Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202322838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322838

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

18 July 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2 bed ground floor flat. The resident lived with her young toddler and newborn baby. The tenancy commenced on 4 May 2022 and the resident was re-housed by the landlord in December 2023.
There are household vulnerabilities noted on file. The resident suffers with mental health issues and her children suffer from breathing difficulties.
The resident first reported issues with damp and mould on 31 October 2022. She reported mould on her bathroom ceiling and on her bedroom wall. On receiving the report, the landlord sent her its damp and mould leaflet and advised her to follow the advice therein for 4 weeks. It asked her to contact it after this time if there was no improvement. It also arranged for a plumber to check the flat above for any potential leaks into the resident’s property.
The resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom again on 24 January 2023. She said the wallpaper was falling off the bedroom wall, due to the damp. The landlord attempted to call the resident back and emailed to arrange to book an inspection to resolve the issues at the property.
The landlord attended the property on 21 February 2023. It noted “slight spots of mould” could be seen and that the wall may need damp treatment but that it would be a good idea to get some moisture readings first. It also noted that the room was quite “cluttered and cramped”. It advised the resident to keep the room well ventilated. It noted “slight spots of mould” on the bathroom wall, which it believed to be due to condensation. It also noted that the living room wall was damp along the bottom and that this would need moisture readings taken. It asked its colleagues if it should schedule works for treatment in the bedroom and living room.
On 29 March 2023, a specialist damp surveyor attended the resident’s property. The inspection was confined to the living room and resident’s bedroom, as per the landlord’s instructions. It carried out humidity readings and concluded the presence of mould growth was caused by condensation/excessive humidity. It noted that the bathroom extractor fan was inadequate and there was inadequate ventilation in the kitchen. It also noted that the trickle vents in the bedroom were closed, and that the resident’s bed was placed against the party wall, restricting air flow. It also noted that the resident was drying clothes in the property. It recommended the following:
1. Constant modest background heat to maintain a higher ambient temperature.
2. The resident to open all trickle vents and not to store large items directly against the walls.
3. The resident to keep the bathroom door closed at all times and to avoid drying clothes inside.
4. The landlord to install new, constantly running humidistat mechanical extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
5. All areas of mould growth to be cleaned as soon as possible.
6. Following the actions above, the areas to be monitored over a period to determine if there has been any improvement with the management of moisture.
It also said that in some instances, further action may be required but in most cases, condensation and mould growth could be kept under control with adequate mechanical ventilation and a reasonable level of heating.
The landlord ordered a mould wash to the resident’s property on 5 April 2023, following the damp survey report.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord ordered an external contractor to carry out ventilation works to the resident’s property, under its major works programme.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 April 2023 to request an update on the ventilation works and also asked if it would replace her belongings, which were damaged due to the damp and mould.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 9 May 2023 to state that ventilation works had not been done to her property and she had heard nothing from the landlord. She said she had been told by her midwife not to bring a newborn baby into the property, due to the mould. She stated that the landlord’s contractor had carried out a mould wash and she had painted the wall several times, but that the mould kept coming back. She said it was now all over her bed.
The landlord responded on the same day. It said that it had been unable to secure a date from the contractor it initially attempted to commission, so it had contacted another contractor to attend the resident’s property to assess the works for it to complete. It advised that the contractor hoped to complete the works over the next couple of weeks and had asked it to contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
The contractor attended the resident’s property on 10 May 2023, but was unable to gain access. It left a calling card and asked the resident to contact it with times that were suitable for her, so they could return to assess for works.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 15 May 2023. She said the following:
1. She was heavily pregnant and had a young toddler and was living with damp and mould.
2. She had been reporting the issue since September 2022 and had 2 surveyors out to inspect the property.
3. A contractor had been out to assess for ventilation works.
4. The landlord had carried out a mould wash on the bedroom wall and she painted the wall once the works were done.
5. She had been ignored by the landlord for several weeks.
6. The contractor( who was originally going to carry out the ventilation works) had told her the damp on the bedroom wall was not caused by condensation, even though the landlord was “adamant” that condensation was the issue.
7. Her next door neighbour had contacted her that day. The bedroom party wall was damp and mouldy on both sides of the wall.
8. There was damp going into her plug sockets which was a health concern and a danger to her children.
9. A surveyor had told her not to sleep in the bedroom with the damp and mould as it was not good for the health of the household.
10. Her child suffers from breathing problems, which she had disclosed before signing the tenancy.
11. Her bed was covered in mould and she had supplied photos as evidence of this. The landlord had said it would reimburse her for her damaged belongings.
12. She had discussed the damp and mould with her midwife, who told her not to bring a newborn baby into the home. The midwife had made a referral to the city council.
13. She had provided photographic evidence of all the damp and mould in the previous months and recorded all contact with the landlord.
14. If the landlord did not resolve the issue, she would contact a solicitor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023. It advised that its contractor had been unable to make arrangements to access the property to carry out works and asked the resident to confirm her availability as soon as possible.
The landlord raised a job for its contractor to carry out ventilation works on 26 May 2023. This is because the previous contractor had no availability.
On 5 June 2023, the landlord’s complaints team contacted colleagues to ask for an update on planned ventilation works so it could update the resident. The landlord’s planned maintenance team responded the next day, 6 June 2023. It said the following:
1. The resident had requested an inspection of her property in January 2023. There was no record of any damp/mould issue reported prior to this date.
2. The inspection was carried out in February 2023, and the landlord had requested a damp survey.
3. The damp survey specialist had attended on 29 March 2023 and sent its report and findings on 5 April 2023. It confirmed there was no damp.
4. It had asked a contractor to attend to fit mechanical ventilation units but the contractor could not attend until September 2023, so the landlord had sent a different contractor who had tried to gain access to the resident’s property to quote but the resident was not available for 5 days.
5. Works had been ordered and the contractors had started the works. In the meantime, a different contractor had completed a mould wash and a leak from the flat next door had been fixed.
6. It would decorate or issue decoration vouchers after works were completed.
7. The resident would need to claim on her own contents insurance for any damaged belongings.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 June 2023. It said it had received her email to consider as a complaint and apologised for the delay in contacting her as it had experienced a high demand for its service. It asked the resident to schedule a call, which the resident agreed to.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint by letter, after speaking with her on the phone. It advised that it expected to send a response within the next 10 working days but that it may take longer. It enclosed its complaints policy and also explained this Service’s role.
The landlord’s complaints team contacted its planned maintenance team on 12 June 2023, 15 June 2023 and 20 June 2023. It asked if the extractor fan had been fitted. It said the resident had been in contact to advise that a contractor had attended her property on 5 June 2023 but could not complete the job as it had the “wrong sized fan” and had not returned the same day as “promised”.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 June 2023. It said the following:
1. Its records indicated that the resident reported damp and mould on her bathroom ceiling and bedroom wall on 31 October 2022. The resident had been sent a condensation/mould leaflet and to follow the advice therein for 4 weeks. If no improvements were seen in this time, she could escalate to the next level.
2. There was a leak from the flat above, which the landlord’s contractor had traced and repaired.
3. On 24 January 2023, the resident reported mould in her bedroom. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property and completed an inspection. The inspection noted “slight spots of mould in the bathroom that appeared to be due to condensation”. It also noted “slight spots of mould” in the bedroom. The resident had been advised to keep the room ventilated. The report also noted that the living room wall appeared to be damp but a meter reading would be required to confirm this.
4. Following the inspection, a specialist company was requested to carry out a damp survey. This was carried out by a fully qualified building preservation surveyor on 29 March 2023. On 5 April 2023, the report confirmed there was no damp at the property and mould growth was a direct result of condensation.
5. The findings at the time of the inspection were; the extractor fan in the bathroom was switched off at the isolation switch, trickle vents to windows were closed, the bed was against the wall, restricting air flow, the resident was drying clothes inside.
6. The specialist company determined all of the above were contributing to the condensation.
7. Following the specialist company’s inspection, a mould wash treatment was completed on 14 April 2023. It was also recommended to install a ventilation fan in the property to help alleviate moisture.
8. A contractor attended the property on 17 April 2023 to quote for mechanical ventilation. It would be unable to install the ventilation until September 2023 so the landlord had contacted another contractor to “speed things up”.
9. The contractor attended on 10 May 2023 but was unable to gain access. It unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident several times over the next few days. It managed to speak to the resident afterwards and arranged an appointment for 12 May 2023. The resident subsequently cancelled this appointment and asked for it be rearranged to the following week. The contractor was instructed to carry out installation of a Positive Input Ventilation Unit (PIV) and related works on 5 June 2023.
10. From the evidence, it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and arranged an inspection to be done, in accordance with its responsive repairs procedure. Specialist contractors were appointed to check for dampness, to carry out mould treatment and for installation of a mechanical fan.
11. Its planned maintenance department had tried to get the remedial works completed urgently and had kept the resident informed of works. It had to use a different contractor as the first one it had attempted to appoint could not complete the works in a timely manner. The contractor the landlord ended up using could not initially gain access but did attend to complete the repair.
12. In respect of the bathroom extractor fan, the landlord was awaiting a response from its contractor to ascertain if this had been fitted. The resident should let the landlord know if this was still outstanding so the landlord could chase this up.
13. It could not investigate the point that a contractor had told the resident that the mould in her property was not condensation, but rising damp. The contractor the resident alluded to was not a damp specialist and was only contracted to fit ventilation systems as recommended by the specialist surveyor. The resident’s home was inspected by a specialist surveyor who advised all the damp in the home was due to condensation.
14. It could not investigate the point that the resident claimed a surveyor had told her that the bedroom was damp and not to sleep in there. It was unclear which surveyor this was. The specialist surveyor had concluded there was no damp in the home.
15. In respect of the resident’s concerns that her health visitor had told her the property was not suitable for a child with breathing difficulties or a newborn baby, the investigation revealed there was no damp in the home. The resident was provided with a condensation and mould leaflet to help her manage condensation in her home.
16. The specialist surveyor had recommended the resident keep her trickle vents open and avoid placing her bed on the bedroom wall. It also recommended she avoid drying clothes indoors. Following this advice, and the installation of a new extractor fan would help alleviate mould and condensation in her home.
17. The resident had requested the damp and mould to be resolved or for the landlord to rehouse her. The landlord was satisfied that the specialist surveyor had conducted a thorough investigation and concluded there was no damp in the home. The landlord had appointed a specialist contractor to fit a mechanical extractor fan and apply mould treatment to the affected areas.
18. The landlord would either redecorate or issue decoration vouchers once the works were completed.
19. The landlord was not liable for damage to residents’ belongings. She should make a claim through her home contents insurance policy.
20. It advised her to register with the local council choice-based lettings in respect of her re-housing request.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 26 June 2023. She was unhappy that the landlord had concluded there was no damp or mould in the bedroom when “there clearly is”. She said the following:
1. She had removed all the furniture away from walls months ago and the mould was still present.
2. Nobody had been to fit ventilation in the bathroom, and she had received no further contact or updates.
3. Her baby was 5 days old and had a “barking cough”. She had called her midwife and the baby now needed hospital admission. She had given the landlord enough time to resolve the issues before the baby was born, due to the negative impact on her child’s health.
4. She was seeking further advice and would be forwarding her complaint to a solicitor.
The landlord chased its contractor on 3 July 2023, to ask for an urgent update on the bathroom extractor fan. The contractor advised that the bathroom was central within the flat with solid concrete and no external facing walls. As such, it was bound by old, existing metal ducting. It had ordered an extractor fan to fit the space but it was completely different to the “usual ones” which are fitted as standard so it had to make some enquiries to ensure the fan would function properly with the metal ducting in situ. It would hopefully have the fan and fit it in the next few days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it was handling an increasing number of “service requests” and taking longer to respond. It advised the resident that it hoped to issue a response by 20 July 2023 and if it required further information, it would contact her.
The landlord’s internal email correspondence of 20 and 21 July 2023, stated that it would be unable to confirm the status of the bathroom extractor fan in its response. It had asked its planned maintenance team to contact the resident separately and would check that the outstanding works were completed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 July 2023. It said the following:
1. It was satisfied that the specialist survey carried out confirmed that the property was not suffering from damp. The mould was reported as condensation led and follow-up works had been arranged to help reduce the mould in the home. Condensation led mould required a balance of adequate heating and ventilation.
2. It advised the resident to make sure her property was adequately heated and ventilated.
3. The contractor had ordered an extractor fan, which was different to the usual fans the landlord fits so it had to make enquiries to ensure it would function correctly with the metal ducting in situ.
4. It apologised for the delayed works and that the resident had not been informed of the delay. The works were still with the contractor and its planned maintenance team would provide the resident with an update.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day and enclosed photos of the bedroom wall, which showed mould had spread across the wall. She said the landlord had completed a mould wash and stain blocker but the mould was still coming through, despite the fact she had decorated it many times. She said there was now mould on her furniture and bed and her child had been at the hospital and to the GP with breathing issues. She stated that she had a dehumidifier in her bedroom and kept the window open at all times and that the mould was not due to condensation. She stated that she had recorded everything and her solicitor would be investigating, and then she would contact the press as the situation was unacceptable for a young family.
The landlord responded on 24 July 2023, advising the resident that it had concluded its internal complaints process so she could explore external sources of support, including contacting this Service.
On 25 July 2023, the resident’s solicitor served a notice of statutory nuisance on the landlord under Section 82 (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This was in respect of damp and mould in the property. The solicitor stated that it would bring proceedings to the Magistrates court if the issue was not resolved within 21 days. The solicitor also instructed an environmental health inspector to carry out an environmental health survey report.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor asked its contractor to arrange for urgent mould treatment to the bedroom wall and asked for an update on the bathroom extractor fan. The contractor advised that it had installed the fan that day.
On 3 August 2023, a specialist drainage contractor carried out a drainage investigation by the resident’s block of flats, as requested by the landlord. The investigation noted that it was unable to gain access to the main manhole as there was a car parked over it. It could also only gain access to one of the 4 inspection chambers. It found the following:
1. The inspection chamber they accessed was holding water, suggesting an issue further downstream.
2. All manholes needed the concrete breaking around them, a Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) survey of all lines and then re-setting with fresh concrete.
3. Two gullies were holding water where it wasn’t escaping and a further gully was completely blocked with soil/weeds.
4. Access to all manholes and a further CCTV survey and report was needed.
5. It recommended re-pointing the crumbling concrete from the 4 inspection chambers.
6. 3 gullies against the property should be excavated and a further CCTV survey carried out.
7. One surface water gully needed excavating and replacing as it was “100%” blocked with silts.
8. A high-pressure water jet was required.
9. Further works may be required once a complete CCTV survey had been carried out, as it believed there had been reported blockages at the properties recently.
Further to the drainage report, the landlord ordered works to the property, on 4 August 2023, with a target completion date of 11 December 2023. It is unclear what these works were.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord’s surveyor contacted its contractor to arrange mould works and completion of the bathroom extractor fan. The contractor replied on 15 August 2023. It said that the only remaining works were for the ducting to be cored out of the wall, an external vent cover fitted and boxing the ducting in. It had tried to contact the resident the previous day and 3 times that day, along with texting her, trying to arrange the works for the next day.
The contractor spoke with the resident and attended on 17 August 2023 to complete the works to the extractor fan and carry out some paint works to the mould areas.
On 17 August 2023, the resident’s support worker wrote to the landlord with a list of works the landlord had carried out. The support worker noted that the resident’s newborn baby had been hospitalised with breathing problems in July 2023.
On 2 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord’s surveyor to advise that despite all the works, the mould had returned and was “even worse”. She said her child had been put on antibiotics again with coughing and shortness of breath. She said she wanted to move as her child’s health was at risk.
The landlord’s internal email correspondence of 2 October 2023 to 3 October 2023, stated that works had been carried out to try to remedy the problems so far “following a complaint received from the local authority’s environmental health”. This referred to the environmental health practitioner’s report. The landlord asked if the resident could be considered for any available properties coming up.
The resident complained to this Service on 3 October 2023. She advised her mental health had deteriorated as a result of the issues in her home, her baby had been hospitalised 6 times and she had to live separately from him as he could not stay in the property. She said that despite the works done, the damp and mould still persisted. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wanted to move homes.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2023. She said that the issues had not been resolved and that her baby had been hospitalised several times. She said a health visitor and her support worker had contacted the landlord but nothing had changed. She advised she had a solicitor involved in her case and would go to the press if the landlord did “not listen” to her.
The landlord’s surveyor spoke with the resident on 3 October 2023 and attempted to arrange an inspection. The resident advised she would be away on holiday in the coming days so the landlord visited the resident’s property on 10 October 2023.
During the inspection of 10 October 2023, the landlord’s surveyor noted the following:
1. The PIV unit was turned off at the mains switch.
2. There were black mould spots starting to come through on the bathroom ceiling.
3. The bedroom wall had black mould spots on it again in the same location as previously.
4. The pattern of black mould spots followed the shape and location of the resident’s unit, which was against the wall.
5. The wall was dry at the top and the bottom half had surface condensation on it. The skirting was dry and when removed, it showed there was a clear gap between the wall to floor joint so there was no possibility of moisture bridging up the wall.
6. The plaster behind the skirting was dry.
7. There were visible water marks/stains.
8. The external drains had been surveyed recently with no concerns that the drainage contributed to the cause of damp and mould.
9. It believed the areas of mould were likely caused by lack of ventilation in the property and the condensation forming on a cold spot. It advised the resident to ventilate the property more by ensuring the PIV unit was continuously switched on to reduce the amount of moisture in the air.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord’s surveyor requested a further three stage mould treatment be carried out. It also asked its contractor to put a bead seal along the skirting and wall.
The landlord chased the mould treatment works with its contractor on 16 October 2023 and 17 October 2023. The contractor booked an appointment for 19 October 2023, but the resident was not at home and did not answer her phone.
On 18 October 2023, a chartered independent environmental health practitioner (commissioned by the resident’s solicitor in July 2023), carried out an environmental health survey on the resident’s property. It completed the report on 30 October 2023. It found that the property condition was prejudicial to health under Section 79(1) (a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It concluded that the resident’s bedroom wall was most likely not adequately insulated. It recommended the following:
1. The landlord to instruct a competent damp specialist to carry out a detailed diagnostic inspection of the property, in particular the main bedroom to identify the cause of the damp and mould and the proposed remedial actions.
2. The landlord to investigate and improve insulation levels as necessary within the rear external cavity wall, paying particular attention to the area behind the rainwater down pipe and soak away drain.
3. The landlord to remove the black mould growth from the main bedroom using a fungicidal wash and then to redecorate, using a good quality fungicidal treatment.
On 19 October 2023, the landlord called the resident in respect of her move request. It advised her to provide medical evidence of her child’s condition.
The landlord’s chief executive department tried to call and then emailed the resident on 23 October 2023, to discuss her complaint. It gave a direct mobile number for the resident to call back on but the resident was unable to get through on the phone number provided.
On 27 October 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended the property to carry out mould wash works. The resident cancelled this appointment as she stated she already had a mould wash and inspection booked in for 3 November 2023, and would prefer for the contractor attending on 3 November to carry the works out.
On 30 October 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 3 October 2023. It said that as the resident’s complaint about damp and mould had been raised and concluded within the last 6 months, as per its complaints policy, it would not be accepting another complaint at this time. It also said the following:
1. A second appointment was booked for 3 November 2023 to treat the mould regrowth.
2. It advised the resident to ventilate more and ensure the PIV unit was switched on continuously to reduce condensation in the air.
3. Her housing application had been transferred to its own waiting list and she had been accepted on the management move list. She could also register for a house exchange.
4. It hoped the resident was happy with its final response.
The resident responded on the same day. The landlord accepted this as a stage 2 complaint on the same day of 30 October 2023. The resident sent the landlord photographs of the mould and said she remained unhappy for the following reasons:
1. The photographs showed the mould had not been treated and was still visible.
2. She had been told that her baby was suffering severe illnesses due to the mould and that her property was unsafe and causing her child ill health.
3. Environmental health services had been out, and her solicitor was progressing her case onto court action.
On 1 November 2023, the resident sent the landlord her baby’s hospital medical attendance notes. She also attached the report from the environmental health practitioner, which stated the home was prejudicial to her child’s health.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 3 November 2023 to carry out mould wash works. The contractor noted that the mould had come through again since its last visit in August 2023. It said it would be useful to attend with a decorator to carry out a survey, as the mould had returned in an unexpected timeframe.
The local press contacted the landlord on 7 November 2023 to advise that the resident had been in touch regarding damp and mould in her property and her concerns for her baby, who had respiratory issues.
The resident emailed the landlord regarding her move request on 8 November 2023. She listed her concerns about her children’s health and hospital treatment and said her solicitor had attended her property with an environmental health officer. She stated the solicitor had proceeded to court action as her child’s health was at risk.
The landlord responded on the same day. It told the resident that she must provide a letter from the local council, confirming that her property had been inspected and classed as a Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) category 1 hazard and a prohibition or suspended prohibition order had been placed on the property. It clarified that social housing tenants should be referred to their landlord and decant procedures followed.
The resident called the landlord’s surveyor on 10 November 2023 to advise that the mould treatment had been carried out on 3 November 2023 but the mould had already returned.
The landlord’s surveyor visited on the same day, 10 November 2023. It noted that the mould had started to return on the bedroom wall and that the wall was wet to the touch in the area of mould, with a wet film. Humidity levels were high in the property and the resident had the trickle vents open. There were wet readings to the bottom of the wall and skirting. The surveyor stated that there was definitely an element of lifestyle issues with the high humidity but that it wanted to check the other side of the wall from the flat next door.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 November 2023. It apologised that the resident was not happy with its stage 1 response and advised that it would provide a final response by 24 November 2023.
The landlord inspected the property next to the resident’s property on 21 November 2023. It noted that there was no damp so it could not have been passed onto the resident’s property.
The internal landlord correspondence of 21 November 2023, noted that on its visit of 10 November 2023, the PIV unit was turned off on the fuse board. The resident had advised that she could not reach the switch so had never touched it. The landlord switched this on. It also noted that the newly installed extractor fan in the bathroom was not working and the landlord reported this. It also raised a job for pointing near the windowsill area.
On 22 November 2023, the landlord agreed to offer the resident a managed move, due to dampness in her property. Its internal correspondence noted that it was satisfied that it had responded appropriately to the property condition issues but had reviewed her housing application and a new property would be ready for her in approximately 3 weeks.
The landlord’s contractor replaced the bathroom fan on 24 November 2023. On the same day, it noted that a new kitchen fan was needed.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 22 November 2023. It said the following:
1. It had responded to her original complaint of May 2023, at both stages of its internal complaints process with a final response issued on 21 July 2023.
2. It was satisfied that the specialist inspection carried out confirmed that the property was not suffering from damp. The mould was condensation-led and follow up works had been arranged to help reduce the condensation in the resident’s home.
3. The resident had emailed the landlord’s property surveyor directly with further concerns about damp and mould on 3 October 2023. The resident had agreed works had been completed and resolved but the mould/damp had returned 6 weeks later.
4. The landlord’s surveyor had carried out an inspection on 10 October 2023 and noted that the PIV unit was turned off at the mains switch. There were black mould spots on the bathroom ceiling and on the bedroom wall. The surveyor had advised the resident to keep her PIV unit on as it believed the mould was due to condensation. The surveyor had requested mould treatment be carried out.
5. It had written to the resident on 30 October 2023 to say it would not accept another complaint, however, following the resident’s reports of mould on 27 October 2023, it had further assessed the mould and arranged another mould treatment.
6. It believed its response was appropriate.
7. It had reviewed the resident’s updated housing application and offered her a 2 bed property which would be available in the next 3 weeks.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure

The resident was offered and moved into a new property on 1 December 2023.
The landlord’s contractors attempted to carry out further mould wash works on 6 December 2023 but the resident had already moved. It carried out external pointing to a few areas underneath the resident’s previous windowsill on the same day.
The resident’s solicitor withdrew court action in March 2024 as the resident had been moved. The landlord also paid the resident’s legal fees.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has advised that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in the health of the household. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident’s distress and frustration, The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the building as well as to installations.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) classes damp and mould as a category one hazard.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states the following:
1. Damp and mould can have a serious impact on the health and well-being of its residents and cause damage to homes. It says it will provide dry, warm, healthy and safe homes for its residents, free from any hazards.
2. When residents report damp and mould, its trained staff will determine the severity and type of issue affecting the tenant and property. This will determine the next steps in dealing with the issue, including raising a repair, raising an inspection or providing advice.
3. If the issue is relatively minor and the resident is given advice, they will be encouraged to call back after 2 weeks if the problem persists or is getting worse. If the resident does not call back, a trained member of staff will call them within 4 weeks to understand if the problem has been resolved. If the problem persists, an inspection will be arranged.
4. Finding the cause of damp and mould is not always straightforward and could be a combination of factors. Any repairs required to be carried out are dealt with in accordance with its responsive repairs procedure and planned maintenance procedure.
5. Where damp is a result of condensation, it will work with its residents to take appropriate measures to prevent the damp and mould occurring. This might include advice about how to control moisture levels or increase ventilation or heating, so that damp levels are kept low.
6. In the case of severe or recurring damp or mould issues, it will undertake comprehensive assessments which might result in a range of actions, including providing and funding dehumidifiers, the installation of PIVs, dry lining the walls or applying mould resistant coverings.
7. It will keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and timetabling of works.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure operates the following timescales:
1. Emergency repairs (where there is an imminent risk to the health and safety of the occupant or danger of serious damage to the buildings structure) – will be attended to within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs (where a situation is causing discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and is likely to lead to further deterioration – this includes leaks into the property) will be attended to within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs (including faults with extractor fans and/or other forms of ventilation, mould washes) – will be carried out within 15 working days.
4. Non Routine repairs- 90 working days. (This is where an initial repair attendance results in more complex work being required to complete the repair in full. This includes damp prevention works, which are more extensive and are forwarded to the landlord’s planned maintenance programme).
The policy states that where residents report damp and mould, it will ask a number of questions to get an understanding of why the damp problem is present. If it relates to a leak or repair, it will be actioned as a repair.
If damp appears to be related to lifestyle, it will record information and ask if this is a recurring problem. The resident will be asked to carry out some home treatments to the affected areas themselves and information about damp and mould will be sent to them to read. After 4 weeks, the landlord will call the resident. If there has been no improvement, it will arrange a pre inspection with a surveyor who will investigate the problem further by a home visit.
The landlord defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by its staff or those acting on its behalf.
It operates a 2 stage complaints policy:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt and a full written response will be sent to the resident within 10 working days from the formal acknowledgement of the complaint. An independent investigating officer will deal with the complaint.
2. Stage 2 complaints (review) will be handled by a manager from the Chief Executive’s Department. It will provide a written response within 20 working days of accepting the escalation request.
Complaint remedies include an apology, an explanation, a specific action, a policy review or offering compensation where appropriate.
The policy states that it will not normally accept a formal complaint (or parts of a complaint) if a complaint has been previously fully investigated in line with its policy. It continues to say that it may internally investigate in some circumstances, in order to provide the best possible service.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance. The landlord works in partnership with an insurer to offer a tailored product. It advises residents to seek redress through their insurance provider, following accidental damage to personal belongings.
The compensation policy goes on to say that it may compensate residents if it has missed appointments or where it has not fulfilled its repair obligations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

This Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, states that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. It further states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould should reflect the urgency of the issues. Further, that residents living in homes with damp and mould may be more likely to have respiratory problems, which include asthma. The report also highlights the importance of having appropriately skilled staff to identify and remedy damp and mould, as it is crucial to the early diagnosis of issues.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when residents report damp and mould, if the issue is relatively minor, they will be encouraged to call back after 2 weeks if the problem persists. If the resident does not call back, a trained member of staff will call the resident back within 4 weeks to understand if the problem has been resolved.
The repairs policy states that if the resident’s damp appears to be related to lifestyle, it will record the information and ask if it is a recurring problem. It will also send information to the resident about damp and mould and contact the resident after 4 weeks. If the problem has not resolved, it will arrange a pre-inspection.
This is not appropriate, as it would be difficult for the landlord to ascertain the cause of the damp and mould and the level of severity, without inspecting the property. Furthermore 4 weeks is an unreasonable time for residents to wait to have the cause of damp/mould identified. This could result in further damp and mould developing and further distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as impacting on the enjoyment of the resident’s home.
Although the landlord followed its policy, when the resident first reported damp and mould on 31 October 2022, by sending her a damp and mould leaflet and asking her to contact it in 4 weeks if there was no improvement, the landlord should review its policy so that residents do not have to wait 4 weeks until the landlord considers organising an inspection.
It was, however, appropriate that the landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect the flat above for any potential leaks when the resident reported the damp and mould on 31 October 2022.
It was not appropriate that the landlord did not call the resident back after 4 weeks to check if the problem had resolved. Had it called her within its 4 week time frame, the problems with damp and mould may have been reduced. This caused the resident adverse effect in terms of her property continuing to develop damp and mould, and distress and anxiety as well as impacting on the enjoyment of her home.
It was appropriate that when the resident reported damp and mould again on 24 January 2023, that the landlord arranged an inspection to attempt to resolve the issue.
However, the landlord did not inspect the resident’s property until 21 February 2023 and this is an unreasonable delay, which caused the resident adverse effect in continuing to live in a home with damp and mould, which caused her distress and anxiety. This also significantly impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
It was appropriate that the landlord gave the resident lifestyle advice when it conducted the inspection on 21 February 2023. It was also appropriate that it scheduled mould treatment works. However, it did not take moisture readings during the inspection and it would have been reasonable to do so. This may have assisted the landlord in ascertaining the level of damp and mould in the property. It was not reasonable that the landlord did not take moisture readings on its inspection of 21 February 2023, particularly as the resident has reported damp and mould in both October 2022 and then January 2023.
The landlord acted appropriately in requesting a specialist damp survey to ascertain the cause for the damp and mould, which was carried out on 29 March 2023. However, had it inspected the property in a more timely manner, it could have requested this inspection much sooner.
It acted appropriately, when following the specialist damp survey, which identified the cause of mould growth to be condensation/excessive humidity, by ordering additional works. It ordered a mould wash on 5 April 2023, which was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. It was also appropriate that it commissioned an external contractor to carry out ventilation works to the resident’s property, under its major works programme.
However, it was not appropriate that it did not update the resident with progress of the ventilation works and she had to chase the landlord on 25 April 2023 and 9 May 2023. This caused her additional distress and frustration, time and trouble and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home. Although this Service understands that major works can take time and the landlord’s policy states that it can take up to 90 days, it would have been reasonable to keep the resident informed of progress.
It was appropriate of the landlord to approach another contractor when its original contractor could not complete the works in a timely manner. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident of this in its response of 9 May 2023. This shows that the landlord considered the resident and attempted to have the works completed as soon as possible. It was also appropriate that it asked its contractor to contact the resident directly, in order to arrange a suitable appointment for her. However, as stated above, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to update the resident of this, so that she did not have to chase progress.
It was further reasonable that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 10 May 2023, attempting to carry out an inspection to assess for works, and left her a calling card, asking her for a suitable time for it to visit the property.
It was also appropriate that the landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023 to advise that its contactor had been unable to make access arrangements and asked the resident to contact it as soon as possible.
It was further reasonable that the landlord’s contractor attended on 5 June 2023, to fit the PIV unit.
However, it was not appropriate that when the contractor was unable to fit the extractor fan in the bathroom on the same date of 5 June 2023, due to the building layout, that it did not keep the resident updated as to the reasons and delays. This caused the resident additional stress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Although in its stage 1 complaint response of 26 June 2023, the landlord acted within its policy when it advised the resident to claim on her home contents insurance for mould damage to her belongings, it would have been reasonable for it to have also considered discussing the claim with its own public liability insurance and assist her with a claim via its own insurers if appropriate.
It was also inappropriate that when the resident advised the landlord of her child being hospitalised in July 2023, due to breathing difficulties, the landlord did nothing to expedite matters. Both children had breathing difficulties and there is no evidence that the landlord showed any empathy or offered any reassurance in carrying out works in a timely manner. This caused the resident additional distress and anxiety and severely impacted on her family life and the enjoyment of her home.
It was appropriate that the landlord’s contractor conducted a drainage inspection around the resident’s property on 3 August 2023. This demonstrates that the landlord was trying to explore all avenues to identify the causes of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
It was also reasonable that the landlord carried out mould washes to the resident’s property on several occasions up to October 2023. However, it is of concern that the mould continued to reoccur and there is no evidence of further specialist damp/mould investigations to ascertain the cause of this. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to commission an additional specialist survey when the resident continued to report damp and mould, despite mould washes and ventilation works. This is particularly pertinent as the resident reported significant health issues in her household, which she attributed to the damp and mould conditions.
Further, although the landlord’s surveyor did check the other side of the party wall adjoining onto the resident’s wall in November 2023, it would have been appropriate to do this sooner, rather than after the environmental health practitioner’s report.
Further, there is no evidence that the landlord commissioned a further specialist damp survey of the property, as per the environmental health practitioner’s recommendations of October 2023. A further survey may have identified the underlying cause of the recurring damp. This caused the resident additional stress and frustration and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Although the landlord did carry out some damp and mould works, it did not monitor the impact on the resident and did not respond to her health concerns. Due to this, along with delays in initially arranging an inspection to the property, and the delays in carrying out works, and the fact the landlord did not arrange another specialist damp survey, a finding of severe maladministration is made, along with orders for redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Although the resident made her complaint on 15 May 2023, the landlord did not contact her until 6 June 2023, to discuss the complaint and did not provide a formal acknowledgement until 8 June 2023. This is outside of its timescales of 5 working days. This is 18 working days and an inappropriate delay, which may have resulted in the substantive issues not being addressed. This delay caused the resident frustration and time and trouble.
The landlord defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction however made’. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 11 July 2023, it apologised as it had been dealing with an increasing number of ‘service requests’. This is inappropriate as it was responding to a complaint, by its own definition, and not a service request.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response of 23 July 2023, although it apologised for delays with some of the works, it did not offer the resident any compensation for missed or delayed appointments, as per its compensation policy.
When the resident made a further complaint about the damp and mould on 3 October 2023, the landlord responded on 30 October 2023. It said that in line with its complaints policy, as this had been raised within the last 6 months, it would not be accepting another complaint at this time. However, it assigned a complaint reference number and it is unclear why it did this, since it told the resident it would not be accepting this as a complaint. It advised the resident that this was its final response.
Further, when the resident escalated this on the same day of 30 October 2023, the landlord accepted this as a stage 2 complaint on the same day. It is unclear why the landlord had advised the resident it would not be investigating, but then went on to accept a stage 2 complaint. This would have caused the resident confusion and time and trouble in pursuing the substantive issue.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response on 22 November 2023. The landlord agreed to rehouse the resident through its management move process and this was a reasonable response. Although this is within its timescales, it is unclear why the landlord had initially told the resident it would not be investigating and then went on to investigate further and provide a stage 2 response. Although the additional responses did not cause any detriment to the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the issues in its original stage 2 response of 21 July 2023. This may have lessened the adverse effect on the resident, in terms of remaining in a home with damp and mould.
Due to the delays in acknowledging the initial complaint, the lack of compensation offered in its original stage 2 response, and the confusion with the landlord’s communication regarding the resident’s follow up complaint, a finding of service failure is made, along with orders for redress.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology needs to be from a member of the senior leadership team.
2. Pay the resident £1,100 for the following:
  1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the damp and mould issues.
  2. £100 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Review its damp and mould and repairs policies so that the landlord arranges an inspection when residents first report damp and mould, rather than waiting 4 weeks.
4. Assist the resident with pursuing a claim for her damaged belongings, via its public liability insurance.
5. In accordance with Paragraph 54 (g) of the Scheme, the landlord should review the complaint handling failures in this case to determine what action has been or will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.