Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202345601)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345601

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

27 August 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. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home and her associated request for compensation.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, where she lives with her young child. The resident told the Ombudsman that she has been reporting damp and mould in her home since 2019. She told the landlord that she believes the damp and mould in her home have significantly impacted the health of her child.
In around November 2021, the landlord recorded that it repaired and redecorated 5 windows in the resident’s home. It noted that no mould treatment was needed.
On 4 February 2022, the landlord went to the resident’s property to do a mould wash (a fungicidal treatment which removes mould). It recorded that the resident had asked it to change her windows due to draughts. It said there was no damp and mould in the resident’s home. The landlord repaired the resident’s bathroom extractor fan on 13 December 2022.
The landlord did a mould wash at the property on 18 January 2023. The following week it repaired 5 sash windows at the resident’s property.
The resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 15 July 2023. It asked the landlord to consider prioritising her rehousing application, saying the damp and mould in the resident’s home was affecting her child’s health. The GP said the impact on the child’s health was a safeguarding issue. During August 2023, the resident raised concerns about her child’s health and the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould with the landlord and included her MP in the email.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 17 August 2023 and 15 September 2023. The survey recommended a mould wash was needed. The landlord’s records indicate the mould wash was done the same day. Follow-on repairs were needed, including to the resident’s guttering and bathroom fan.
On 16 January 2024, the resident spoke to the landlord about the email she sent it in August 2023. She wanted it to consider the email as a complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had overlooked damp and mould in her home. She wanted the landlord to either repair the property or offer her rehousing.
2. Her child’s health was deteriorating, which she attributed to damp and mould in her home.
3. She said the landlord told her it would replace her windows in 2019 and told her she needed double glazing in 2020 and 2021. It had not replaced her windows or installed double glazing
4. She said the landlord had carried out “damp tests” in her home.
5. She listed 7 occasions between 2020 and January 2023 where she said the landlord had done mould washes. This had not resolved the damp and mould long term.
6. When the landlord had inspected in August 2023 it had said several repairs were needed including window frame replacement, replastering, repainting, and installation of extractor fans. These repairs had not been done.
7. The landlord had put stickers in her cupboard with asbestos warnings, but she had not been told about these.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 30 January 2024, upholding the resident’s complaint. It said:
1. It acknowledged that she first reported damp and mould in her home in 2020. It said it had done mould washes in her home on 4 occasions between 2020 and 2023.
2. The landlord had identified a possible issue with the resident’s gutter in September 2023. It had raised a new repair for this.
3. It had done an asbestos management survey on 9 August 2021. It explained the purpose of the asbestos survey.
4. Its records showed that the resident had reported damage around her windows in November 2021, which it had repaired. It had not redecorated as the resident said she would do this herself. It did further window repairs on 26 January 2023. The windows were inspected in its survey on 14 September 2023, but the surveyor had recommended repair and redecoration, not replacement.
5. The landlord acknowledged that it had not arranged a follow-up appointment in good time, and that it could see that it had failed to respond to the resident after she had called it on several occasions. It offered her £250 in compensation, comprising:
  1. £150 for the delay in arranging the follow-up appointment.
  2. £100 for its failure to respond to her calls.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s response. On 4 February 2024, she asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said:
1. Damp and mould in her home continued to affect her child’s health. They had recently been admitted to hospital and discharged with more medication.
2. She disputed some of the information in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, including:
  1. That she had said she wanted to redecorate herself.
  2. That the bathroom repairs were completed.
3. She said that the windows were damaged, and falling apart.
4. She did not feel the landlord’s offer of compensation reflected the additional costs she had incurred. She said she had incurred redecoration costs, travel and parking costs for her child’s health conditions, and spent around £20 per week running a dehumidifier.
5. She felt the mould would continue to return to the property, so she wanted to be rehoused.
On 15 February 2024, the landlord repaired the fascia and guttering at the resident’s home.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process on 8 March 2023. It upheld her complaint, saying:
1. It had carried out a survey at her home. As a result, it had agreed that “some/all of the windows in the living room and kitchen needed to be repaired/replaced”. Orders for new windows took around 6-12 weeks.
2. It accepted there had been inappropriate delays in its handling of her repairs. It awarded the resident £150 in compensation, in addition to the £250 it had already offered her, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience its handling of the repairs had caused her. It explained that it was reviewing its repairs service.
In around June 2024, the landlord replaced windows in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It carried out a post inspection on 10 July 2024. It recorded that the resident had asked it to redecorate the living room windows, and that one of the resident’s extractor fans needed replacing. It recommended internal redecoration to improve the finish of internal repairs.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property on 22 July 2024. It found that the plaster around the bay windows in the living room had been damaged by a leak and recommended it was “scraped back” and redecorated.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. Although she accepts that there is no damp and mould in her home currently, she believes it is likely to recur over the winter months. She feels that the single-glazed windows in her home contribute to damp and mould and the landlord should replace these with double glazing. She is concerned about the impact of the recurring damp and mould on her child’s health. She also feels that the level of compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the distress and inconvenience she experienced as a result of its handling of her reports.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the period of the complaint, the resident says the condition of her home impacted her child’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. The Ombudsman can consider the general impact of damp and mould, but it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the action or inaction of the landlord and the specific health conditions of the resident’s child. We will consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced because of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health.
During the complaint process and in the landlord’s inspections, further repairs were identified in the resident’s home, for example replastering in the bathroom, and the replacement of her bath panel. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. These repairs were not part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord, so they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, they are outside the scope of this investigation. The landlord should complete any outstanding repairs in the resident’s home within its policy timescales. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these repairs, she could make a new complaint to the landlord about them. The resident may be able to refer these issues to the Ombudsman for investigation if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, available on our website, says that landlords should consider whether “they require an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould…This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication and aftercare”. A comprehensive damp and mould policy or framework helps landlords to deliver a consistent service. The landlord does not appear to have a damp and mould policy. If it has not implemented one since the resident complained, it should consider doing so.
In its repairs policy, the landlord commits to completing emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 20 working days, and planned repairs within 60 working days.
In this case, there was a lack of cohesion in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould. For example:
1. On 17 August 2023, the landlord noted that it had “double-booked”, arranging for 2 surveyors to go to the property at the same time. After this, the landlord reallocated the work to its in-house repairs service. It then cancelled the in-house repair reallocated the work to its contractor. The reasons for this were not clear in the landlord’s records. Although the landlord arranged and completed the follow-on mould wash within a reasonable timescale, its actions indicated a lack of co-ordination in its handling of the repair.
2. The landlord acknowledged that as a member of staff had left the organisation, it no longer had access to the report written following the survey on 17 August 2023. This was inappropriate. Records should be held in a central location, to prevent them being lost when there is staff turnover. The landlord should consider adjusting its processes so that such records are kept centrally going forward.
3. On 4 February 2022, a contractor went to the property to do a mould wash. It found that there was no damp and mould in the property and recorded that the resident wanted her windows replaced. The landlord’s records do not show if the contractor told the landlord that the resident had requested new windows. It should have done this so the landlord could respond to the resident.
4. It appears that when the resident called to follow up on the request, the landlord submitted a new job to its contractor. Following several instances of missed calls between the contractor and the resident, the evidence seen as part of this investigation indicates that the resident was still trying to find out the outcome of the 4 February 2022 appointment in April 2022. This will have caused her inconvenience and confusion.
5. On 18 January 2023, the landlord’s records show it did a mould wash at the property. However, just over a week later, on 26 January 2023, it sent a second operative to repair the windows and do a mould wash. The operative did the repairs but found there was no mould, which was unsurprising given the mould wash carried out the week before. This was a further example of poor co-ordination in the landlord’s approach to the repairs.
In the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, it said it logged, tracked and reported cases under a dedicated workstream programme for additional transparency, holding weekly meetings with its contractors to assess progress. It is not clear if this happened in the resident’s case. Overall, while the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the repairs needed in this case were unusually complicated, tracking the resident’s report of damp and mould from first report to the completion of the repairs would have benefited the resident by providing a co-ordinated response to her concerns, and supported the landlord-tenant relationship.
There were avoidable delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. For example:
1. The landlord repaired 5 windows in the resident’s home on 26 January 2023. This was outside its repairs policy timescale by around 5 weeks. The landlord has not explained the reason for this delay, so the Ombudsman considers it was unreasonable.
2. During the landlord’s survey of the property on 15 September 2023, it identified repairs that needed to be completed, including repairs to the resident’s guttering and extractor fan. The landlord does not appear to have logged these repairs until it sent its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2024, which was not appropriate. The landlord repaired the guttering on 15 February 2024, approximately 5 months after it identified the repair and 4 months outside of its policy timescale for routine repairs. As the landlord had identified the leaking guttering as a potential cause of damp and mould in the resident’s property, this delay may have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.
The resident said that the landlord first identified that her fan needed to be replaced during its inspection in August 2023. As the landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report from this date, we cannot confirm this. However, the landlord did identify that a repair was needed to the resident’s extractor fan during the inspection it did on 15 September 2023. The resident told the Ombudsman the repair is outstanding 12 months after it was first identified. This is supported by the records seen as part of this investigation, as the resident told the landlord that the repair was outstanding through her MP in February 2024, and an extractor fan repair was identified again in the landlord’s inspection on 10 July 2024. The landlord has not explained why it has not repaired the fan. This is not appropriate, as adequate ventilation is a key part of managing damp and mould. If it has not already repaired the fan, the landlord is ordered to do so within 20 working days in line with its published repairs timescales. The landlord accepted appropriately that delays in its handling of the damp and mould will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It considered this in its compensation award which is discussed later in the report.
There are some discrepancies between the landlord’s account of its handling of the repairs, and the resident’s. For example, the resident said that the landlord did 3 mould washes in 2021, but the landlord’s records do not reflect this. Similarly, the resident said that she reported concerns in October 2021, but the landlord did not have a record of this. With the information available, the Ombudsman is unable to determine which account is correct. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident has reported damp and mould in her home for a significant period of time.
Both the landlord and the resident accept that there have been several mould washes completed at the property during the period considered by this investigation. Mould washes can be an effective tool to minimise the impact of damp and mould. However, if repeated mould washes are needed, as in this case, it may be an indication that the underlying cause of the damp and mould has not been resolved. The landlord’s records do not indicate that it considered that the damp and mould would be resolved by the mould washes in isolation, as it carried out several inspections, and identified and completed repairs to the resident’s windows and guttering. As both window repairs and leaking guttering are common causes of damp and mould, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in this respect.
After the guttering was replaced, the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould was not resolved. The landlord arranged a property inspection on 1 March 2024, and identified that the windows in the bathroom and kitchen needed to be replaced. Although this contradicted its findings in inspection it did 6 months previously, it is plausible that the condition of the windows had deteriorated in this time. The exact date that the landlord replaced the windows in the resident’s home is not clear, but the resident confirmed by phone in May 2024 that they had been replaced. This was appropriate as it was in line with the timescale the landlord gave for the work in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord accepted that its communication with the resident had been inadequate and it had not always called her back when she contacted it. After the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, it allocated a single point of contact to track the repairs until they were completed. This was an appropriate step by the landlord to ensure that the issues were resolved, and to improve its communication with the resident.
The landlord’s records indicate that it considered the repairs to be completed in July 2024, and it arranged a post-inspection. It is good practice for landlords to do post-inspections to ensure that works have been completed to a reasonable standard. The landlord agreed further repairs to the front bay window, and surrounding wall. It also identified several repairs in the residents property that were outside of the scope of the complaint. If it has not completed these repairs already, it should ensure that they are completed within its repair policy timescales.
The resident said the landlord told her that all the windows in her property needed to be upgraded to double glazing. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord had recommended that the windows at the front of the resident’s home needed replacement. Landlords have a responsibility to provide a value for money service. They are not required to replace fixtures and fittings in residents’ homes if they can be repaired practically and economically. As such the landlord’s decision not to replace the windows at the front of the resident’s home was reasonable.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord said it could not replace the windows in the front of her property with double glazing as she lives in a conservation area. There are restrictions on changes to buildings in conservation areas, so it is possible that the landlord would not be able to install standard UPVC double glazed windows in the resident’s home. However, it is often possible to install double glazed wooden sash windows in conservation areas. Single glazed windows are known to accumulate more condensation that double glazed windows. As such, if there are further issues with damp and mould in the resident’s home, or the windows reach the end of their serviceable life, the landlord should consider installing double glazed windows that meet the planning requirements for the resident’s area.
The resident told us that the landlord had inferred blame on her for the damp and mould in her home, and gave her advice on managing condensation that she felt was impractical given her living circumstances. For example, she said she had been advised not to dry clothes at home, but she did not feel it was possible for her to use a laundrette service, financially or practically with a young child. While it is reasonable for landlords to give advice about behavioural change in some circumstances, it is equally important that they take responsibility for damp and mould and recognise the challenges that residents face in meeting lifestyle recommendations, for example due to overcrowding or lifestyle constraints. This is in line with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. In this case, we did not see any evidence in the landlord’s records that indicated that it had inappropriately inferred blame on the resident. This is because the landlord carried out repairs alongside providing lifestyle advice to reduce the damp and mould.
The resident told the landlord that she was worried about the impact of damp and mould on her child’s health. She also provided supporting evidence from her GP, who said that they believed that the resident’s child’s health had been negatively impacted because of damp and mould in the property and described the concern as a safeguarding issue. While it is outside our remit to determine a causal link between damp and mould in the resident’s home and the resident’s child’s health, the landlord should have considered both the resident’s concerns and the medical evidence she provided. We have not seen any evidence that it did so. For example, although it referred to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health in a letter it sent acknowledging her complaint, the landlord did not refer to the concerns in either of its complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity to show the resident it was taking her concerns seriously. Similarly, there was no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about her child’s health in its treatment of the damp and mould. Had it done so, it may have felt it was appropriate to prioritise repairs in her home or to consider offering her temporary accommodation until the damp and mould was resolved.
At both stages of the complaints process, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse her permanently, as she felt that she would continue to have problems with damp and mould in her home despite the repairs carried out by the landlord. She also told our service that she is overcrowded. Overcrowding is widely acknowledged to be a contributing factor to condensation. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that we are unable to consider issues in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing. This includes their duties to allocate housing, which is within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to rehouse the resident permanently.
However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for rehousing, which was not appropriate. This may have led to the resident feeling that the landlord had not listened to her concerns. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident in a way that is convenient for her, to discuss her rehousing options. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision regarding her rehousing request, she can raise a new complaint about this and she may be able to refer the complaint to the LGSCO once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
In her stage 2 escalation request, the resident said she did not feel that the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable as it did not reflect the costs she had incurred, including purchasing and running a dehumidifier, the cost of redecorating her home, and the costs of travel and parking at the hospital for her child’s treatment. The landlord did not address these issues in its stage 2 complaint response, which was inappropriate. The landlord’s failure to address these issues may have led the resident to feel it had not considered the financial impact of its actions. As explained above, the Ombudsman cannot consider the costs relating to the resident’s child’s hospital treatment. However, we can consider the dehumidifier and decorating costs.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer residents £2.50 per day in recognition of the additional cost of electricity if they are using dehumidifiers to help them manage the level of moisture in their homes. In this case the landlord was aware that the resident had used a dehumidifier since at least 4 February 2024, and had acknowledged that there had been delays in its service during this time, so it should have compensated the resident, in line with its compensation policy. Pictures taken during the landlord’s property inspection on 22 July 2024 show the resident’s dehumidifier, which was in use. When she raised the issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident for evidence of her purchase of the dehumidifier and of the duration that she experienced increased costs. As it did not do so, the Ombudsman has awarded the resident £200 in compensation for the additional costs she incurred. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which says where there has been maladministration by the landlord, we may award compensation for an unquantifiable loss if we are satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, a resident has incurred costs but it is not possible to provide a reasonable estimate.
The landlord could also have considered if it was appropriate to offer the resident reimbursement for the cost of redecoration, as its compensation policy allows it to offer residents £100 in decorating allowance per room, at its discretion. There is no evidence that it considered this. As the landlord agreed to redecorate areas in the resident’s property after it issued its complaint response, it has not been ordered to pay the resident any additional compensation for redecoration costs. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord has begun the agreed redecoration of her home.
Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to assess residents’ claims for compensation. As the cost of hospital parking relates to concern that damp and mould in her home had negatively impacted her child’s health, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident how to make a claim with its liability insurer, if it has one, but there is no evidence it did so. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
The resident told the Ombudsman that she is worried about asbestos in her home. The landlord did explain in its stage 1 complaint response that as part of its routine asbestos surveys, it labelled areas where it presumed there was asbestos to give guidance to its repairs operatives. This was reasonable. However, as the resident is still worried about the asbestos in her home, the landlord should contact her to discuss her concerns and ensure she has a full understanding of the survey that was done in her home and how the landlord plans to manage any asbestos which is present in the property.
Overall, the failures identified in this report amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of her case and offered the resident £400 in compensation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings in its handling of the case and offer the resident compensation, the compensation offered did not fully reflect the detriment to the resident. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. It should consider its failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health in this apology and tell the resident any steps it will take to improve its service going forward.
2. Pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused by its failures to respond to some of the resident’s concerns including the failure to provide its liability insurance details and to respond to her request for rehousing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The Code says that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages of their complaint process. It says they should respond within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint at stage 1 of their complaints process, and within 20 working days at stage 2 of their complaints process. The landlord’s timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy align with those in the Code.
In an email the resident sent to the landlord in August 2023, she said that she wanted to make a complaint about its handling of damp and mould in her home. It appears that, as the resident had also sent the email to her local MP, the landlord did not treat her email as a stage 1 complaint. The resident told us she did not receive any response to the email outside of the complaints process either. As we have not seen any evidence to contradict this, we accept the resident’s account. This was not appropriate. If the landlord was unclear about how the resident wanted it to respond to her email, it should have contacted her to agree a way forward. There is no evidence it did so, and this caused a delay of around 5 months in the complaint handling process. This will have caused the resident significant inconvenience and uncertainty.
After the resident contacted the landlord to follow up her complaint on around 16 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged her complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. From this point it responded to her complaint within its policy timescales, which was appropriate.
At stage 2 of the complaints process the landlord agreed a 10-day extension with the resident, so that it had a fixed date for her repairs. This was a reasonable decision, in line with the Code. However, the landlord’s response did not give the resident a clear expectation of the repairs it intended to do. It said that “some/all” of the windows needed “repair/replacement”. The landlord should have been clear about which of the windows it felt needed repair, which if felt needed replacement, and identified any that did not need work. The landlord’s failure to communicate clearly with the resident in its complaint response will have caused her uncertainty.
There were several other examples of unclear or incorrect information in the landlord’s complaint responses. For example:
1. The landlord said it did a mould wash in the property on 23 January 2023, but elsewhere in its records, it said the mould wash was done on 18 January 2023.
2. The landlord said that ‘some remedial works’ were done to the windows on 26 January 2023. This language was not customer friendly, as remedial is a non-specific term that is not commonly used outside of a repairs context. The landlord should have been clear about the repairs it did on this date.
3. Similarly, although the landlord listed attempted calls between it and the resident in its stage 1 complaint response, it was not always clear which party made the call. It said an “alternative number was provided” on 28 April 2022, but it was not clear from the landlord’s response if the resident provided an alternative contact number for herself, or if she was given an alternative number for the landlord’s contractors.
4. The landlord said it did a mould wash in the property on 7 February 2022, but its records contradict this. They show it attended on 4 February 2022, and found there was no mould in the property, and closed the case on 7 February 2022 without doing a mould wash. This suggests the information given in the landlord’s complaint response was incorrect.
While these examples did not affect the landlord’s decision making on the complaint, the landlord should have ensured that its complaint response was clear and accurate to avoid causing the resident confusion. The landlord may want to consider refresher training for its complaints handling staff, unless it has already done so to ensure they are able to provide clear and accurate responses to complaints.
For the reasons above there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, which caused the resident uncertainty and inconvenience. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay her £150 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there was service failure by the landlord which had an adverse effect on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home and her associated request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. In its apology the landlord should identify and learning it has taken from her case and outline any steps it will take to improve its service in future.
2. Directly pay the resident £500 in compensation, in addition to the £400 it has already offered, comprising:
  1. £200 in compensation for the additional energy costs incurred by the resident using a dehumidifier to manage damp and mould in her home.
  2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused by its failure to respond to some of the resident’s concerns, including the failure to provide its liability insurance details and to respond to her request for rehousing
  3. £150 for the avoidable uncertainty and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident in a way that is convenient for her, to discuss her rehousing options.
4. Provide evidence that it has replaced the resident’s extractor fan in line with the recommendations made in its inspection report.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not implemented a damp and mould policy / framework since the resident complained, it should consider doing so, in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
The landlord should give the resident the details of its liability insurer, if it has one, so she can make a claim if she wants to for damage to her child’s health and the associated costs.
If there are further issues with damp and mould in the resident’s home, or the windows reach the end of their serviceable life, the landlord should consider whether installing double glazed windows would be appropriate. It should explain its decision to the resident.
The landlord may want to consider refresher training for its complaints handling staff, to ensure that complaint responses it issues are clear, accurate, and use customer friendly language unless it has already done so.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about asbestos in her home and ensure she has a full understanding of the survey that was done, and the implications of this.