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

Wolverhampton City Council (202000893)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000893

Wolverhampton City Council

11 July 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 concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the return of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Delays replacing the front door.
    3. How the landlord responded to the resident’s pest reports.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house. Both the resident and her representative have corresponded with the landlord and this Service during the complaint. For reasons of clarity, the resident and representative have been collectively referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. The resident experienced issues of damp and mould in the property. The landlord arranged for an inspection of the property in December 2019, then raised work orders for repairs recommended in the surveyor’s inspection report. However, due to the Covid-10 pandemic and national lockdowns, there were delays in the work being completed. The landlord’s repair logs state that a further inspection took place on 1 September 2020 and that all recommended and follow-on works were completed by October 2020.
  3. On 10 May 2021, the resident contacted this Service and expressed her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled the matter. She explained that the mould had returned, that she had experienced poor service from one of the landlord’s staff, she was still waiting for a door to be replaced, and that pests (slugs) were entering the property.
  4. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who opened a complaint and sent a stage one complaint response on 12 May 2021. The landlord confirmed that an inspection of the door had been booked for 18 May 2021 and that it would arrange for its damp consultant to revisit the property. The landlord also apologised for any poor customer service the resident experienced, and explained that it had been experiencing a high level of contact after the restrictions on its services caused by Covid-19 had been lifted.
  5. The landlord sent a follow-on response to the resident on 2 June 2021. It informed her that:
    1. Its damp consultant had revisited the property and had found no evidence of penetrating damp. They did find evidence of condensation mould near a window, which may have been a result of a cold spot or poor ventilation due to the window vents being closed.
    2. The damp consultant did not see any slugs but did observe slug trails. No evidence of access points was found. The landlord noted that the consultant did not have full access to the flooring as new laminate had been installed.
    3. Following the door inspection, the landlord had agreed to install a replacement. The landlord advised the resident that there may be a delay in completing the work, as it had been experiencing delays from the door manufacturer.
  6. Following an escalation request from the resident, a stage two complaint response was sent on 27 August 2021. The landlord informed stood by its position as set out at stage one regarding damp and mould. It then explained that any presence of slugs was not a result of defects in the property and advised the resident to apply sealant to close any gaps between the skirting board and the laminate flooring she had installed.
  7. In correspondence with this Service the resident explained that they had taken moisture readings in their home, which they said gave high readings. We recommended that they provide that information to the landlord for consideration.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also 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 damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  2. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property, after it was informed by the resident of her concerns that damp and mould had returned following the work undertaken in 2019 and 2020.
  3. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the surveyor’s report sent to it after the 2 June 2021 inspection. The report stated that the living room bay window showed “evidence of a small quantity of black mould growth to the LHS and RHS to the bay window. During inspection the LHS trickle vent is in a closed position and the RHS vent is partially open. Windows were open during inspection”.
  4. The report went on to state that the surveyor found no evidence of penetrating damp in any of the rooms in the property, and confirmed that all recommended repairs from their previous inspection on 1 September 2020 had been completed.
  5. The landlord provided this information to the resident in its complaint responses and explained that the black mould could be removed by routine cleaning.
  6. It is not apparent from the evidence whether the resident gave to the landlord their own moisture/damp readings. If they have taken such readings and kept the relevant records, it would be open to them to show the landlord, who would need to consider them against their own inspection findings to determine why they might differ.
  7. Overall, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. It correctly followed its obligations by arranging for a specialist to inspect the property when informed by the resident of her concerns that the damp and mould had returned. The landlord then explained the surveyor’s findings and explained why it would be her responsibility to remove the black mould. It also gave advice on ventilation to lessen the chances that the black mould would return. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and opinion given to it by its damp proofing consultant.

Delays in replacing the front door

  1. The landlord’s repair logs state that it was contacted by the resident on 5 May 2021 and informed that the front door of the property was sticking, making it hard to open and close.
  2. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 18 May 2021, which recommended that the door should be replaced. In the stage one response, the landlord confirmed that the door would be replaced, but informed the resident that due to a backlog of work at the manufacturer, there would be a delay before a new door could be installed.
  3. When informed by the resident of issues with opening and closing the door, the landlord arranged for an inspection which took place inside the 20-calendar day timeframe for routine repairs specified in its repairs policy. The landlord accepted the advice of its contractor to replace the door, and advised the resident of the delays it was experiencing with its door manufacturer.
  4. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord as it responded to the residents reports in line with its repairs policy and the delay in the manufacturing of the door was due to circumstances outside of its control.

How the landlord responded to slugs gaining access to the property

  1. The 2 June 2021 surveyor’s inspection looked at the issue of slugs in the property. The inspection report notes that:
    1. “Tenant has reported slugs to the area of the LHS chimney alcove and illustrated a slug trail to the underside of the sofa and to the rug. During inspection we did not locate the presence of slugs but confirm trails were present. The Lounge is solid concrete overlaid with a laminate floor covering and is in good condition. There is a small gap between the laminate flooring and skirting. – During inspection the Tenant did not offer to remove the laminate flooring and we have a head camera video footage of inspection to substantiate.”
  2. The summary and remedial action section of the report went on to state as follows:
    1. “Based upon our inspection we could not locate the presence of any slugs however there is evidence that they are present due to the trails on the sofa and rug. Slugs are present to locations where areas are cool and dark. The sofa is positioned tight to this location and cannot ventilate properly. Common entry points for slugs include spaces under doors, joints along walls and gaps between floors. There is a clear gap between the laminate flooring and the timber skirting boards and we recommend filling this gap to prevent entry.”
  3. The landlord passed on this information to the resident. It explained that there were no apparent property defects which might allow the pests to enter the property, and suggested a potential solution to the resident. A landlord would usually only be responsible for resolving a pest problem if there were structural or similar repair issues that were allowing the pests to enter in significant numbers. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the issue, to identify if there were any repair issues, and, in the absence of any, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain how the resident might address the problem themselves.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. Its handling of the resident’s reports of the return of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Delays replacing the front door.
    3. How it responded to the resident’s pest reports.