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

Adur District Council (202001176)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001176

Adur District Council

18 May 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and Policies

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 13 February 2017.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its different category of repairs and timeframes; emergency (1 day), urgent (7 days) and non-urgent (42 days).
  3. Plastering is classified as non-urgent.  There is no classification for the inspection and/or treatment of damp and mould, although advice is provided to reduce condensation which can result in mould growth.  The advice includes sufficiently heating the home, to ensure the home is sufficiently ventilated and to not dry damp clothes in the home.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 days at stage one and where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome and requests a review of the matter, the landlord aims to provide a response within 15 days thereafter.

 

 

Summary of Events

  1. On 31 January 2020 issues with damp walls in the property were identified by the landlord, following report of the same and actions were booked to further investigate and address the issues.  A damp specialist was due to attend the property on 26 February 2020
  2. On 6 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.  This was treated as a formal complaint.
  3. On 26 February 2020 the damp specialist due to inspect the property did not attend, however, the following works were scheduled to take place by 20 March 2020; install a humidistat fan in the bathroom and carry out internal and external work to address damp plaster under the lounge window.
  4. On 10 March 2020 (incorrectly dated 10 March 2010) the landlord issued a stage one response to the complaint.  The complaint was not upheld, with the landlord finding that it had responded appropriately.  It stated that there was no negligence on its behalf and so no compensation for items alleged to have been damaged by the damp and mould was due.
  5. It explained that the two repairs were outstanding were within timescale; to repair the humidifier fan and to re-render the windows.  The landlord said that the window works required dry weather and so there may be delay if the weather was wet.  It also noted that it had called and left messages for the resident to contact it for the specialist damp survey to be rescheduled but had not heard back from her.  It said that carrying out this survey would inform it as to whether there was any underlying condition causing the issues reported.
  6. On 13 March 2020 the landlord visited the resident to discuss the problems with damp and mould she had reported.  At the visit, it noted that the heating was off and advised the resident that it should be used more effectively in order to reduce condensation at the property.  The landlord also noted there was no heating at the property in the kitchen and a request to install a radiator was made.
  7. During April 2020 there was communication between the landlord and the resident’s MP, regarding the issues, with the landlord confirming on 21 April 2020 that it had requested that the resident’s extractor fan be booked in for an emergency repair given her respiratory health condition and that the window render would also be booked in, as a routine repair.  It explained that due to Covid-19, the repair may take a while, as only emergency works were permitted to take place at that time due to the pandemic.
  8. It explained that dehumidifiers which it had previously advised would be provided, would now not be, however, as it believed they would not make much of a difference due to the resident not using the heating as she should and drying clothes inside the property. From the information provided to this Service, it is unclear as to whether dehumidifiers were ever installed at the property or not.
  9. On 2 June 2020 the damp survey was undertaken at the property and although condensation and mould were noted in the property, particularly in the living room where the resident was sleeping, this was deemed to be because of obstruction of airflow around the walls due to the furniture layout and also exhalation during sleep.   No evidence of penetrating or rising damp was found and it was therefore concluded that the issue was not due to a building defect. 
  10. The surveyor made the suggestion, however, that further checks were carried out to gutters and downpipes during heavy rainfall, to ensure no gaps or leaks and it was determined that a kitchen extractor fan should be installed.
  11. On 8 July 2020 a further survey was undertaken and the property was found to be equipped to be sufficiently heated and no issues with the windows were identified, nor was damp found.  The following day the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its findings and reiterate the importance of using the heating.
  12. On 16 July 2020 an extractor fan was fitted in the kitchen.
  13. On 21 July 2020, the resident reported the same issues and emphasised her health conditions and her view that these were being exacerbated by the housing situation.
  14. On 24 July 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the complaint at stage two of its complaints process. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, setting out the actions it had taken in response to reports of damp at the property and included a condensation advice leaflet. 

Post Complaint

  1. The repairs log provided to this investigation indicates a radiator was installed in the kitchen on 5 August 2020. There is no information regarding the other repairs.

Assessment and findings

  1. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out identified repairs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time this; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy sets out its own target timeframes, depending on the type of repair.
  2. Having inspected the property on 31 January 2020, the landlord acknowledged that the walls were damp and determined that further investigation was required and scheduled a damp survey to take place.  The landlord’s actions were appropriate because it recognised that there was an issue that required specialist investigation and it arranged this within a reasonable time frame, in accordance with its repairs policy. 
  3. It was inappropriate that the appointment was missed, however and then ultimately did not take place until 2 June 2020, four months later.  While the landlord has said that it contacted the resident to reschedule the missed inspection, records provided to this Service do not evidence attempted calls and as an evidence based service, the Ombudsman cannot find therefore that sufficient efforts were made and within a reasonable period of time, to re-book the appointment.
  4. It is unfortunate that the Covid-19 pandemic added to the delay and the landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay between 23 March 2020 and 18 May 2020, as government guidelines were that only emergency repairs and visits were to be carried out during this time and the issue identified did not constitute an emergency repair. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy, however, the investigation should have taken place by no later than 13 March 2020 and it did not.  There was consequently a delay of 10 days which can be attributable to the landlord, where it failed to deliver a service.
  5. The postponing of repairs due to the pandemic meant that when they were allowed to recommence there was a backlog for landlords and carrying out the damp survey on 2 June 2020, just over two weeks from repairs being permitted to take place again, was consequently reasonable.
  6. The damp survey identified no structural defect causing damp and the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the inspection, in this regard.  The lack of a structural issue causing damp was reiterated by the further inspection on 8 July 2020 and it was reasonable for the landlord to have carried out a second inspection given the resident’s concerns, as it was not obliged to do so, having found no issue.
  7. Although no structural defect was found, works were raised to install a humidistat fan in the bathroom and to carry out rendering works and/or plastering works to and/or around the window/s.  There is no information as to whether these works were carried out and if so, by when.  What is clear is that there were not carried out within a reasonable period of time – that is, by 20 March 2020 as it communicated to the resident, or in accordance with the landlord’s repair timeframes, notwithstanding the requirement for dry weather for the window works and the pandemic.
  8. It was appropriate that the landlord provided advice at its visit on 13 March 2020 regarding heating the property.  This is standard advice – as is the later advice it gave regarding drying washing inside – given to residents who experience condensation in a property, which can lead to mould growth.  With the heating off, it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest it be turned on and advise the property be kept warm in future in order to prevent further issues.
  9. The order for the radiator to be installed in the kitchen, which was made at this visit, was not done so until August 2020, five months later.  This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to take to do this, again, notwithstanding the delay caused by the pandemic.  Moreover, there is no information as to whether the landlord communicated with the resident throughout this time as to the delay, reasons for this and expected timeframes, leaving the resident in a place of uncertainty and feeling that nothing was being done. 
  10. The emergency extractor fan ordered in April 2020 was not installed until July 2020, which was also delayed, with the emergency repair being permitted during restrictions and with the landlord’s assertion that it would do this because of the resident’s particular respiratory health condition.  In terms of the recommendation to re-check the guttering and downpipes during rainfall, there is no evidence that this has been done.
  11. Turning to the handling of the complaint, the landlord’s stage one response was delayed, being issued outside of the timescale specified in its complaints policy, with no explanation or apology for the delay or communication beforehand, advising that this would be the case.
  12. The landlord found in its complaints response on 10 March 2020 that it had acted appropriately and there was consequently no compensation due for damage to items by mould.  While this may ultimately have been correct, it was inappropriate for it to arrive at this conclusion in the absence of the specialist damp survey to have been carried out.  This is because without this having taken place, it could not know whether there was penetrating damp or water ingress due to a structural defect.
  13. Although the landlord recognised that the damp survey was still required, it did not offer a date for this or encourage the resident to get in touch to arrange.  The landlord did not help to expedite this important inspection in this way. 
  14. Although the landlord provided its stage two response to the complaint within good time, it did not address the missed appointment in February 2020, the delays to the inspection or other repairs or the fact that there were repairs outstanding.  Furthermore, the landlord missed the opportunity to express empathy with the resident and her situation; expressing empathy is not tantamount to accepting liability where this is not relevant, but part of good complaints handling and resolution, helping also to maintain the landlord-tenant relationship.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the reported condensation and mould at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling. 

Reasons

  1. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reported condensation and mould insofar as it failed to carry out the inspection and works identified within a reasonable period of time in accordance with its repairs policy, nor did it effectively communicate with the resident about the delays.
  2. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling insofar as its stage one response was issued late, outside of its target timeframes with no recognition, apology or explanation for this.  The response also arrived at a conclusion prematurely, as the damp survey had not yet been carried out. The landlord’s stage two response failed to recognise the delays and outstanding works.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident £175 compensation comprised of:
    1. £100 for the service failure identified with its delay to carrying out works, and;
    2. £75 for the service failure identified in its complaints handling.
  2. If not done so already, the landlord is to carry out the following works:
    1. Rendering and/or plastering to/around the window/s that it identified was required;
    2. To install the humidistat fan in the bathroom, and;
    3. To inspect the guttering and downpipe during rainfall, as recommended following the inspection.  The landlord to communicate the outcome of this to the resident and to arrange any identified repairs.