Epping Forest District Council (202125385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125385

Epping Forest District Council

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
2. repairs needed in the property.
The resident has also complained about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident says damp and mould at the property may have had a negative impact on her family’s health. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a flexible (fixed term) tenancy with the landlord that began in 2014. The property is a 3-bedroom flat located on the ground floor within a 2-storey building.
The landlord sets out its repairs standards on its website. It states it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours, urgent repairs within 5 days and routine repairs within 30 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from January 2024 states that it has considered and incorporated the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It outlines the landlord’s approach to managing condensation, damp and mould, including proactive and reactive investigations. Amongst other things it says it will take responsibility for proactively diagnosing and resolving condensation, damp and mould in a timely and effective way. It said that in line with its compensation policy, it will pay compensation if it fails to deliver the service it has committed to. This includes where furniture or other belongings have been damaged and for distress or inconvenience caused by any failings.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 15 working days. It says that if the matter is complex and it needs more time to investigate it would let the resident know.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records show reports relating to various damp and leak issues by the resident since 2014. In April 2019 an independent surveyor inspected the property, who had been jointly instructed by the landlord and solicitors representing the resident in a disrepair claim. The surveyor concluded there was no significant dampness at the property, and minor condensation associated mould growth. We have not seen any records that indicate this claim or a complaint was pursued further by the resident.
Repair records and correspondence we have seen show the next report of damp, mould or leaks by the resident was on 14 July 2020. At this time, the resident reported mould in her bathroom and a leak to an external tap belonging to the flat above (a leasehold property). Repair records show a work order was raised on 5 August 2020 to inspect the property. Following this, a work order was raised on 9 September 2020 to service extractor systems in the property. Records seen do not show if this was completed.
An email from the landlord on 23 September 2020 noted that it had completed a full inspection on 12 August 2020. It noted in the email that:
1. Meter readings had been taken and were very low.
2. There was a small area of mould to the bathroom ceiling from condensation.
3. Issues in the front bedroom were due to lifestyle and lack of air movement and there were no issues in the rear bedroom.
4. It had reported a leaking water hose to the neighbour and would complete a subsequent inspection to ensure this had been rectified.
5. It would arrange to service extractor fans at the property to ensure they worked correctly.
On 19 November 2020 the landlord noted it was to inspect the property for damp and mould again, and check the water hose from the upstairs property. Records we have seen do not detail the findings of this inspection. However, on 2 December 2020 the landlord raised repairs to:
1. repoint a damp proof course area.
2. fill cavity wall inspection holes to brickwork below the middle bedroom.
3. complete work to the resident’s front step.
On 17 December 2020 the landlord noted an out of hours plumber had attended as the resident’s stopcock was leaking and needed replacing. The landlord recorded it attended on 15 January 2021 to complete this work.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2021 about reoccurring mould at her property since 2014. She said:
1. She had followed the landlord’s recommendations to resolve mould, but it had not worked.
2. The stopcock in her kitchen was leaking, when previously the landlord said it was condensation.
3. She believed there was a leak from the property above that had filled the cavity wall.
4. She believed the upstairs flat’s external tap was leaking.
5. She was waiting for work to her front doorstep and pointing work to an external wall, as instructed by the landlord’s surveyor.
The landlord issued its response on 12 February 2021 and said:
1. Its inspector had noted on 25 November 2020 that there was suitable ventilation. Although he had noted some condensation in the middle bedroom and 2 corners of the external wall where there was mould.
2. An independent surveyor had noted in 2019 that there was a small amount of mould at the property, but this was due to condensation, not disrepair.
3. Based on these accounts it did not believe there was an extensive mould problem. oeHh
4. The stop cock had been replaced, and this had been done as soon as a fault was identified.
5. Its inspector had not identified any visible signs of water staining during their last visit, but a card had been left with the top flat to arrange access and rule out any issues.
6. The water pipe from the flat above to the outside tap had been inspected and found to be in good condition.
7. Repointing and work to the resident’s steps had been completed on 1 February 2021, and it would arrange a further post inspection of this work.
On 15 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the landlord. She said she had asked for her complaint be escalated to stage 2 and had sent her response to the investigating officer. It is not clear from records when she sent this response, however the resident raised that:
1. mould damage was the landlord’s responsibility to remedy.
2. the stopcock was still leaking.
3. she would be happy for someone to reinspect her property.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord raised a work order to inspect damp and mould at the resident’s property. The next records seen show that the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 April 2021 detailing its meeting with the resident on 30 March 2021. It said:
1. It had seen no signs of leaks from the property above.
2. It would request the case was moved to stage 2 of the complaints process.
Records do not show correspondence following this, but on 4 May 2021 the landlord completed a further property inspection. This noted it had used thermal imaging and taken damp readings. It noted it found no leaks to the stopcock, from the property above, or from the external tap. It also noted:
1. There was little to point on the external wall. There were only minor gaps, but a job could be raised for this.
2. Thermal imaging of the external cavity wall detected moisture and noted that air vents present on the outside had been covered inside.
3. Possible work may be needed to replace an external waste pipe coming from the property above.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord told the resident it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 but wanted to defer the outcome of this until it had completed a further survey. On 18 May 2021 it told the resident it suspected a blocked vent to be the cause of the problems.
On 1 June 2021 a contractor provided the landlord with a quote for work to insulate walls at the property and install room vents. On 17 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord requesting compensation for the costs she said she had incurred as a result of the mould in her property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 June 2021 outlining the finding of its inspections. It said these confirmed the cavity wall insulation had failed in a number of areas and it now planned to renew this. It said it would wait to do so until after scheduled double glazing replacement was completed at the end of July 2021.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident again. It said an insulation contractor had confirmed work had been undertaken between 31 August and 8 September 2021 to install cavity wall insulation. It said it would reinspect the property with thermal imaging to ensure the affected area was drying out.
The landlord provided a further stage 2 progress letter to the resident on 4 November 2021. It said it had arranged to complete a reassurance survey of the property on 11 November 2021.
The landlord said it recognised that the process of identifying the issue causing the damp was complicated and the remedy was delayed due to the planned programme of works. It said it would:
1. confirm that areas of damp were drying out during the reassurance survey it was due to complete.
2. begin any internal repairs/decoration needed.
3. not formally close the investigation of the resident’s complaint until this work was complete.
On 15 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to update her on 2 work orders that it had raised:
1. It said it had been notified by the water provider of a leak in a supply pipe which ran under the property, and it was to complete an inspection.
2. No leak from above had been identified but it was to book a plumber to access the property above to investigate the possibility of this.
3. It noted that reassurance survey in November 2021 had found the bathroom ceiling to be dry, but that it showed signs of spot mould.
The resident responded the following day. She said the landlord had attended the flat above on 1 December 2021. She saidshe had previously been told that the only explanation for the issues was a leak from above.
Records do not show communication again until 4 February 2022 when the resident wrote to the landlord. She said the water providerhadtold her the property had no plastic membrane on the damp proofing. She expressed her belief that the leak under the property had been ongoing for a number of years and may be the cause of the reoccurring damp.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord said the mains water supply work had been completed. It said it was now in a position to complete internal repairs and decoration. It asked the resident to confirm when she would be available. On 4 March 2022 the landlord noted it had attended to complete work to reinstate the resident’s paving following the mains water leak. It noted there was still a leak that needed to be repaired.
On 4 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had checked the work to repair the water leak, and rerouting of pipework was now complete. It said it had asked its surveyor to contact the resident to complete an inspection to establish any associated works that may be required prior to completing any redecoration.
On 6 June 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to her complaint. It said:
1. It had been informed in October 2021 that the water provider was investigating a leak at the shared mains water supply in the block. This was a new leak not previously mentioned in the complaint.
2. The reassurance survey had been completed on 10 November 2021 and that:
  1. damp reading showed the property was dry.
  2. the bathroom ceiling showed signs of spot mould and it was investigating a possible leak from the flat above.
  3. recent work undertaken appeared to have worked to eradicate damp.
  4. there were no anomalies resulting from the thermographic camera survey, but the resident was concern about a mains water leak reported by the water provider.
3. Despite the water provider reporting an underground leak, property inspections and thermal imaging had not shown evidence of rising damp, which indicated the damp proof course was not defective.
4. Remedial work in its reassurance survey had to be postponed until the water provider had resolved the leak to the mains water supply.
5. On 2 February 2022 it was informed by the water provider that the leak had returned and was on the customer side, so work then had to be postponed while it resolved these leaks.
6. There was further unexpected work in designing and installing a new internal route for the mains water supply to the building, which had been agreed with the resident on 7 April 2022.
The landlord said its contractor had agreed with the resident that it would start internal remedial work in early May 2022. It said it completed a property inspection on 11 May 2022 and following this set out in an email to the resident internal decorative work it would undertake, and retiling and regrouting in the bathroom.
The landlord said:
1. While the resident said there was a leak from the flat above, there was no evidence of an ongoing leak.
2. It was still to agree any compensation for damage to personal belongings and distress.
3. It recognised there were delays in closing the stage 2 review and it appreciated this delay would have been frustrating. However, it said there were a number of unforeseen issues that had contributed to this.
4. It would continue to work with the resident until she was satisfied with the outcome of her complaint.
The resident responded to the landlord on 16 June 2022. She said:
1. she believed there had been a water leak for a number of years that gone undetected by the landlord.
2. the landlord was incorrect in saying damp had been eradicated.
3. she still believed there was a leak from the property above. She requested to see a copy of the landlord’s investigation of this.
On 28 June 2022 we wrote to the landlord about its stage 2 response. We queried whether the matter had been exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We requested that it provide the resident with a revised stage 2 complaint response that made clear that its complaints procedure had been exhausted.
Following this, the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response to the resident on 5 July 2022. It said the resident’s complaint was partly upheld. It said work was still taking place and that the compensation amount could not be finalised. It said it would contact the resident again once work had been finalised.
The same day the landlord responded to the resident’s letter of 16 June 2022. It apologised for the delay in doing so. It said:
1. it had only been advised by the water provider in October 2021 of an underground leak in the block’s shared water supply.
2. this was a new leak and thermal imaging and property inspections had not shown any evidence of rising damp or breaches of the damp proof membrane.
3. it had attended the property above on 4 occasions (18 December 2020, 10 May 2021, 1 December 2021 and 25 August 2022), where no leaks had been found. It said work had been found during the inspection of 25 August 2022, where an external waste pipe repair was raised.
It said that following the inspection of 11 May 2022 that there was no evidence of further contributory factors causing condensation, but that it would monitor performance. It said that its reassurance survey on 10 November 2021 noted that recent work to eradicate damp appeared to have worked and that there was no anomaly in the thermographic camera survey. It said it would start work to rectify internal work on 11 July 2022 and expected this work to be complete by early August 2022.
On 12 July 2022 the resident sent the landlord a list of items she said had been damaged due to the damp and mould in her property. She also set out that she wanted compensation for:
1. electricity for fans that “don’t work” and for workman usage.
2. time, inconvenience and stress.
3. overcharges in her water bill due to years with a burst pipe.
4. reimbursement of 50% of her rent since the start of her tenancy because of the “miss management and negligence” by the landlord.
On 27 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord. She said that redecoration work at her property had begun but she was concerned that work completed so far was of a poor standard. Amongst other things she said:
1. paintwork was patchy, and the bathroom ceiling had been painted in matt rather than gloss paint.
2. the leak from the flat above had still not been resolved.
3. further mould had been found on the walls of her daughter’s bedroom.
The landlord responded to the resident the same day. It said it would ask someone to look into the matter and contact the resident with an update. On 23 August 2022 the landlord raised a work order for internal repairs, including tiling and decorative work.
On 26 August 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 12 July 2022. It requested that the resident sent invoices, receipts and utility bills so it could consider the losses she had listed.
The landlord also noted the inspection of the property by a surveyor in April 2019, which found a small amount of mould growth in the flat that was attributed to condensation rather than disrepair. It said it had considered this survey, and its conclusion that there was no significant breach of the landlord’s repair obligations. It said it did not consider it was liable for any loss or damage to the resident’s personal property. It also noted that it had investigated and remedied a leak from the flat above in 2015 and had made an offer to the resident in December 2015 of £1,250 to reflect damage, inconvenience and costs incurred.
The landlord said that it was sorry the resident had suffered damage to her personal belongings from the flat above. However property surveys and inspections completed since 2016 had concluded no evidence of an ongoing water leak from this property. It said:
1. its own insurance did not consider property contents.
2. the resident’s tenancy agreement set out advice that residents take out adequate contents insurance.
3. if the resident had such insurance, she should contact her insurer about how to make a claim.
The landlord said it appreciated that work to re-run mains water pipework internally was intrusive, but that work had been completed with care and it had agreed to cover the cost of redecorating associated with the work as a gesture of goodwill. It said this work was expected to be completed by 16 August 2022.
On 8 September 2022 the resident responded to the landlord expressing dissatisfaction with its response of 26 August 2022. She said the landlord was still to resolve leaks from the property above, pointing of an external wall, and the breach of the damp course. She included statements showing purchases of items, such as carpets and beds, as well as utility bills between 2014 and 2020. She also included details of her water bill in 2021 and 2022. She said she was not prepared to make a claim to her own insurance for her damaged property as she considered this was due to the landlord’s failure to maintain the property.
The resident said the landlord’s “goodwill gesture” of redecorating her property had caused her “more stress and disruption” than resolution. She said the landlord’s contractors had whitewashed walls and had left her sink broken and plaster and paint over belongings. She said she had arranged for a professional decorator to resolve the “mess” and had needed to postpone her holiday as a result of this and the “unmanaged” timescale of the contractor.
On 23 September 2022 the landlord repair records noted it had raised work to repoint brickwork at the front of the resident’s property. Although records note this work as complete, they do not show a completion date or details of any work that was done.
Records seen do not detail when internal decoration work was completed. However, it is clear this was done by December 2022 as on 14 December 2022 the resident reported that mould on her bathroom ceiling had returned. She said this was just weeks after the landlord had completed redecoration. She said:
1. The contractor had painted the bathroom ceiling in matt paint, instead of gloss.
2. Some of her belongings had been ruined.
3. She believed the damp proof course was breached.
4. She had reported a guttering repair in October 2022 that was outstanding.
The landlord responded the following day. It said it was sorry to hear of the return of damp and mould. It said:
1. It had asked that the bathroom ceiling be painted in washable paint with the inclusion of an anti-fungal washdown and stain block. It said it would ask its contractor to confirm what work had been undertaken.
2. The issues with the guttering, which was an outstanding repair, may be contributing.
Since that date the resident has communicated further with the landlord about damp and mould issues. The landlord has since completed further work and damp and mould assessment at the resident’s property, and agreed additional work, including:
1. Replacement of the ventilation system.
2. Roof and guttering work.
3. Further mould treatment and cleaning.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in December 2023 about the time it had taken for it to complete the additional repairs to her property. On 17 January 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 response to her complaint. In this it noted that mould in the resident’s bathroom was caused by a leak from the property above, which had since been resolved. The resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 24 January 2024, when it issued a stage 2 response declining the resident’s escalation request.
The resident told us that the landlord had blamed her for the damp conditions for years. She said it had affected her family’s health. She said her son had chronic asthma and that she was disabled with fibromyalgia, spondylosis and arthritis. She said she had also recently been diagnosed with COPD, which she believed was as a result of living conditions and stress caused by the landlord. The resident said she wanted to be compensated for damaged property, reimbursement of rent and for the landlord to provide her with lifetime tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has complained of issues with damp, mould and leaks at her property going back to 2014. It is also evident that the resident raised a disrepair claim in 2019 relating to these matters, resulting in a surveyor’s inspection in April 2019. At this time, it was open to the resident to progress her concerns with the landlord should she have remained unhappy with its handling of the matter at this time, but there is no evidence she did so. Records seen by us show that the resident next raised concerns about mould issues in August 2020. As such our consideration of the resident complaint will focus on the landlord’s handling of her concerns since that date.
The resident has since made a complaint to the landlord in December 2023 about the landlord handling of additional repairs to the property following her further reports of damp and mould since her earlier complaint was concluded. The resident has recently exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy in respect of this. It would be appropriate for any concerns she has to be raised with us as a new complaint, if the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of that complaint.
It is also noted that since the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022 the resident has raised concerns with us in August 2022 about conduct of operatives working in her property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to have the opportunity to consider any concerns the resident has about these issues through its internal complaints procedure. Should the resident remain unhappy with the response, she could then bring the complaint to us.

Reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property

The resident raised concerns with the landlord in July 2020 about mould in her property, and of a leak from an external tap. The evidence shows a work order was raised on 5 August 2020 to inspect the property. That was an appropriate step given the concerns the resident had raised. The landlord subsequently referred to having completed a full inspection of the property on 12 August 2020. However, no contemporaneous record of this has been provided. It would have been appropriate for an adequate record to be made by the landlord, and the actions it had agreed at this time. While the landlord’s subsequent email of 23 September 2020 sets out some detail of what had been found during this inspection, that was more than a month after the inspection. This was a failing in record keeping.
There is evidence of work orders raised following the inspection of 12 August 2020, such as one to service extractor fans at the property. However, the landlord failed to make an adequate record to demonstrate it completed this action. This was a further record keeping failing.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response on 12 February 2021 that it had completed a further inspection of the property on 25 November 2020. While the resident has not disputed this, the landlord should have made and appropriately retained a contemporaneous record of this. Further, there is no record of the steps the landlord took to resolve the resident’s concern about a leak into her bathroom from the property above. The landlord said during its stage 1 response that its inspector had not identified visible water staining, but had left a card with the property above to rule out issues. But it did not record when this was done, or any follow up action taken. While it later said it had attended the property above on 18 December 2020 and had found no leak, there is no record of this. Nor is there record of it completing the follow up check of the neighbour’s water hose. Without making adequate records of the actions it had taken, the landlord cannot sufficiently demonstrate that it was taking all the appropriate steps to resolve the damp, mould and leak issues the resident was reporting.
The resident complained to the landlord about the issues she was experiencing on 25 January 2021. But instead of considering whether any further action was necessary to resolve these, its response was dismissive of her concerns. It said it did not consider there was an extensive damp problem based on its inspector’s visit on 25 November 2020 and the surveyor’s report from 2019. But the landlord had noted at that time areas of mould and condensation in November 2020. It was not appropriate to leave these issues unresolved for the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore whether any further action was possible to identify and remedy the cause of the issues. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and should avoid language inferring blame on the resident.
While email correspondence we have seen provides evidence that the landlord subsequently re-attended to inspect the property on 30 March 2021, this was only after the resident had escalated her complaint. At this time the landlord noted again that it had seen no signs of leaks from above, but it did not seek to explain to the resident what it had done to check this. If it had taken steps to inspect the property above, it would have been appropriate for it to explain this. It was clear the resident had ongoing concerns about the damp and mould she was experiencing, and it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to consider other steps to investigate her concerns.
It was not until 4 May 2021 that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns using thermal imaging. It is acknowledged that the landlord then took appropriate steps to arrange further investigations and completion of this work to vents and the insulation. But it should not have taken the landlord so long to get to that stage. There were earlier opportunities the landlord could reasonably have taken to complete further investigations of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s decision to postpone completing insulation work until after planned double glazing work was reasonable and it took appropriate steps to advise the resident of this. Following the completion of insulation work, the landlord told the resident on 7 October 2021 that it would complete a further inspection to ensure the affected area was drying. Again, this was an appropriate action. But further failings in record keeping are evident as this reassurance survey is not within documentation we have seen. The landlord referred to the finding of this survey in later correspondence, and its occurrence is not been disputed by the resident. But it would have been appropriate for the landlord to record and store details of this survey in its repairs records. This would have helped it to evidence how it was monitoring the issues reported.
The resident continued to raise concerns that there was an ongoing leak from the property above. The landlord said it had attended the property above on 1 December 2021, and this was later confirmed by the resident. However, the landlord said on 15 December 2021 it was to book a plumber to investigate the possibility of a leak in the property above. There is no indication that any such work was scheduled. None of the inspections of the upstairs property set out by the landlord on 5 July 2022 are detailed in repair records or contemporaneous correspondence.
If the landlord had taken steps to investigate a possible leak from above by inspecting that property, it was essential that it make appropriate record of this. The resident had consistently raised her concerns, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to appropriately investigate and communicate its findings to the resident. It is acknowledged that the landlord had found no evidence of a leak through thermal imaging investigations and visual inspections. But the resident had continued to experience mould reoccurring on her bathroom ceiling, and the landlord had said it would investigate her concerns about a leak from above.
The landlord has since identified a leak from the property above, noted in its stage 1 complaint response in January 2024. It is not possible for us to know if this was a leak that had been present when the resident raised her earlier concerns. The landlord had said it had not detected such a leak through thermal imaging and visual inspections. But it is also apparent that the landlord failed to make adequate record to evidence inspections it said it completed of the property above. In addition there is no evidence that it took steps to arrange for a plumber to inspect this property, as it said it would in December 2020. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it did what it said it would to rule out the possibility of a leak from the property above.
It is also noted that the landlord said on 5 July 2022 that it had completed an inspection of the property above on 25 August 2022 when a waste pipe repair was raised. Given this was, at this time, a date in the future it appears to be a mistake. It is possible the landlord was referring to its identification of a broken waste pipe from the property above, raised during the survey in May 2021. But this is unclear as the landlord did not make adequate repair records.
The resident had concerns that the mains water leak under the property had been ongoing for a number of years. The landlord said it was made aware of this leak in October 2021. It is acknowledged that the discovery of this leak would understandably have been a cause for concern and inconvenience for the resident. But we have seen no evidence that this was a longstanding leak that the landlord should have identified or been aware of earlier. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to detail in repair records what it did about this, particularly after being made aware in February 2022 that the leak was on the customer side. It was a further record keeping failing.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and leaks since July 2020. The landlord took appropriate steps to install vents and complete insulation work at the property in September 2021. But it was initially slow to undertake the steps necessary to identify and address this. Further, while it considered the resident’s concerns that there was a leak from the property above, it did not keep appropriate records to show it checked that property, as it said it would.
The resident would undoubtedly have experienced greater concern that the issues she continued to experience with damp and mould were caused by an unresolved leak from the property above. It would also have been a cause for distress and frustration for her that the landlord was slow to undertake further investigations that identified issues with the insulation and vents at the property. So far, the landlord had offered no compensation to the resident. It is noted that the resident said she would like the landlord to give her a lifetime tenancy. However, this is not something that we can order following our investigation of the landlord’s handling of her concerns about damp, mould and leaks. It would be appropriate for the resident to raise any questions she has about her tenancy directly with the landlord.
With consideration of the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Repairs needed in the property

It is acknowledged that the repairs to the resident’s property were significantly delayed because of the discovery of the mains water leak, and subsequent work needed to resolve this. This was an issue that was beyond the control of the landlord. However, the landlord has provided no evidence it kept the resident updated between 25 February 2022 and 4 May 2022. Given the uncertainty of the situation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated, and keep record of this.
The landlord did not keep clear records of its subsequent inspections and agreement of the internal work. In later correspondence the landlord referred to a visit it made to the resident on 11 May 2022 to inspect the property and agree internal work. While this has not been disputed by the resident, the landlord should have kept a contemporaneous record of this. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to set out for the resident a clear timetable of work, particularly after the considerable delay due to the mains water leaks. The landlord later told the resident it expected the work to be completed by 16 August 2022. While it is noted that a work order for the decorative work was not raised until 23 August 2022, the resident’s email from 27 July 2022 shows it this work had begun by then and was still ongoing when the resident wrote to the landlord in September 2022.
The landlord did not adequately record when the work was completed, but by the resident’s account work had only been completed for matter of weeks in December 2022. This suggests the internal repairs went on well beyond the target of 16 August 2022, with no explanation for this delay. It is clear the resident had concerns about the time the work took. She said she had also had to postpone a holiday to resolve issues and because of the “unmanaged” timescale of work.
When the resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July and 8 September 2022, she raised concerns about the quality of the work completed. She also said the workmen had left paint on her belongings. But there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about this. It should have done so. It is clear that while the resident had raised concerns about matt paint being used on the bathroom ceiling in July 2022, this concern was still outstanding 14 December 2022. It is not clear that the landlord provided a response to the resident about this.
It is acknowledged some delays in the landlord completing internal repairs were due to mains water leak. But there is also evidence of poor communication by the landlord about this, a lack of clear communication about the timescale for the internal repairs. In addition, there was poor record keeping about when repair work was completed. The repairs went far beyond the timescale of 16 August 2022 provided by the landlord, and it failed to respond adequately to the resident about her concerns about the work and damage to her belongings. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. With consideration to the circumstances, an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Complaint handling

As noted earlier, the landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident on 12 February 2021 had the effect of dismissing the resident’s ongoing concerns about the damp, mould and leaks. While it noted it had inspected the resident’s property in November 2020, given that the resident’s concerns were still outstanding it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further inspection. Instead it only did so after she asked for her complaint to be escalated.
The landlord noted it did not want to conclude its stage 2 consideration of the matter while work was ongoing. But as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), a response to a complaint must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions are complete. As such, the landlord could have issued its response, and then tracked the outstanding actions, such as any outstanding surveys/repairs and updated the resident accordingly. Instead, the resident was left waiting for a final response nearly 18 months after making her complaint in January 2021. This was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to wait for the conclusion of her complaint, and clearly far beyond the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
It is also noted that the landlord told the resident that it would finalise compensation to her once work was complete. But in the event, it said it would not pay compensation. It referred to the survey from April 2019, which it said showed there had not been a significant breach of landlord obligations. It also referred to having made a payment to the resident in 2016 for items damaged by a leak. But this response failed to consider whether the resident had been impacted by the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports since July 2020.
While declining to pay the resident for personal items, at the same time the landlord asked her to provide evidence of these in the form of invoices and receipts. It is unclear why it asked her to do so, but if it did not believe it was responsible for any losses prior to say 2020, it should have explained this to the resident. This would have saved her the trouble of providing receipts and bank statements going back to 2014. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord provided any response when the resident provided this information in September 2022.
It is noted that the landlord previously told the resident that she should claim under her own insurance for damaged items, but as set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it may consider paying compensation should belonging/furniture be damaged because of landlord’s failings. So far the landlord has failed to make any apparent consideration of this. The landlord maintained throughout its dealings with the resident that there was not an issue with damp (arising from disrepair for which it was responsible). This is likely why it referred her to her own insurer. However, it should reasonably have referred the matter to its own insurer so that a liability decision could be made accordingly.
There was maladministration in the landlord handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to make appropriate consideration of re-inspecting the resident’s property after she raised concerns about ongoing damp and mould issues. Contrary to the Code, it left the resident waiting for a final response to her complaint for nearly 18 months after her initial complaint. It the failed to provide her with an adequate response to her request to be compensated for damaged possessions and distress caused by the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould concerns. With consideration to the circumstances, and with reference to the ombudsman’s remedies guidance an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the failings identified.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs needed in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in re-inspecting the resident’s property after she continued to raise concerns about damp, mould and leaks. It failed to keep adequate records to show it had inspected the property above to rule out the possibility that damp and mould issues were caused by a leak from this property, despite telling the resident it would do so. It is acknowledged however that the landlord had completed inspections of the resident’s property during this time and had seen no evidence of a leak from above from visual inspections and thermal imaging.
The landlord did not keep the resident appropriately updated after repair work was delayed by the mains water leak. It then failed to provide the resident with a clear timetable for the internal repair work, which was not completed until well beyond the target completion date of 16 August 2022. The landlord also failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the standard of work, or about items damaged during this work.
The landlord failed to make appropriate contemporaneous record of inspections and work completed at the resident’s property, or of any inspections of the property above. This has resulted in a lack of clarity about when work was completed to the resident’s property, and of what checks it completed of the property above.
The landlord’s initial complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns about ongoing damp, mould and leak issues, which delayed it taking appropriate action to identify the potential cause of this. The landlord then kept the resident’s complaint open, contrary to the Code. This led to the complaint being open for nearly 18 months after the resident first made it. The landlord was not sufficiently clear about the date the resident should go back to when providing invoices/receipts. It failed to appropriately consider the impact of its handling since July 2020, or to provide an appropriate response to the resident’s letter of 8 September 2022 when she provided the invoice and receipts it had requested.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,300, made up of:
  1. £500 for the impact of the failings in its handling of the resident’s damp, mould and leak reports.
  2. £400 for the impact of the failings in its handling of repairs needed to the property.
  3. £400 for the impact of the failings in its handling of the complaint.
3. Contact the resident to ensure it addresses any outstanding concerns about the finish of the bathroom ceiling, belongings damaged by paint and damage to her sink, which she raised in July and September 2022.
4. Review and consider the resident’s claimed losses set out in her letter of 8 September 2022 under its compensation policy and provide her with a clear response to this.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Review record keeping failings identified in the report to ensure it has processes in place to avoid these failings being repeated.
2. Remind complaint handling staff of the importance of providing timely complaint responses in line with the code.

Recommendations

In light of the ongoing issues the resident has with damp, mould and leaks, consider whether it is appropriate to undertake a further damp and mould assessment to ensure all appropriate steps are taken.