The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Norwich City Council (202223175)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223175

Norwich City Council

28 March 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a leaseholder since April 2000. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. The resident first reported damp in 2014. The landlord carried out an inspection, and did work on the drains, which it said rectified the problem. It also said there was condensation caused by a lack of ventilation, and this was the resident’s responsibility. The resident disputed the cause of condensation and said the work on the drains had not resolved the problem. She said the continued damp was caused by tree roots affecting a soakaway. Following a complaint, the landlord carried out a further inspection and removed debris from the cavity wall. It said it had found no fault with the soakaway.
  3. The resident made new reports of damp in 2020, which she said was caused by a cold floor. The landlord told the resident it was possible to install insulation on top of the existing floor, but this was the resident’s responsibility.
  4. On 21 November 2022, the resident told the landlord the damp was getting worse. She said the walls in the bedrooms were wet and mouldy, floors were soaked, carpets smelt, and wooden slats on the beds were covered in mould. She said she was very concerned her family were breathing in mould spores. She asked for an inspection of the soakaway and drains.
  5. On 12 December 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s lack of response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December 2022, and sent a response on 6 January 2023. It said it had arranged for an independent surveyor to investigate the damp and mould. It apologised for inconvenience caused by the delay in responding.
  6. The independent surveyor carried out an inspection on 28 February 2023. He said he did not identify any structural dampness in the property and high humidity readings appeared to be due to internal condensation, which was exacerbated by “poor thermal performance of elements of the property including the cavity walls and floor slab”. The surveyor recommended work that included insulating the walls and floor and installing extractor fans.
  7. On 3 April 2023, the resident asked the landlord to install insulation based on the outcome of the survey. In response, the landlord said the work was the resident’s responsibility.
  8. On 20 May 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said her builder had estimated the insulation work would cost £10,000. She also said work the landlord had done in the past to install cavity wall insulation and double glazing had meant the property could not “breathe”, and this had caused the condensation and damp. The resident said there was no guarantee the survey recommendations would eradicate the damp and the flat was not fit to live in.
  9. In its final response on 16 June 2023, the landlord said the independent surveyor did not identify any structural dampness and the humidity was caused by internal condensation. It said it was developing a programme to address cavity wall insulation and her property would be included. However, all the other recommendations in the survey were the resident’s responsibility. The resident was dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord was “washing its hands” of the problem.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has noted the resident first reported damp in 2014, and a complaint was made at that time. Damp was reported again in 2020, with a complaint made about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp in December 2022. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. As the resident made a complaint in December 2022, the Ombudsman will investigate the landlord’s actions from 6 months before that time until it issued a final response on 16 June 2023.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This obligation is set out in the lease agreement, which says the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including all drains, gutters, and external pipes, and make good any defects affecting that structure.
  2. The lease agreement also sets out the resident’s responsibility for keeping the interior of the property in good repair. The resident has said they accept they are responsible for internal repairs, but they believe the damp is caused by underground structural issues, which the landlord is responsible for.
  3. The Ombudsman has noted that the issue underpinning the complaint is a disagreement between the landlord and resident about the cause of the damp, and who is responsible for putting it right. The Ombudsman cannot determine the cause of the damp. The Ombudsman can only look at whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances and in line with its obligations.
  4. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should ensure their response to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. They should share the outcome of surveys with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. They should also act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. Where extensive works are required, landlords should consider the circumstances of the household, including vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move residents out of their home.
  5. When the resident told the landlord on 21 November 2022, that the damp was getting worse, records show it did not respond until 6 January 2023. This was 31 working days after the report was made. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident emailed the landlord 7 times between 21 November and 12 December 2022. The content of the emails shows the resident was becoming increasingly concerned and distressed about the damp and lack of response. Records also show the landlord dealt with an enquiry from the press about the resident’s reports of damp on 8 December 2022. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to the resident for another month.
  6. The landlord’s leaseholder handbook says it aims to respond to emails within 5 working days. Instead, it took 31 days to respond. The Ombudsman has found the landlord failed to respond in line with the service standards in its leaseholder handbook. It did not provide a timely response to the reports of damp and mould that reflected the urgency of the issue. The lack of response between 21 November 2022 and 6 January 2023, caused inconvenience and upset for the resident and was a service failure by the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure is identified in cases where the Ombudsman has found a minor failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident with £100 in recognition of the failure to respond to reports of damp in line with its service standards.
  7. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and took the reasonable step of arranging an independent survey. The surveyor took wall moisture, air temperature, and humidity readings, and used a thermal imaging camera to check internal surface temperatures. The surveyor’s report described “extensive staining and black mould” in the bedrooms and a “pervasive smell of damp”. The report said the walls were “wet”, the carpet in both bedrooms was also wet, and there was moisture on the tiles underneath the carpet. The surveyor said he believed the damp and mould on the walls was the result of internal condensation, exacerbated by poor thermal performance of the cavity walls and floor slab.
  8. The surveyor recommended retrospective insulation of the cavity walls to the inner face of both bedrooms, removal of wet carpet in both bedrooms, retrospective installation of insulation to the floor slab in both bedrooms, and installation of extractor fans.
  9. The surveyor said he did not identify any structural dampness at the property. However, the Ombudsman has noted the surveyor said the inspection was “visual and non-intrusive”. There is no evidence the surveyor considered any underground issues, such as drainage, which the resident said was the cause of the damp. The Ombudsman has also noted the comments that condensation was exacerbated by poor thermal performance, and the report specifically referenced cavity walls and cold slab floors. It is the Ombudsman’s view that these parts of the property are the structure and fabric of the building and, on balance, would be the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, if there was a fault.
  10. The resident told the Ombudsman in March 2024 that the damp comes from the cold floor and is not caused by condensation they create. She said she had done several things over the years, at a cost to herself, to reduce damp and condensation. This included purchasing an industrial dehumidifier, replacing the tumble dryer, and removing carpets. The resident said despite the things she had done, the damp returned in the winter and came from the cold floor. The resident explained that the damp affected all parts of the flat and the adjacent flat was also affected by damp. The resident told the Ombudsman that she was concerned about the effect the damp was having on her family’s health.
  11. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine the cause of the damp. However, the survey report commissioned by the landlord highlighted significant levels of moisture in carpets and on walls and said cavity walls and slab floors were exacerbating the problem. The Ombudsman is concerned that insufficient work was done by the landlord to investigate the cause of the damp. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s failure to carry out a survey that included an inspection of potential underground causes of damp, was a service failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to conduct an independent survey to assess whether underground drainage is the cause of damp. The landlord should provide a copy of the survey report to the resident. If the cause of damp is found to be the landlord’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, it should urgently carry out work to resolve the matter. In these circumstances, it should also consider the potential impact on the resident’s housing needs during any repairs and confirm what support it would offer, and whether compensation should be paid to the resident for the inconvenience caused.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that in its final response on 16 June 2023, the landlord said it was developing a programme of work to improve cavity wall insulation, and the resident’s property would be included in the programme. However, the landlord gave no indication of when the work would be carried out. Considering the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the findings of the independent survey, the Ombudsman has found there was a lack of urgency and clarity on the landlord’s part about when it would carry out work it accepted it was responsible for. The Ombudsman has found that this was a service failure. Because of this, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an indicative timeline on when it plans to carry out work on the cavity wall insulation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will provide a response within 10 working days. When the resident is dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, it will send a final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident complained on 12 December 2022, about a lack of response to her reports of damp. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 December and sent a response on 6 January 2023. This was 16 working days after the complaint was made.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 May 2023, and the landlord responded on 16 June 2023, which was 18 working days later.
  4. The Ombudsman has found that although there were delays in responding to the resident’s reports of damp, and a slight delay in responding at stage 1, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its failure to respond adequately to reports of damp and mould. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears.
  2. The landlord is ordered to conduct an independent survey to assess whether underground drainage is the cause of damp. The landlord should share the findings of the survey with the resident. If the survey makes recommendations that are the landlord’s responsibility, it should inform the resident and Ombudsman of any corrective action it intends to implement.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an indicative timeline on when it plans to carry out work on the cavity wall insulation.
  4. The landlord is ordered to confirm to the Ombudsman that the above orders have been complied with within 4 weeks of this report.