Birmingham City Council (202123521)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123521

Birmingham City Council

14 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
Response to the resident’s reports about rodents in the property.
Response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to her belongings by the rodents, damp and mould.
Record keeping.
Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant in a property owned and managed by the local authority landlord. The tenancy commenced in September 2019. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has the following vulnerabilities: autism, ADHD and asthma. However, the resident is listed as not disabled on the landlord’s “Tenancy/household details “ form and no details of her vulnerabilities are recorded on the form.
The resident was represented by her mother in bringing her complaint to the landlord and to this Service. To avoid confusion the resident and her mother are referred to as “the resident “ in this report.
The conditions of tenancy says that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The conditions of tenancy also says that the landlord is not responsible for condensation or the effects of condensation, unless it arises from a breach of its repairing responsibilities. The resident must take reasonable steps to avoid moisture building up (condensation) within the property and causing damage. Reasonable steps include preventing damage to woodwork and plasterwork by regularly wiping down and drying any surfaces and windows where moisture settles. If mould growth develops, the resident must clean it off using a fungicidal solution.
In the conditions of tenancy the landlord advises residents to insure the contents of their home.
The landlord has a responsibility under 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.
Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for summary proceedings to be taken by persons aggrieved of a statutory nuisance.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that repair workers must keep any appointments made and that routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported. Some larger repairs that may need special materials and arrangements to be completed. In these cases, the tenant shall be advised what timescale to expect
The landlord’s compensation claims policy in place at the time allows for compensation to be paid where the landlord considers it has a legal liability. The policy does not allow payments that are that are ‘discretionary’ or ‘good will’ or payments for Inconvenience or distress.
The landlord’s compensation claims policy is a self contained process with its own appeal and re-appeal stages which, once completed, concludes an applicant’s opportunity to pursue compensation.
Paragraph 6.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says, “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. These can include:… providing a financial remedy.”
Paragraph 6.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says, “In awarding compensation, a landlord must consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have been incurred, the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.”
Paragraph 31 of the version of The Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme in use at the relevant time said that the Ombudsman may at any time promote resolution of a dispute by referring the complaint back to the member landlord to take further action to resolve the dispute.
Paragraph 3.11 of the version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the relevant time said “A landlord’s complaints procedure shall include the following maximum timescales for response:

Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint.

Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate.”

Paragraph 3.14 of the version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the relevant time said “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
Paragraph 15 of the version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the relevant time said “At the completion of each stage of the complaints process the landlord should write to the resident advising them of the following: the complaint stage, the outcome of the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right, details of any outstanding actions and details of how to escalate the matter if dissatisfied.
The landlord has provided this Service with copies of its repair records for the property. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with copies of telephone records or emails where the resident reported the repairs. In this report when a repair is referred to as having been raise it is assumed that this was in response to a report from the resident.
The landlord’s repair records show that a repair was raised on 11 November 2019 to prevent future mice access to the hall landing stairs, the repair was completed on 21 November 2019.
On 6 December 2019 a repair was raised to deal with holes in the airing cupboard in the kitchen as mice and rats were entering the cupboard and leaving droppings. The repair was completed on 21 January 2020.
A repair was also raised on 6 December 2019 for water leaking into the property from the flat above. The job was marked as completed on 9 December 2019 and a damp inspection was carried out at the property on 17 December 2019.
On 28 January 2020 a repair was raised to fill up a missing air brick as rats had been entering the property. The repair was completed on 10 February 2020.
Also on 28 January 2020 a repair was raised for water leaking from the flat above into the bathroom at the property, including into the electrics. The job was marked as completed on 28 January 2020. The landlord spoke to the resident in the above flat and noted that she said “this is a private flat so you cannot come in and I am not doing leak.”
On 19 February 2020 a repair was again raised regarding water leaking into the bathroom from the flat above, including into the electrics. The job was marked as completed the same day. The landlord’s contractor’s notes say that the leak is from the upstairs flat, which was owned by a leaseholder who “will not stop leak she says it is her flat and will not fix leak on going problem [the landlord] need to get involved.”
On 30 March 2020 the landlord’s contractor noted in the repair records, “Issue with leak from flat above passed to [landlord] 19/02. Tnt to call back and rebook once leak resolved.” On 7 April 2020 the landlord noted , “When the water leak from above is resolved need to return with new low voltage extract fan.”
On 4 December 2020 the resident reported damp and mould in the property to the landlord. The landlord’s repair notes say that the resident was asthmatic, autistic, had adhd and was heavily pregnant. The landlord inspected the property on 4 January 2021 and noted damp on the bedroom wall. The landlord attended the property on 3 February 2021 and the job was marked as complete.
On 22 December 2020 a repair was raised by the resident’s housing officer who had pulled the washing machine out in the kitchen, moved a plinth located under the sink and found possible mice ingress. On 4 January 2021 the landlord attended the property to make this good and prevent further pest access.
A further repair was raised on 12 January 2021 to block up holes to prevent vermin access and this was completed on 5 February 2021.
On 29 January 2021 the resident submitted a claim for compensation to the landlord for damaged personal belongings as follows:

A washing machine that she had purchased for £279 in March 2020 was not working as rats had chewed the rubber on the inside of the machine.

A bed and mattress that she had bought for £210 in December 2020 and a chest of drawers that she had bought for £50 in February 2020 had been ruined through damp and black mould.

On 8 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that :

The landlord had carried out any repairs reported to it within agreed timescales.

The landlord did not automatically insure resident’s belongings.
It was not possible for the landlord to pay compensation where there was no legal liability and it was therefore unable to make payment in respect of her claim.

On 19 February 2021 the resident spoke to the landlord and asked to appeal the compensation claim decision. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 March 2021. In its letter the landlord said that the resident’s appeal had been unsuccessful and the reasons for rejecting the claim for compensation had been set out in its letter dated 8 February 2021.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord visited the property and removed a dead rat from the kitchen. On 24 February 2021 a repair was raised to block up holes to prevent vermin access in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord attended the property on 25 February 2021 and stated that follow on works for a carpenter and a plumber were required to take out the bath. The landlord’s repair records say that holes were blocked on 5 March 2021 and that on 27 April 2021 it sealed around the bath and renewed the bath panel.
On 26 March 2021 the resident’s solicitors sent the landlord a letter before action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The attached schedule of defects said that there was evidence of rat infestation in the property.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord inspected the property and noted the following:

There was evidence of an historic issue with rats.

The property had recently been baited by the landlord’s commercial pest control and snap traps were located within the kitchen.
Bait that was left on site from the recent treatment programme showed no signs of consumption.
The bait and traps would be checked to establish if there were current issues with rodents on site.
It recommended the following rodent proofing:
1. Remove all Kitchen base unit plinths and inspect and seal any visible gaps in floor /wall junctions and around pipe work at low level.
2. Ensure any gaps where pipework enters /exits base unit base/end panels are sealed.
3. Remove bath panel, inspect and seal any visible gaps in floor /wall junctions and around pipe work at low level and seal gaps around pipe work when the bath panel has been refitted.
4. Inspect around soil pipe at low level and make good any ingress points

On 29 April 2021 the resident’s solicitor served a summons on the landlord to appear in court on 21 May 2021. The landlord says that it carried out pest works at the property and the summons was withdrawn on 21 May 2021.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord placed rat bait in the garden at the property.
On 4 June 2021 the resident’s housing officer sent an internal email saying that the resident was a very vulnerable adult with a new baby. She had just received a very distressed call from the resident’s mother who said the resident had found fresh droppings and urine “all over her clothing in the airing cupboard which is located in the hall way which means there are now rats inside the property.” She asked if the landlord could send someone to the property that day. The landlord’s pest officer attend the property that day and reported as follows:

Mouse activity (droppings) evident on the bedsheets stored within the airing cupboard.

He had baited the area of concern.
He would revisit the property early the following week to check and replace any consumed bait.
The rodent infestation would then be monitored.

On 2 July 2021 the resident’s solicitors sent the landlord a second letter before action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, again saying that there was evidence of rat infestation in the property. The landlord inspected the property on 11 July 2021 and found evidence of previous mice activity inside the property and of “rat run” in the garden. It laid bait in the property and in the garden.. On 30 July 2021 the landlord received a summons to appear in court on 3 September 2021. On 18 August 2021 the resident’s solicitors wrote to the landlord saying that they had spoken with the resident and confirmed that the required works had been successfully completed.
On 9 September 2021 the housing officer sent an internal email saying she had received another call that day from the resident’s mother who said that the rats were back in the cavity wall. The housing officer asked if the landlord could get someone to look at the issue urgently. The housing officer also asked if there was anything that could be done to stop the problem re-occurring as she was really concerned for the resident who suffered from complex mental health issues and had a young baby at the property.
On 10 September 2021 the housing officer sent another internal email asking if there was an update. She had spoken to the resident’s mother that morning who had said that she hadn’t had a call regarding the rats. The housing officer again asked if there was anything that could be put in place to stop the issue re-occurring.
The landlord attended the property on 13 September 2021 and a repair was raised to make good and prevent future access to rats as the resident reported hearing them in the bedroom walls. The repair was completed on 13 September 2021.
On 20 September 2021 the housing officer sent a further internal email asking for an update. She had spoken to the resident ‘s mother and she was concerned the rats in the cavity wall had not be investigated properly and the landlord hadn’t accessed the cavity walls. She was concerned that the landlord hadn’t removed the bath panel to check if rats had accessed the property again from around the outlet pipe under the bath. She also wanted to know if all visible access had now been blocked up. The landlord sent an internal email to the housing officer the same day saying that it had treated the rear garden but couldn’t access the cavity wall, and would not remove bath panels, but asked if the housing officer wanted to arrange a joint visit.
On 22 September 2021 the landlord raised a job to remove the bath panel, block any holes and re-fit the bath panel. This was completed on 29 September 2021.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord attended the property and reported as follows:

Bait had been taken from the tray under the sink behind plinths and from the garden.

Droppings were present under the bath panel.
On the partial removal of the corner panel behind the washing machine in the kitchen the landlord found no backing on the airvent and gaps between the floor plaster- board.
The concreate repair under sink was still wet and the landlord noted “possible rising damp (but I’m not qualified to give a proper assessment )”
It had baited the lofts of the property above and to the left to help control mice infestation that could be heard in the walls.
It had rebaited under the sink and in the garden and would revisit the property again on 13 October 2021.

On 16 November 2021 the housing officer sent an internal email saying she had received a call from the resident’s mother saying that:

There were rats in the kitchen at the property and wadding around the washing machine outlet was on the kitchen floor from the hole the landlord had discovered at the back of the washing machine.

The resident had called the landlord’s pest control team and was told no one could attend the property for two weeks. The housing officer wanted someone to attend urgently as the resident had a seven month old baby and complex mental health issues.
Despite the walls in the bedroom being painted with damp roof paint the room was still damp and had damaged the new mattress the resident had bought at the beginning of the year.
The baby was coming out in hives and the resident and her mother believe it was connected to the damp in the bedroom. The housing officer asked if the issue of why the damp kept re-occurring could be looked into. The resident had the heating on for the baby.

The landlord attended the property on 17 November 2021 and noted that all the bait behind the sink had been consumed. On surveying the kitchen the floor was still damp and the holes (missing air brick covers) where still present. The landlord scheduled to revisit to the property on 8 December 2021.
On 19 November 2021 the resident’s local councillor contacted the landlord and informed it that the resident had been threatening to take her life due to the condition of the property and the pest infestation.
Also on 19 November 2021 the resident’s housing officer sent an internal email saying that the issues facing the resident had escalated that week because:

Despite the resident’s application to transfer to another property due to overcrowding going live with over crowding points, the medical assessment was not initially looked at and she had been asked once again to provide supporting evidence.

The supporting medical evidence had been sent through three times.
The resident’s mother had been contacted by the landlord the previous day and told “the medical was refused” and that if there were issues with the property then she needed “to speak to local team”. However due to the resident’s complex mental health “she will continue to be too afraid to use the kitchen and lounge in the flat.”
The housing officer asked that her colleagues contact her to confirm if there were any two bed house conversion type properties with their own front doors available or coming on the system that it could use to decant the resident and her baby to until the appeal to her medical assessment was reviewed and the work was completed at the property.

The resident’s housing officer sent a further internal email on 22 November 2021 asking if there were any future potential two bedroom void properties voids in the area not in “high rises or blocks due to the resident’s mental health concerns”.
On 22 November 2021 the landlord visited the property and noted the following:

The bait in the kitchen had not been touched, however the bait in the garden had been eaten.

The base of the cupboard that housed the kitchen sink was still wet and had been for some time. The landlord thought there might be an issue with the waste pipe going underground and out the back wall. It had therefore raised a job for a plumber and plasterer to attend the property to investigate the damp cupboard and to cover the airbricks behind the washing machine with wire mesh and concrete to ensure no vermin could access the cavity wall or kitchen.

On 6 December 2021 the landlord blocked up the airbricks behind the washing machine.
On 7 December the landlord attended the property and noted that the bait had not been consumed and there had been no rodents seen in the property, although the resident said she could still hear them in the walls. The landlord concluded that “the current issue within property has been resolved. With noises still been heard within the wall, we would need to gain access and survey the property above and if a treatment program was carried out there would be a cost involved.”
On 16 December 2021 the landlord visited the property and sent an internal email saying:

There was slight damp at low level to the bedroom behind the bed and in the lounge behind the settee. The member of staff thought that “in the main” this was due to condensation as it was humid in the property and the resident’s chattels were directly against the walls. The resident had said that she moved them away from the walls but he couldn’t “confirm that as fact.”.

There were no pest proofing issues and no evidence of vermin activity. However, the extremely overgrown communal garden would no doubt harbour vermin until it was addressed.
The guttering and brackets were defective and full of herbaceous growth so water would not cascade into the drainage as designed. This could be penetrating the wall in the bedroom and lounge and it had raised works accordingly.
The lead flashing on the building had been “pilfered” and “as such water ingress may be inevitable”.

On 16 December 2021 the landlord raised a job to apply a fungal wash to the bedroom window and “replace the mould spotted mastic as necessary” and to replace rotten skirting boards in the hallway. The landlord arranged to attend the property on 29 December 2021 but the resident asked to change the appointment date. The landlord attended the property again on 20 January 2022 and the work to the bedroom window was marked as complete.
On 20 December 2021 the resident requested an appointment to be moved or cancelled and the repair raised for the skirting boards was marked as cancelled.
On 22 December 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 January 2021 saying that:

It had carried out numerous jobs at the property that were marked as completed on its system.

An appointment had been booked for 29 December 2021 and the resident made aware of this.
If the resident was unhappy with how it had dealt with her complaint she could request a review.

On 13 January 2022 the landlord replaced missing flashings to the front of the building and repaired all the rain waterpipes and guttering at the building. The landlord also carried out a full gutter clean removing moss and debris from trees and noted that water was now running down the downpipe.
On 11 January 2022 the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed. The landlord wrote to her on 18 January 2022. In its letter the landlord said that:

Its contractors advised that since September it had only had a reactive call for pest proofing at the property and not pest treatment.

If she wished to raise a pest control treatment she should call its contractor.
Its contractor had an appointment booked for 20 January 2022 to replace silicone sealant with anti mould sealant.
If she was unhappy with the landlord’s reasons she could contact this Service (however the landlord provided contact details for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.)

On 7 February 2022, following contact from the resident a further job was raised to replace the skirting boards.
On 9 February 2022, following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord saying that:

The resident had contacted this Service about her complaint about :
1. The landlord’s response to her reports of pest infestation.
2. The landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould that had caused damage to her belongings.

It had seen the landlord’s complaint responses date 5 January 2022 and 18 January 2022. However, it was not satisfied that the landlord had handled the complaint appropriately as:
1. There was no evidence that an appropriate investigation had taken place.
2. The landlord’s responses did not set out what the complaint was that had been received.
3. There was no explanation of how the complaint has been investigated or what information was discovered.
4. It did not appear that any evidence had been sought from the resident.
5. There was no analysis of the evidence.
6. There was no explanation for any decisions made.
It was referring the complaint back to the landlord for further consideration under paragraph 31 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It asked that the landlord investigate the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint procedure and provide a complete substantive response to the resident by 23 February 2022.

On 22 February 2022 the landlord raised a repair to carry out mould treatment at the property to “rectify mould and damp issues within the property bedroom lounge.”
On 24 February 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord saying that the landlord had not responded to the complaint as requested and asked it to do so by 3 March 2022.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord sent an internal memo saying that the landlord needed to contact the tenant in the flat above the property.
On 3 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that this Service had asked it to contact her to clarify the current position. In its letter the landlord:

Said that a request was recorded on 13 September 2021 to block up holes to prevent vermin entering the property. Repairs were completed the same day. No further reports about vermin had been made.

Explained how she could report a rat problem in the property and that it offered a free service for treating rat problems, however its services for treating other pest problems carried a charge.
Said that it had treated mould in the bedroom on 20 January 2022. A further request had been made on 22 February 2022 to treat mould in the lounge and its contractor would attend the property on 14 March 2022.
Said that according to the conditions of tenancy if mould appears residents should wipe the surface down with an anti-fungal solution.
Said that the resident had indicated that she wished to move to alternative accommodation. As a local authority it had very high numbers of citizens seeking accommodation. And she might wish to consider some alternative housing options and it attached a copy of its housing options pack which gave further advice and information and it also referred her to its website for more information.
Signposted the resident to the benefit service to obtain advice about discretionary housing payments.

On 8 March 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord issuing a Complaint Handling Failure Order as:

There was no evidence that the landlord had provided complaint responses which complied with the requirements of the paragraphs 3.14 and 3.15 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code within the relevant timescales in the code.

A fair and proper answer to the resident’s complaint had been outstanding since 9 February 2022, after this Service had contacted the landlord to advise it of the provisions of the Complaint Handling Code.

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to issue a final response to the resident no later than 4pm on 15 March 2022.
On 14 March 20202 the landlord attended the property to carry out a mould treatment. The landlord’s operative could not complete the work to the bedroom as it required a further two hours. A further appointment was made for 10 May 2022.
On 15 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with its response to the complaint. In its response the landlord said that:

Her compensation claim had been rejected because it was not possible for the landlord to pay compensation where there was no legal liability.

It had received an enquiry from the resident’s local councillor on 19 November 2021 concerning her threatening to take her life due to the condition of the property and the pest infestation. This was acted on immediately with its safeguarding team and arrangements were made for officers from environmental health and her housing officer to attend the property. Officers from both teams updated the local councillor.
It understood that the housing officer had been supporting her with disrepair and pest infestation issues since 1 June 2021 and her last contact with the resident had been on 23 February 2022 when she closed the case as the resident now had support in place.
It had reviewed the repairs reporting system from the start of the tenancy and it set out all the repairs reported for the pest and damp issues and the landlord’s response to these reports.
Its contractors had acted accordingly when repairs had been raised. It appreciated there may have been some delays and apologised as it was not always possible to attend to the agreed appointment due to other emergency repairs.
It had sent the resident a letter advising her that the appointment to treat the mould, originally scheduled for 14 March 2022 had been rearranged for 10 May 2022.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement it was not responsible for condensation or the effects of condensation, unless it arose from a breach of its repairing responsibilities and the resident must take reasonable steps to avoid moisture building up (condensation) within the property and causing damage.
As part of the two Section 82 legal actions against the landlord its disrepair team had acted, and the matter was withdrawn in court after completion of the programmed works.

The landlord’s letter dated 15 March 2022 was its final response confirming that the landlord’s internal complaints process had been exhausted.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord sent an internal email saying:

There was a leak coming into the property from the leasehold flat above which was “causing damp within the property”.

That the last note on the landlord’s system had said “advise ref to housing may need to go to home ownership as flat above is private.”
That the resident’s mother needed to be contacted as the resident suffered from anxiety and “due to leak it has now gone green and slippery tnt has a baby worried tnt may fall with baby, please contact and advise.”

On 10 May 2022 the resident cancelled the appointment for that day to carry out the mould treatment appointment as she was unwell.
During the course of this investigation the landlord has informed this Service that it is waiting for the resident to make contact to reschedule the appointment. The resident has informed this Service that she tried to make contact with the landlord and was told that its contractors would contact her with a new appointment date. The resident has said that she can still hear rats in the walls at the property, the problems with damp and mould are ongoing and that her baby is currently staying with the representative due to the condition of the property.
On 25 November 2022 this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to contact the resident that day to arrange to visit the property to inspect it for damp and mould. The landlord attended the property on 28 November 2022 and is currently writing up the report and arranging for urgent works to be carried out at the property.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

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

There is evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of mould as follows:

It raised a job to treat mould at the property on 4 December 2019 (completed on 3 February 2021).

It raised a job to treat mould at the property on 16 December 2021 (completed 20 January 2022).
A further job was raised on 22 February 2022 and this work remains outstanding.

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021 recommends that landlords should review their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. Whilst the landlord treated the mould as set out in the previous paragraph the mould reoccurred and, rather than investigate the cause of the mould and damp, the landlord informed the resident that the damp and mould was as a result of her actions as follows:

During its visit to the property on 16 December 2021 it identified that the damp was “in the main” due to condensation and informed her that she needed to move her chattels away from the walls as it was humid in the property and the resident’s chattels were directly against the walls.

Although the resident informed the landlord that she did move her chattels away from the walls the landlord does not appear to have considered any other reason for the damp or mould. This is despite the landlord identifying during the same visit problems with the guttering and lead flashing which meant that water could be penetrating the wall in the bedroom and lounge at the property.
Informing the resident in its complaint responses that it was not responsible for condensation or the effects of condensation, unless it arose from a breach of its repairing responsibilities and that the resident must take reasonable steps to avoid moisture building up (condensation) within the property and causing damage. This is despite identifying that the damp and mould could have been caused by the blocked guttering, missing lead flashing or the leak from the flat above the property (this is considered further below).

Despite the resident first reporting damp and mould in December 2020 and January 2021 the landlord did not inspect the property to consider the cause of the damp and mould until December 2021 when it identified issues with the guttering and missing flashing. During this visit the landlord also identified rotten skirting boards which would likely indicate problems with damp but there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the cause of the rotten skirting boards.
The leak from the flat above the property was first identified in December 2019 . According to the landlord’s internal email dated 29 March 2022 it appears to have accepted that the leak was causing damp within the property, although it does not appear to have investigated the extent of the damp and whether this was the cause of the mould.
The lease agreement for the flat above the property is between the landlord, as the freeholder, and the leaseholder. It was therefore the landlord’s responsibility to liaise directly with the leaseholder to ensure that it took appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the leak which was impacting on the property which it owned. The landlord therefore failed to take a proactive approach to managing the situation and supporting the resident, who was experiencing issues with a leak through no fault of her own.
Whilst the landlord repaired the guttering and lead flashing in January 2022 there is no evidence that it has ensured that the leaseholder has remedied the leak in the flat above the property, or carried out a thorough investigation into the causes of damp and mould at the property and the Ombudsman has set out orders concerning this below.
Whilst the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with copies of its repair reports the Ombudsman has not seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation:

A copy of the resident’s damp/mould reports.

Telephone contact notes and copies of correspondence between the landlord and the resident concerning the reports/requests.
All internal correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning their reports/requests.

This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property, specifically:

Whether the landlord’s initial response to the reports of damp and mould was reasonable.

How quickly the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
How quickly the landlord instructed its contractors to attend the property.

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports and responses. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken.
The situation has been extremely distressing for the resident over a period of 24 months. The resident’s vulnerabilities were known to the landlord. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience and the resident’s circumstances will be taken into account when considering this.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 76 to 84 there was therefore severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about rodents in the property

There is evidence that following the resident’s reports of rodents at the property the landlord carried out the following works:

On 21 January 2020 the landlord repaired holes in the airing cupboard in the kitchen.

On 10 February 2020 the landlord filled up a missing air brick at the property.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord attended the property to make good a hole under the kitchen sink. and prevent further pest access.
On 5 February 2021 the landlord blocked up holes to prevent vermin access.
On 5 March 2021 the landlord blocked up holes to prevent access.
On 27 April 2021 the landlord sealed around the bath and renewed the bath panel.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord placed bait in the garden at the property.
On 4 June 2021the landlord rebaited the property.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord made good further holes and prevented future access to rodents.
On 29 September 2021 the landlord rebaited under the sink and in the garden.

Whilst there is therefore evidence of the landlord blocking various access points for the rodents into the property and laying bait in the property the landlord’s response was unreasonable as:

The issue of possible vermin ingress under the kitchen sink was first raised in December 2020 when the housing officer had removed the washing machine to look behind it. Some works were carried out in January 2021, however:
1. Although the landlord had recommended the following on 16 April 2021: Remove all Kitchen base unit plinths and inspect and seal any visible gaps in floor /wall junctions and around pipe work at low level, the landlord noted that bait was still being consumed from under the sink in September 2021 and November 2021.
2. On 29 September 2021 the landlord partially removal the corner panel behind the washing machine and found no backing on the airvent and gaps between the floor plaster- board.
3. On 17 November 2021 the landlord noted that holes in the kitchen (missing air brick covers) where still present.
4. The landlord did not cover the air bricks behind the washing machine with wire mesh and concrete until 6 December 2021, 359 days after the work to prevent rat ingress under the sink was raised, and 329 days after the 30 day timescale for routine repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.

On 9 and 10 September 2021 the resident’s housing officer asked if the landlord could do something to prevent the problem reoccurring. The landlord then attended the property on 13 September 2021 and raised a repair as the rats could be heard in the walls at the property. However, the landlord did not check the walls and only agreed to remove the bath panel to check behind it following further contact from the resident via her housing officer on 20 September 2021. On checking behind the bath panel on 29 September 2021 the landlord found further droppings and it is concerning that, were it not for the resident’s further contact with the housing officer, it would not have carried out this investigation.
The resident’s housing officer and her local councillor raised concerns with the landlord about the resident’s mental health. On 19 November 2021 the housing officer asked the landlord to let her know if there were any suitable decant properties where the resident might be moved whilst the work was being carried out. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered decanting the resident and her baby.
In response to the resident’s solicitors’ letter before action under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the landlord inspected the property on 16 April 2021 and recommend that various works were carried out in the property. It is unclear when these works were carried out (if at all).

There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of rats at the property. The resident has said during the course of this investigation that she can still hear rats in the walls at the property and the Ombudsman has made an order concerning this below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to her belongings by the rats and damp and mould

The conditions of tenancy say that the landlord is not responsible for condensation or the effects of condensation unless it arises from a breach of its repairing responsibilities. However, the landlord has obligations under HHSRS and the Homes Fitness For Human Habitation) Act 2018 concerning damp and mould conditions in a property regardless of the cause.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation by saying that it had carried out any repairs reported to it within agreed timescales and as there was no legal liability and it was therefore unable to make payment in respect of her claim. It is unclear how the landlord concluded that there was no legal liability despite there being an unresolved leak in the flat upstairs from the property and it identifying damp on the bedroom wall on 4 December 2021, eight weeks before the resident made the compensation claim.
The Ombudsman has not seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation:

The landlord’s records concerning the residents reports of damage to personal property, such as:
1. Any correspondence, contact notes, meeting/panel notes concerning the matter.
2. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports of damage to their belongings.

Clarification of the outcome of the landlord’s assessment of this request and an explanation of how this decision was arrived at.

This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to her belongings by the rats and damp and mould. Specifically, whether the landlord considered whether the damage caused to the resident’s belongings arose from any breach of its repairing responsibilities concerning holes allowing access to rats or the missing lead flashing and blocked guttering.
The landlord’s compensation claims policy does not allow payments that are ‘discretionary’ or ‘good will’ or payments for Inconvenience or distress. This is in breach of the provisions of paragraph 6.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for compensation.

The landlord’s record keeping

There was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping as:

Despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord had made no record of these on the resident’s “Tenancy/household details “ form.

As set out above the landlord has not provided copies of the following which this Service requested during this investigation:
1. The resident’s damp/mould reports.
2. Telephone contact notes and copies of correspondence between the landlord and the resident concerning the reports/requests.
3. All internal correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning their reports/requests.
4. Any correspondence, contact notes, meeting/panel notes concerning the matter.
5. Any records concerning the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s reports of damage to their belongings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling as:

The landlord’s complaint responses dated 5 January 2022, 18 January 2022 and 3 March 2022 did not:
1. Demonstrate evidence that an appropriate investigation had taken place.
2. Set out what the complaint was that had been received.
3. Provide an explanation of how the complaint had been investigated, what information was discovered, explain any decisions made or analyse any evidence.
4. Demonstrate that any evidence had been sought from the resident.

Throughout its internal complaints process the landlord:
1. Did not recognise or accept any failings on its part, despite listing in its final response all the works it had carried out concerning damp and mould and the rodent issue during the previous two years, evidencing that the works carried out had not successfully dealt with the issues.
2. Did not apologise to the resident, offer any compensation or consider decanting the resident.
3. Did not express any sympathy or empathy towards the resident or recognise the impact of the living conditions on a vulnerable resident and her baby, regardless of whether it was at fault or not.
4. Blamed the resident for the presence of the mould in the property.
5. Refused her compensation claim on the basis that it had no liability, despite recognising unresolved repair issues.
In its complaint response dated 18 January 2022 it provided contact details for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, rather than for this Service.
Despite this Service referring the complaint back to the landlord on 9 February 2022 the landlord did not provide a fair and proper answer to the resident’s complaint.

The Ombudsman does however recognise the good work of the resident’s housing officer who offered support to the resident and tried to get the issues at the property resolved.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Complaint handling.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:

Response to the resident’s reports about rodents in the property.

Response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to her belongings by the rats and damp and mould.
Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did not liaise directly with the leaseholder to ensure that it took appropriate steps to investigate and remedy the leak which was impacting on the property. The landlord did not investigate the causes of the damp and mould until December 2021, 12 months after a repair was first raised and the issue is still ongoing. The landlord informed the resident that the damp and mould was as a result of her actions, despite identifying possible causes being the blocked guttering, missing flashing or leak from the property upstairs.
The landlord did not provide a fair and proper answer to the resident’s complaint.
Whilst areas of vermin ingress were identified in December 2020 some of the works identified were not completed until December 2021. It is not clear when the works identified on 16 April 2021 were completed.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the damage caused to the resident’s belongings arose from any breach of its repairing responsibilities. The landlord’s compensation claims policy does not comply with the provisions of paragraph 6.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord did not record the resident’s vulnerabilities on its “Tenancy/household details “ form. The landlord has not provided this Service with records concerning the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its response, or records concerning its consideration of the resident’s compensation request.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to arrange for a senior member of its staff to apologise in person to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £4550. This is comprised of:

£3800 for the combined distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident whilst living at the property caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and rodents at the property.
£500 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its complaint handling failures.

£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for the damage caused to her belongings by the rats and damp and mould.

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to reconsider the resident’s request for compensation, specifically, whether the damage caused to the resident’s belongings arose from any breach of its repairing responsibilities and sent a copy of its findings to the resident and this Service.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to a provide this Service with a copy of the report prepared following the inspection of the property on 28 November 2022, together with details of what works will be carried out at the property and the target date for these to be completed.
Notwithstanding the results of the landlord’s inspection of the property on 28 November 2022, the landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to inspect the property to:

Establish whether further works are required to address any ongoing damp and mould and rodent activity at the property and if so, within two weeks of this confirm in writing to the resident and this Service what works will be carried out and the target date for these to be completed.

Establish whether, having regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities, the condition of the property and the extent of any works required are such that the resident needs to be decanted from the property on a temporary or permanent basis.

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to replace the rotten skirting boards identified at the property in December 2021 if this has not already been completed.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to review its complaints policy to ensure that, where it identifies failings during the consideration of a complaint, it can pay residents a financial remedy as part of the complaints process.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to consider producing a damp and mould policy. In informing its decision the landlord should self assess against the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to review how it records resident vulnerabilities