Wandsworth Council (202201207)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201207

Wandsworth Council

23 June 2023

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 in the property.

Background

The resident holds a flexible tenancy with the landlord which began on 18 February 2019. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat within a 5-storey block.
At the time of the complaint, the resident lived at the property with her young son.
The landlord’s repairs procedure lists numerous ways in which residents can request an inspection of their property, including by email. It states that when a request for an inspection is received, it should be raised on its housing management system. If there is any doubt about whether an inspection should be raised, the procedure states the ‘senior estate manager’ should be consulted.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its website says it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 20 working days and stage 2 within 25 working days.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs show that on 15 May 2019, it raised an order to wash down the walls and ceilings to remove mould in the bathroom of the property, apply sealer and redecorate.
On 27 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord, expressing concern about drafts in the property which she believed might be causing issues with damp. She stated that she was ventilating the property sufficiently, but that the windows had water dripping off them and the flat was difficult to keep warm. She also advised that the walls in the bathroom were ‘bubbling’, which she believed was a result of a historic leak.
On 29 November 2019, the landlord raised repair orders to draft proof the windows and doors to the property and redecorate the bathroom.
On 11 March 2020, the landlord raised a repair order for ‘various works’ at the property. This included a mould wash around the bedroom window. A separate order was raised for a redecoration of the bathroom.
On 16 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to express concern about mould in the bedroom of the property. She said she would like it looked into as it represented a potential health hazard to her son.
On 21 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again. She stated she had not heard from it in response to her email of 16 October 2020 and the damp and mould was “in most rooms”. She expressed concern about the health risk.
Internal landlord correspondence of the same date indicates that a ‘pre-inspection’ had been arranged for November 2020 but was closed due to ‘no access’. A member of landlord staff was asked to contact the resident to establish where the mould was located and arrange for it to be washed down.
On 8 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had still not had any response to her emails sent since October 2020. She asked if a surveyor could attend the property to assess the situation. She said it was impacting her and her son’s daily lives and they were unable to use the bedroom.
On 9 February 2021, the landlord raised a repair order to “clean and clear mould build up within the bedroom”.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had ordered a mould wash, and its contractor would contact her directly to arrange this. It stated that the mould within her property was caused by condensation, and provided a link to information on its website on how to reduce this. The resident replied the same day, stating that she had already been taking the actions listed on the website, and repeatedly washing down affected areas, but the mould returned after a couple of days. She stated it had caused damage to belongings, including carpets and curtains.
On 26 February 2021, in further correspondence with the landlord around multiple issues with her property/tenancy, the resident informed the landlord that there were no extractor fans in her property, which she believed was contributing to the mould.
On 12 March 2021, in response to the resident’s email of 26 February 2021, the landlord advised that an order for a mould wash had been raised on 9 February 2021.
On 5 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had been advised that the order for the mould wash had been closed but was unsure why as the problem was persisting.
On 12 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again. She advised her flat was damp and mouldy and that it had still not been assessed by the landlord. She stated that the mould wash order had been cancelled without the contractor contacting her. She said her son was suffering from respiratory infections which she was concerned were due to the living conditions in the property.
On 10 August 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. It advised that the mould wash order had been closed due to ‘no access’, but that it had raised a new order to the contractor and spoken to a supervisor about it contacting her directly to arrange an appointment.
On 23 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She disputed the previous order being closed for no access, saying no appointment had ever been arranged. She expressed concern that the potential health risks were not being taken seriously.
On 26 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising that her GP had diagnosed her son with a potential respiratory illness. She said she had been reporting issues with damp and mould in the property since 2019, and had requested for a surveyor to attend, but the situation had just been left to get worse and was now an urgent matter. She accused the landlord of failing to obtain a professional opinion to validate its assumptions, and once again asked for a surveyor to inspect the property. She described the situation as causing emotional distress for her and her son.
On 27 August 2021, the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord. They stated that the resident’s son had attended repeated appointments for respiratory infections and, having discussed the dampness in the property with the resident, they had “no doubt that this is directly contributing”. They said they had encouraged the resident to ask the landlord to resolve the issue before it had long-term health consequences.
On 13 September 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the property by an estate manager; it proposed a date of 27 September 2021.
On 20 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to request that the property be inspected by a qualified surveyor instead. She stated she was happy to book this privately if it would speed things up. The resident advised that she had repeatedly washed the mould down using several different products, but it always returned, and so she did not believe a mould wash would resolve the issues.
On 24 September 2021, the landlord responded by email. It said it had asked one of its building maintenance inspectors to contact her directly and arrange an inspection.
On 21 October 2021, the landlord raised an order for its repairs contractor to install new extractor fans in the property.
On 22 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She advised that, following an inspection by the building maintenance inspector, an order had been raised to install extractor fans at the property, but this was unable to go ahead as there were no existing holes to fit them into. She requested for a “damp and mould professional surveyor” to attend the property. She advised she had now been sent to have x rays and scans on her lungs. She described the flat as “unbearable”, said her and her son were unable to sleep and that she had “dehumidifiers in all rooms which collects a staggering amount of water”.
On 1 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to advise that she had not been contacted about the extractor fans. She said the property was constantly cold and damp and her and her son were sleeping in damp bedsheets. She requested a resolution to the matter as it was impacting their day-to-day lives.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s emails. It stated that it had carried out an inspection of the property but that the mould issue had not been visible at that time as the resident had recently washed it down. It confirmed that no other issues had been identified during the inspection and the mould was due to condensation. The landlord said it had agreed to install extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom, which it anticipated would reduce condensation levels, and it would continue to monitor the situation.
The resident replied the same day. She said the contactor had now attended on 4 occasions without fitting the extractor fans. She described the walls, windows and doors in the property as “dripping with water” and expressed shock that the landlord’s inspection deemed there not to be any issues. She queried why a professional surveyor had still not visited the property and requested a copy of the report from the landlord’s inspection.
On 12 November 2021, the resident emailed the landlord, providing further pictures of mould growth. She again asked for a surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord responded the same day, advising that the pictures showed a build up of condensation, which was the resident’s responsibility to clean down under the tenancy agreement. It advised that a mould wash had been ordered, as well as the installation of extractor fans to reduce condensation levels, which the contractors would arrange with her directly. It again provided the resident with the link to the information on its website about reducing condensation.
On 31 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, giving permission for a relative to act as her representative in dealing with the damp and mould issues.
On 9 February 2022, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord. They:
1. Raised concerns about the health risk of the damp and mould to the resident and her son.
2. Questioned the advice given to the resident to wash the mould down, even though she had repeatedly done so and it continually returned shortly afterwards.
3. Said that the landlord had concluded the cause of the damp and mould was condensation without consulting a specialist.
4. Said that the landlord had advised them that it did not have any records such as reports or damp meter readings to support its conclusion.
5. Requested an update on whether the landlord would be arranging for a damp and mould specialist to inspect the property.
6. Advised that the extractor fans had still not been fitted in the property.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord replied to the resident’s representative by email. It said that it had taken “a number of measures” to reduce the level of mould caused by condensation, including installation of the extractor fans. The landlord advised that, following contact from the representative, its building maintenance inspector had carried out a further inspection of the property on 16 February 2022. It said it was currently awaiting their report, but understood that “a point of ingress may have been identified” and its contractors would be attending to this.
The resident’s representative responded the same day. They confirmed that the building maintenance inspector had visited the property and, using a moisture meter, had identified damp in the kitchen (the representative later clarified this was an error and she had meant the bedroom) and bathroom with readings elsewhere being at higher levels for condensation. They requested a timeline for inspections of the external drainpipe and bathroom of the flat above the resident’s flat, which had been identified as possible contributing factors, and a copy of the inspection report from the visit.
On 2 March 2022, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord chasing up a response to her previous email.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord emailed the resident’s representative. It said that the general moisture level readings in the property were fairly low and consistent with normal condensation, with only the bathroom and bedroom reaching significant levels. The landlord said its contractor had been unable to gain access to the property above the resident’s until 24 February 2022, and had then found access to the areas requiring inspection was obstructed. It said it would be visiting that property again the next day, and would provided an update by the end of the next week.
On 24 March 2022, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord requesting to log a stage 1 complaint. They said they felt that the issues with the damp and mould had not been taken seriously and investigated speedily or fully, suggesting that the landlord had blamed condensation based “purely on eyesight”. They said that since the email of 14 March 2022, they had received no further update on the inspection of the property above, and had received no update at all on the inspection of the external drainpipe. Nor had they received a copy of the landlord’s inspection report which they had requested.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. It advised it would respond by 21 April 2022.
On 20 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said that its contractor had replaced the entire external drainpipe the day before but it was still leaking. The resident said this was the third time the contractor had attempted to fix the issue and asked the landlord if it was possible for a different contractor to attend this time. She reported a strong smell of mould persisting in the bedroom despite the extractor fans being in place.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord responded. It said it had spoken to the resident the day before, who had clarified that the water leaking from the drainpipe was not entering the property, but just leaking onto the balcony. The landlord said the investigation into this leak was still ongoing. It confirmed it would be visiting the resident’s property on 26 May 2022 to inspect it internally.
The inspection of the resident’s property was rearranged for 9 June 2022 due to her son being unwell. On 10 June 2022, the landlord raised an order for works in the property which included mould washes in the kitchen and living room and a full redecoration of the bathroom.
On 28 June 2022, the resident’s representative contacted this Service for assistance. She expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of progress on the issue and the landlord’s repeated offering of mould washes and attributing issues to condensation. On 29 June 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to raise and respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. The resident’s representative had clarified that they were happy with recent action taken, but did not believe this provided a long-term solution to the issue of condensation-related mould, and felt that the issues could have been investigated more thoroughly initially.
2. Inspections, and photos provided by the resident, had indicated the mould was relatively minor and caused by high moisture levels in the air and condensation forming.
3. However, it had also found 2 areas that appeared damp, and carried out remedial repairs to address these.
4. It had also fitted extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom which would reduce levels of condensation in the property.
5. It would continue to monitor the property over the winter and see if the mould returned during the colder weather. If it did, it would give consideration to installing a ‘positive input ventilation’ system, which would improve the situation further.
6. It was partially upholding her complaint on the basis that the cracked drainpipe above the bedroom could have been identified sooner although it felt it had acted appropriately in seeking a long-term solution to the mould issues.
On 18 July 2022, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord, requesting to escalate the complaint to stage 2. They said that whilst they were happy with the way the complaint had been handled at stage 1, they felt it had not considered the full history of the issue – which went back to 2019. They said that, prior to their involvement, they felt the landlord had not taken the resident’s concerns seriously or acted upon them appropriately. Instead, the resident had “been continually ignored and been fobbed off” with advice to wash down the mould and leave windows open, despite concerns about her and her son’s health.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that:
1. In February and March 2022, it had carried out inspections of the resident’s property, and the property above.
2. These revealed a cracked balcony outlet pipe, which was causing increased moisture levels on the bedroom wall, and an area of damp plaster on the bathroom ceiling.
3. It also found levels of moisture in the air were at the higher range of normal.
4. Works had now been completed to reduce levels of condensation in the property and it was important to monitor over the colder months, when condensation was more likely to form.
5. It appeared that the resident’s concerns had been investigated as and when they were raised, and the advice given was appropriate, and the same that would have been provided to any resident experiencing condensation-related mould.
6. 16 October 2020 was the earliest record it could find of the resident having reported issues with mould in the property, however it would be helpful if they were able to provide any copies of correspondence prior to this.
7. It agreed with the decision at stage 1 to partially uphold the complaint as the cracked balcony outlet could have been identified earlier.

Assessment and findings

The landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that the earliest record it held of the resident reporting issues with damp and mould was 16 October 2020. However, the landlord’s own repairs logs evidence work orders raised on 15 May 2019 and 11 March 2020 to address mould in the bathroom and bedroom of the property – the same areas that its inspection in February 2022 found to have damp and require remedial repairs. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the existence of these work orders indicates that it did not fully consider relevant records when assessing the resident’s complaint.
Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident also provided the landlord with a copy of her email sent on 27 November 2019 in which she reported damp in the property with water running down the windows. Although a works order was raised by the landlord in response to this email, the order makes no mention of the reported damp issues. The landlord having no record of the resident’s original email also indicates a record keeping failure which further undermined its ability to identify the ongoing issue with damp and mould in the property.
The resident made a further report of damp and mould in the bedroom 16 October 2020. Despite her voicing concern about it being a health hazard, and having a young child in the property, the landlord failed to respond. Internal emails of a later date indicated that the landlord arranged a ‘pre-inspection’ of the property for November 2020, but it appears the resident was never advised of this. The ‘pre-inspection’ was later closed due to ‘no access’ however the landlord has provided no evidence of attempts to contact the resident to arrange this.
Following the resident’s further email of 21 January 2021, a member of landlord staff was asked to contact her to identify the areas in which the mould was present and raise a works order for a mould wash. This works order was not raised until 9 February 2021 – over 2 weeks later.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to report of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. A period of nearly 4 months from the report of 16 October 2020 being made to a works order being raised, with no evidence of any communication with the resident in the interim, failed on both of these counts. This lack of urgency was a recurring theme in the landlord’s response in this case.
On 8 February 2021, the resident first asked the landlord for a surveyor to inspect the property. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, such a request should have instigated the inspection being raised on its housing management system. This did not happen and no explanation was given to the resident as to why. Considering the inspections eventually carried out in October 2021 and February 2022, both identified works that could be undertaken to address the damp and mould. This was therefore a missed opportunity to diagnose the cause of the problem and doing so earlier could have saved the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
The first evidence of the landlord contacting the resident about her reports of damp and mould was on 16 February 2021. In this email, it advised her that the mould in the property was caused by condensation, and directed her to advice on reducing this featured on its website.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report recommends that landlords should ensure their initial response to reports of damp and mould avoids automatically apportioning or inferring blame on residents. It stated that, even where occupancy factors contribute to damp and mould, this does not mean the landlord has no responsibility, and that it should take reasonable steps in partnership with residents to consider improving ventilation or other appropriate measures.
In this instance, the landlord concluded condensation had caused the damp and mould without conducting a reasonable investigation to determine this. As it had not visited the property, its conclusion seems to have been drawn based solely on photographs provided by the resident and an assumption that she was not taking appropriate action to minimise condensation. Whilst providing advice on reducing condensation within the property was reasonable, doing this alone – whilst failing to consider any action the landlord could take to improve ventilation within the property or checking whether there were repairs for which it was responsible – amounts to inferring blame upon the resident and abdicating any responsibility to assist them in resolving the underlying causes.
This failure was compounded when, on 26 February 2021, the resident raised concerns about the lack of ventilation in the property, owing to the absence of any extractor fans. The landlord failed to act on this information, responding on 12 March 2021 only to confirm that the order for a mould wash had been raised. The resident’s concerns were later validated by the inspection in October 2021, after which the landlord agreed to install extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom, work which could have been undertaken far sooner had it heeded the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s records show that, in fact, the work order for the mould wash raised on 9 February 2021 had been closed by its contractor due to no access on 18 February 2021 – several weeks before its email of 12 March 2021. A check of the property repair logs would have made this apparent. However, instead this was not communicated to the resident until July 2021, after she chased for an update. The contractor reported that it closed the works order due to ‘no access’, however, as with the ‘pre-inspection’ of November 2020, the resident reported receiving no contact regarding an appointment and the landlord has provided no evidence to the contrary.
The landlord’s response to this was to raise a further order for a mould wash. This was despite the resident having advised it several times that she had washed down the affected areas multiple times with different products, but that the mould always quickly returned. Once again, a failure to consider contributing factors and preventative measures was apparent. Multiple further mould wash orders were raised throughout the period of complaint, to the point the resident began refusing them due to their ineffectiveness.
Having repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of the living conditions on her young son’s health and wellbeing, the resident provided a letter from her GP in August 2021 and again requested an inspection of the property. Despite the extremely concerning nature of the letter, the landlord showed no urgency in acting, and took until October 2021 to carry out the inspection.
Following the inspection in October 2021, the landlord advised that the mould had not been visible at the time (owing to the resident having recently cleaned it down) and that it detected no further issues. The landlord did not provide a copy of an inspection report to the resident, despite her repeated requests, and later confirmed to the resident’s representative that it did not have one. Due to this lack of records, the landlord is unable to evidence that its inspection took reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the mould and appropriately consider underlying factors beyond its initial diagnosis of condensation.
The landlord agreed to install extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom following the inspection and a work order was raised on 21 October 2021. However, the work was not completed until some time in February 2022. Although some of this delay can be apportioned to the scale of the works (installing extractor fans where there had previously been none, meaning there was not the required external outlets) and a period where the resident was self-isolating due to contracting covid-19, there were also delays for which the landlord was responsible. The landlord’s contractor attended several times in order to complete the work and the resident reported that the contactor had been unaware that there were not existing extractor fans in the property and that two fans were required rather than just one.
Following the intervention of the resident’s representative, the landlord carried out a second inspection of the property on 16 February 2022. Although this inspection was carried out by the same staff member as the inspection of October 2021, this time a damp meter was used and areas of concern on the bathroom ceiling and bedroom wall were identified. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that these should have been identified sooner, however no apology or other redress was offered for this failure, which would have been appropriate.
Following the inspection, the resident’s representative asked for a copy of the inspection report, and a timeline for inspections to resolve the issues with the bathroom ceiling and pipe outside the bedroom. The landlord failed to satisfactorily provide either of these, which led to the representative making a formal complaint on 24 March 2022.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report recommends that landlords should share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. The landlord failed to produce an appropriate report of its inspection, or give the resident a reasonable expectation of when and how it would address the areas identified as in need of further repair or inspection.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses determined that it had acted appropriately in seeking a long-term solution to the problems with damp and mould in the property. Whilst the landlord did take action to inspect the property, and carry out works to improve ventilation and prevent damp, this only occurred after the resident, and latterly her representative, expended great time and trouble in pursuing it to do so. This is something that was not acknowledged in either complaint response.
The resident’s representative expressed the opinion that the action taken by the landlord did not provide a long-term solution to the damp and mould. Having taken steps to improve the ventilation and address repair issues identified, the landlord’s position that it needed to monitor mould in the property over the winter months to see if the mould returned was reasonable. Its commitment to consider installing a positive input ventilation system in the flat, should the mould persist, was also reasonable and showed that it had considered further interventions should they be required.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it would take learning that “any investigations into repeated complaints of mould issues in properties should be more thorough and consider causes other than condensation”. However, it failed to appropriately reflect this learning point in its own findings which declared that the resident’s concerns “have been investigated as and when they have been reported and the advice that she has been given in relation to managing condensation within her home has been appropriate”.
The final, and perhaps most pertinent, of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report recommendations is that landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy, reflecting the distress and inconvenience experienced in their tone and approach.
The resident’s distress and concern over her and her son’s health runs through nearly every piece of correspondence with the landlord on this matter. She repeatedly described the living conditions as “unbearable” and impacting their day to day lives, and made reference to the emotional distress and desperation for a solution that she felt.
Whilst the landlord did on some occasions acknowledge these concerns, and offer comments such as being “sorry to hear” of them, it failed to appropriately recognise the impact of the situation on the resident and respond accordingly. On one occasion, in reference to washing down mould the resident was told that “maintaining the general upkeep of the property is the responsibility of our tenants and in consideration of your child’s ailments would be advisable’, whilst the stage 1 complaint response stated that “the issue with the mould is relatively minor”. This approach was heavy-handed and unfair on the resident given the steps she had told the landlord she had taken to consistently clear mould.
The fact that the resident felt it necessary to authorise a representative to continue pursuing the matter with the landlord (after trying to do so herself for over 2 years) indicates the level to which the tenant-landlord relationship had broken down. The resident’s representative stated, in their request to escalate the complaint, that the resident had “been continually ignored and been fobbed off since initially reporting the matter in 2019 and concerns about herself and her son’s health were totally disregarded”
The landlord’s complaint responses did not acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident by living for a prolonged period in conditions which she perceived as a health risk to her and her child, and which impacted their use and enjoyment of their home. Whilst no redress can restore the resident to the position she would have been in had the failures identified in this report not occurred, an offer of compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced would have been appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reasons

The landlord failed to react with appropriate urgency to the resident’s reports despite the presence of a young child in the property and health concerns raised by her and her GP. The landlord attributed the damp and mould to condensation without carrying out an appropriate investigations and delayed unreasonably in inspecting the property and diagnosing required works. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to reflect the full extent of it’s failings or make a reasonable offer of redress for them.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its response to her reports of damp and mould.
2. Apologise in person to the resident for the failures, identified by this report, in its response to her reports of damp and mould.
3. Carry out a review of its procedures when receiving reports of damp and mould, including a review of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report and ensuring its practices align with the recommendations made within.
4. Carry out a review of its procedures when undertaking technical property inspections, to ensure that appropriate records of methods, findings and recommendations are created and made available to residents as required.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report