Haringey London Borough Council (202219041)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219041

Haringey London Borough Council

23 May 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:
1. Report of damp and mould in the property.
2. Report of damage to her personal belongings and carpet due to the damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the assessment.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a two bedroom first floor flat.

Summary of events

On 15 July 2021 the resident registered a formal complaint with the landlord regarding its response to address damp and mould in the property. In summary the resident said:
1. Damp and mould had occurred in the property since the installation of double glazed windows in April 2017.
2. In 2018 the landlord installed two vents and treated the walls in the property however the damp and mould had returned.
3. In “late 2020/ early 2021” she contacted the landlord to report ongoing damp and mould in the property and a surveyor inspected the property. She confirmed that following the inspection she was informed that mould treatment would be applied to the affected areas in the property and a humidifying unit would be installed. She reported that despite contacting the landlord on multiple occasions to request the works it had not responded.
4. Despite following the landlord’s advice on managing damp and mould the problem persisted.
5. The damp and mould had made the bedrooms in the property uninhabitable.
6. The damp and mould had caused damage to her personal belongings, including bedroom furniture, clothing and carpets. She noted that the carpets were damp to walk on which meant that shoes had to be worn in the property which “impacted on her cultural beliefs of not wearing shoes indoors”.
7. The damp and mould was impacting on her health. She confirmed that since November 2019 she had to use an inhaler as she experienced “breathing difficulties”.
8. She was aware that other neighbours had also experienced damp and mould.
9. The landlord should consider alternative accommodation should it be unable to provide a prompt remedy to address the damp and mould.
10. She would like compensation.
On 26 July 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had liaised with its repairs team regarding outstanding works in relation to damp and mould. It confirmed the following:
  1. A job was attended on 20 July 2021 to renew the extractor fan in the bathroom.
  2. A dehumidifier was due to be delivered on 26 July 2021 to assist with drying out the property.
  3. A job to replace tiles around the bathroom sink was scheduled for 30 July 2021.
  4. A job to inspect for make good works was scheduled for 9 August 2021.
2. The resident’s request for compensation was being considered and it would respond separately.
3. The resident should make a claim with its insurance team for damage to her personal belongings and carpet. It set out the contact details for the insurance team.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate the complaint should she be unhappy with its response.
On 2 August 2021 the resident responded , stating that at this time she was not requesting to escalate the complaint however she wanted to note the following points:
1. The extractor fan was renewed.
2. No operative attended the property on 30 July 2021 to replace the tiles in the bathroom. She confirmed that she was not informed that the appointment would not go ahead. She advised that she had attempted to contact the landlord for an update on the appointment however had been unsuccessful due to “long [call] wait times”.
3. A portable dehumidifier was delivered to the property. She confirmed that she was however expecting a “dehumidifying wall unit” to be installed.
4. The landlord should reconsider its decision to not replace the carpet. She noted that she had not renewed her contents insurance due to rising premiums.
5. She was aware that some of her neighbours were also experiencing damp and mould.
On the same day the landlord replied to confirm receipt of the resident’s correspondence, confirming that it had been passed onto the relevant team for a response.
On 6 December 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to request a response to her correspondence dated 2 August 2021 as she had not heard from it.
On 9 December 2021 the landlord responded confirming that the resident should submit a claim to its insurance team for damage to her carpets. The landlord also confirmed that it would revert back to the resident “immediately” regarding her request for compensation.
On the same day the resident replied confirming that she deduced from the landlord’s correspondence that it had not reviewed her request to replace the carpets as it had repeated that she should make an insurance claim. The resident confirmed that she would submit a claim to the landlord’s insurance team as suggested, noting that she found its position disappointing.
On 30 January 2022 the resident wrote to request to escalate the complaint as she was “dissatisfied with the actions” of the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. It was unsatisfactory that the landlord had failed to respond to her request for compensation for over “six months”.
2. The landlord’s suggestion that she should make an insurance claim for damage to her carpet was unsatisfactory as a claim “could be protracted” and it failed to acknowledge its “failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner”.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The extractor fan was renewed on 20 July 2021 following an inspection on 16 July 2021. It confirmed that, as the job was “completed in good time”, compensation was not appropriate.
2. On 27 April 2021 it attended the appointment following a request to fix the hand basin. It confirmed that during the appointment the resident confirmed that the basin “was fine” and it was the tiles which needed repairing. It explained that the job was therefore rebooked for a tiler to attend however the appointment was postponed due to Covid-19 restrictions. It confirmed that the job was completed on 24 September 2021. It acknowledged that there was a delay in completing the tiling, however the delay was due to “unprecedented times” and therefore compensation was not appropriate.
3. While compensation for repairs was not appropriate it would like to award £50 compensation for time and trouble in pursing the complaint and getting a response.
4. The resident would “need to go through insurance to have [her] carpets replaced”.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service if she was not happy with its response.
On 18 November 2022 the resident referred the complaint to this Service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. In summary the resident said:
1. Damp and mould had occurred in the property since April 2017.
2. In 2018 the landlord attempted to address the damp and mould however the treatment was unsuccessful.
3. On reporting that the damp and mould had returned in late 2020/ early 2021 the landlord instructed a surveyor to inspect the property. She confirmed that the surveyor made “several recommendations for repair jobs”.
4. While she accepted that Covid-19 impacted on the repairs service the landlord was able to offer, she considered the delay to be unacceptable. She stated that she believed that the repairs would still be outstanding had she not have complained.
5. The damp and mould had “significantly” impacted on her health, including that she was now required to use an inhaler.
6. The “severity of the damp and mould” was making some rooms in the property uninhabitable.
7. The carpet was damp and shoes had to be worn indoors as a result. She reiterated that this was against her cultural beliefs.
8. The damp and mould persisted in the property despite the action taken by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property

While the Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that the property has experienced damp and mould from 2017, this assessment will not be considering any specific events prior to the start of 2021. This is because, as the substantive issues become historic itmaybe increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence. However the resident’s historical reports of damp and mould provide contextual background to the current complaint and the landlord’s actions in responding to the problem since 2021.
On 20 March 2019 The Homes (Fitness of Human Habitation) Act 2018 came into force with the aim of ensuring that all rented accommodation is fit for human habitation. It required landlords to make sure that its properties are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm. The Government’s guidance for tenants sets out that “damp and mould growth” must be considered. As the resident reported damp and mould, the landlord was obliged to investigate and make good any issues identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous repair records for the property since 2017. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s records in order to establish its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman notes that the records document reports of damp and mould in the property prior to 2021, which include in April 2017, April 2018 and January 2019 when the resident reported wet carpets and “extreme damp and mould”.
The records show that on 23 January 2021 the landlord raised a work order for “mould treatment to bedrooms and bathroom, remove defective bathroom extractor fan and replace with ventilator mould control type” following an inspection in December 2020 for “condensation and mould growth”. While a copy of the report following the inspection in December 2020 documenting the extent of the damp and mould observed is not available, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a work order to address the issues identified. It is however concerning that no report is available following the inspection as a landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records to document how it is meeting its repairing obligations.
Following the entry on 23 January 2021 the records indicate that appointments were made for the installation of a new extractor and mould treatment to be completed in July and August 2021. The works therefore took a period of approximately eight months to schedule and complete. While the landlord explained within its stage two response that some works were delayed due to Covid-19 regulations, the Ombudsman still considers this to be a significantly protracted time period, taking into account that during this period lockdown restrictions were being removed. Further the evidence reasonably suggests that the repairs were only progressed as a result of the resident’s stage one complaint. It is unsatisfactory that the resident was required to raise a complaint in order for the landlord to action the repairs.
While the repairs were outstanding the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the resident was provided with updates from the landlord regarding timescales for the works while they were outstanding. This would have been appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations and to keep her informed. In not doing so the resident would have experienced uncertainty and distress in addition to feeling that her situation was not being taken seriously.
In November 2022 the resident wrote to this Service to advise that despite the works completed by the landlord in Summer 2021 the damp and mould had returned. An entry into the landlord’s repair record dated 29 November 2022 confirmed “tenant reports damp and mould”. In the Ombudsman’s view the resident’s further report of damp and mould in November 2022 suggests that the landlord’s investigation into the damp and mould was not satisfactory on receipt of the complaint in July 2021. While it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to progress the outstanding repairs from January 2021 on receipt of the complaint, the landlord should have considered whether a new damp and mould inspection was appropriate. This is because the resident had reported reoccurring damp and mould since 2017 within the complaint, which had not been resolved despite previous intervention, and due to the time which had passed since the work order was raised in January 2021 and therefore to take into account possible deterioration. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. The landlord’s decision to not undertake an inspection in summer 2021, on receipt of the complaint, was therefore a missed opportunity to satisfy itself, and the resident, that the outstanding works were adequate to permanently remedy the damp and mould.
The landlord’s records show that in response to the damp and mould reported in November 2022 (after its final complaint response) it raised a work order to “apply Bactdet and Halophen”, a mould wash and treatment. It is not clear from the records whether investigation into the cause of the damp and mould was completed following this later report which would have been appropriate in light of the ongoing nature of the problem being reported. However it is of concern that further treatment was required, given the history of the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings and carpet due to the damp and mould

In response to the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings and carpet the landlord directed the resident to make a claim via its insurers. While the Ombudsman cannot comment on the outcome of any insurance claim made, as we cannot determine liability, this Service will consider whether it was fair and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue and insurance claim for damages.
It is clear from the landlord’s response that it did not consider that there had been a service failure in the repairs service which it provided to the resident in relation to her reports of damp and mould. As the landlord disputed fault, the advice was reasonable. This is because where a landlord disputes fault the insurer will then seek to establish liability.
However, in advising the resident to make a claim on its insurance it was unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to provide adequate reason and explanation to support why an insurance claim was appropriate. In advising the resident to make a claim the landlord should have explained that an insurance claim was appropriate as it denied that it had acted negligently which had resulted in any damage and therefore its compensation policy would not apply.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In July 2020 the Ombudsman published its Complaint Handling Code (the Code) setting out good practice on how a landlord should respond to a complaint effectively and fairly. The Code confirms that an effective complaint handling procedure is accessible, timely, responsive, fair and should seek early resolution and deliver improvement to the services a landlord provides. The Code also sets out that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the complaint policy which the landlord operated when the complaint was live. The policy sets out that complaints will be considered fairly, impartially and with an open mind and that responses will be clear and evidence based.
In the Ombudsman’s view there were several shortcomings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, contrary to the Code and its own complaint policy.
Firstly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion both the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses were inadequate. While the landlord’s responses focused on when the outstanding repair jobs would be completed, it failed to respond to the resident’s assertion that the works had been outstanding since a surveyor’s inspection in late 2020/ early 2021 and that the damp and mould was reoccurring from 2017. In responding to the complaint the landlord should have thoroughly addressed this in order to establish whether something had gone wrong and if so what actions were needed to put things right. By not doing this the landlord failed to undertake an effective dispute resolution focused investigation taking into account the history of the issue.
Secondly the complaint chronology demonstrates that the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not always satisfactory. While the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses were provided promptly following receipt of the resident’s complaint and escalation request it failed to respond to her correspondence dated 2 August 2021, despite acknowledging receipt and advising it had been passed to the relevant team to respond. This was unsatisfactory, including as the resident noted a missed repair appointment which was subject of the complaint. In not responding to the correspondence it was a missed opportunity by the landlord to take action to review what had gone wrong and to put things right.
Thirdly it was unsatisfactory that the resident was required to escalate her complaint in order for the landlord to fulfil its commitment, given at stage one, to review her request for compensation. This will have resulted in uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident in addition to feeling that her request was not being taken seriously.
Finally the landlord failed to address the resident’s report that the damp and mould had impacted on her health and meant that she was unable to fully adhere to her cultural belief in not wearing shoes inside the property. While the court may be the appropriate forum to make a legally binding decision as to whether the resident’s health was adversely affected by the landlord’s actions or inactions, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s particular circumstances and the impact of the damp and mould on them when responding to the complaint. It is unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to demonstrate that it did do so in this case.
In responding to the complaint at stage two the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it may award discretionary compensation for “service failure or poor service”. As the landlord had identified that a service failure had occurred in respect of its complaint handling it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy. However in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s award was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the award does not accurately reflect that the landlord failed to thoroughly address all issues of the complaint,it failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence dated 2 August 2021 and the resident was required to escalate her complaint in order for the landlord to respond to her request for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
2. Service failure by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings and carpet due to the damp and mould.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of report of damp and mould in the property

While it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to progress the outstanding repairs from January 2021 on receipt of the complaint, it is unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to consider whether a new damp and mould inspection was appropriate. This would have enabled the landlord to consider whether the outstanding works were adequate to permanently remedy the damp and mould, taking account that the resident had reported reoccurring damp and mould since 2017 despite previous intervention and due to the time which had passed since the work order was raised in January 2021. It was also unsatisfactory that while the repairs were outstanding the landlord failed to provide the resident with updates regarding timescales for the works in order to manage her expectations and keep her informed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damage to her personal belongings and carpet due to the damp and mould

The landlord failed to provide adequate reason and explanation to support why an insurance claim was appropriate in directing the resident to make a claim. In advising the resident to make a claim the landlord should have explained that an insurance claim was appropriate as it denied that it had acted negligently which had resulted in any damage and therefore its compensation policy would not apply.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory because:
1. It failed to respond to the resident’s assertion that the repair works had been outstanding since a surveyor’s inspection in late 2020/ early 2021 and that the damp and mould was reoccurring from 2017.
2. It failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence dated 2 August 2021 in reply to its stage one response.
3. The resident was required to escalate her complaint in order for the landlord to fulfil its commitment to consider her request for compensation.
4. It failed to address the resident’s report that the damp and mould had impacted on her health and meant that she was fully able to adhere to her cultural beliefs in not wearing shoes inside the property.
The landlord’s omissions denied the resident a comprehensive response to her complaint, but were also a missed opportunity in reviewing the history of the case and putting things right at an earlier time.

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident from its Chief Executive for the repair service it provided.
The landlord should pay the resident a total of £2,050 compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination. This comprises the £50 compensation which the landlord awarded itself in addition to £2,000, comprising:
1. £1,500 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and uncertainty she would have experienced as a result of the repairs service she received.
2. £500 for complaint handling.
The landlord should inspect the property, within four weeks of the date of this determination, to confirm that the damp and mould problem has been resolved following its intervention and that there are no further issues since November 2022. The landlord should write to the resident confirm the outcome of the inspection, providing an action plan detailing any works identified as necessary.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to the landlord about reviewing its complaint handling approach, its record keeping and its repairs service, including its approach to damp and mould. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report, but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of complaint handling and its repairs service.
Within her correspondence to the landlord the resident reported that she is aware that other neighbours have also experienced damp and mould. The landlord should therefore undertake an exercise to review repair reports within the block to ensure that there are no wider issues causing damp and mould.