work. In the landlord’s final response, the resident was advised to contact the landlord if the fans had not been installed by the end of September 2021, but there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord informed the resident of the extra delay and the reasoning behind it.
  14. The fans were installed in October 2021 which the landlord stated was invoiced on 28 October 2021. This would suggest that the fans were installed almost one month after the deadline given to the resident (end of September). The compensation order below has factored in this further delay, in order to reflect any additional inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  15. On 13 December 2021, the resident reported that the new fans were not working. The landlord attended the property on 15 December 2021 and noted that new parts needed to be ordered in order to repair. The landlord stated that ‘the parts were sourced and were fitted on 5 January 2022’. The landlord said that the fans were then left in full working order. Whilst it is of concern that the resident experienced issues with the fans once installed, this occurred outside the complaint under investigation and, as such, no further assessment of these events has been included here.

Determination

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

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £250 compensation to the resident for the service failures identified.
  2. The landlord to evidence compliance to this Service with this order within 28 days of this report.