Barking and Dagenham Council (202113701)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113701

Barking and Dagenham Council

15 February 2023

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 resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled her reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. How the landlord handled her formal complaint.

Scope of Investigation

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident has made reference to damp and mould dating back to 2016. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in April 2021.
Generally, the Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of issues occurring. This is reflected in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
This investigation focuses on the period from January 2020 onwards, since this is considered a reasonable period prior to the formal complaint and it also coincides with the resident making increased reports of damp and mould in the property. The historical reports dating back to 2016 are, however, summarised in the Background section below since they are relevant to the assessment of the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a three-bedroom terraced house. She lives at the property with her husband and four children.
The landlord employed a property and facilities company to carry out repairs on its behalf. References to the landlord in this report include both the landlord and the facilities company acting on its behalf. References to the resident include the both the resident and her husband communicating on her behalf.
There is a history of the resident reporting damp and mould in the property dating back to January 2016. At this time she reported black mould on the walls in the bedrooms, hallway and bathroom. She also made the landlord aware that she suffers from asthma. The landlord responded to this report although there is no evidence to confirm the details of works done.
There were further reports referencing damp in September 2017, October 2018 and February 2019. The landlord completed mould treatments in the bathroom in response to the first two reports and an inspection was booked for 16 May 2019 after the resident reported mould in two bedrooms. There is no evidence to confirm if works took place at this time and the landlord subsequently informed the resident that these jobs had been aborted. It is not clear why.
In January and/or February 2020, a surveyor attended the property and proposed levelling the patio and then completing internal works, including washing, treatment and painting in the bathroom, kitchen, and all three bedrooms. The bathroom was also checked for leaks and the landlord’s records state that new tiles were needed along with regrouting. The surveyor proposed digging a shingle trench at the rear of the property.
On 10 March 2020, the resident reported that the damp had become worse and spread from the bathroom to one of the children’s bedrooms and the main bedroom. Works were due to be done on 13 May 2020.
On 28 March 2020, following the first national lockdown in response to the Covid 19 pandemic, government guidance advised landlords to only access properties “for serious and urgent issues”.
On 1 June 2020, landlords were advised that they could now “carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs”. The guidance also acknowledged that some landlords would have a back log of repairs so it might take longer than normal to carry out non-essential work.
An appointment to renew tiles in the bathroom took place on 2 July 2020.
A second national lockdown took place between 5 November and 2 December 2020 during which landlord guidance said that landlord could still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice.
On 2 February 2021, the resident chased up works. A surveyor attended on 23 February 2021 and produced a specification of works including renewal of ceiling to the front bedroom, including thermal insulation board.
A bricklayer attended on 3 and 4 March 2021 and completed some external works including cutting back of slabs and installation of a soakaway.
On 10 March 2021, the resident reported that the soakaway was not constructed properly and requested the landlord revisit it, and that the works raised following an inspection the previous year had not been completed. On 13 April 2021, a surveyor attended and confirmed that works raised had not been completed.
On 26 April 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in the property saying it had been ongoing for five years. She complained that her family’s health had deteriorated in this time and it had caused them stress. The complaint referred to various health conditions affecting the family including asthma, eczema, skin rashes and her one year old being admitted to hospital with breathing difficulties.
In relation to the bathroom, she complained that it had been painted and treated several times but each time the problem reoccurred soon afterward and contractors had identified that further works were needed as far back as March 2019. The bathroom was still damp, as well as all three bedrooms. She said the ceiling in the master bedroom was cracked and would “soon fall”. In relation to the kitchen, she complained of cracks in the ceiling and cupboards falling off or not opening.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord provided its Stage one complaint response. The landlord explained that due to Covid 19 it had had to implement restrictions on all non-essential works and it was carrying out works classified as an emergency. The landlord said that while damp and mould is a health and safety issue, “a lot of cases experienced result from seasonal weather impacts and living habits”. It found the repairs team had acted in a reasonable manner. It agreed to arrange appointments to inspect the works needed.
On 7 June 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint, in summary for the following reasons. The landlord had not investigated the damp and mould thoroughly and substandard works were completed. She considered that it should be treated as emergency works as it was a health and safety issue. She questioned why it had completed interior tiling but no exterior bricklaying. Finally, that the landlord had not arranged appointments as it said it would.
On 21 July 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a complaint response. The resident chased up works several times in July, August and September 2021. On 13 August 2021 she informed the landlord that there were lumps of plaster falling off the ceiling.
The resident has stated that they were advised on 6 September 2021 to empty all three bedrooms by 9 September 2021. She states that a contractor attended on 9 September 2021 but informed them that the work could not be done by one person and that the ceiling could collapse. He did not complete any works.
The landlord’s correspondence states that on 9 September 2021, the resident refused for work to be completed in just one bedroom stating they should complete repairs to all three bedrooms. It was then agreed that the contractor would attend on 15 September 2021 to complete work to one bedroom and an inspection booked for 14 October 2021. However, the landlord’s position is that when the contractor attended on 15 September 2021, the resident refused the work insisting that the contractor plaster all three rooms. The job was closed down as refused.
A contractor attended the property on 23 September 2021. The landlord’s records state that the resident would not let the contractor into the property stating that she would only do so if three ceilings were replaced, not one. The resident said they were not notified of the appointment.
On 27 September 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord requesting it respond to the formal complaint. A surveyor attended the property on 30 September 2021. The landlord liaised with the resident in relation to the specification of internal works which included repairs to all three bedrooms. It informed the resident that the patio and garden repairs had been submitted for approval.
On 28 October 2021 and 8 November 2021, the Ombudsman chased up the landlord in relation to the formal complaint. On 11 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord explained it would need until 1 December 2021 to respond due to the large amount of relevant information.
In early December 2021, the landlord completed some works in the two smaller bedrooms using an insulation product called “Sempatap”, which is designed to address various issue including thermal insulation.
On 5 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord explaining that work had started on 2 December 2021, but on 4 December 2021 her husband had had a heart attack so she had requested the works be paused. She said that the facilities company had advised that they had to be let in or the works would be cancelled, which they subsequently were. The resident explained they were all still sleeping in the living room.
On 16 December 2021, a medical professional contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident’s husband referring to the impact the conditions in the property were having on his physical and mental health and requesting the family be offered alternative accommodation urgently.
On 17 December 202, the landlord inspected the roof and found no issue but reported ongoing rising damp.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint at Stage two. It apologised for the delay in responding referring to staff sickness. The landlord confirmed that the resident had been advised to clear all three bedrooms on 6 September 2021 so that work could start on 9 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged that there was a discrepancy between the works the contractor was asked to complete and the specification, which required mould works to all three bedrooms (the contractor was only asked to complete work in one bedroom). It could not explain why this was and also acknowledged that it had not carried out an up to date inspection so the further damage since the last inspection of February 2021 was not included in the revised schedule.
The landlord referred to the resident being reluctant for mould treatment to commence until a long-term solution was found and that she had asked it to suspend works more than once so queries about the scope of works could be resolved. The landlord acknowledged that the resident was not provided with a specification, or told why a follow up inspection was no longer required.
The landlord referred to the surveyor who had attended on 30 September 2021 requesting a quote for patio works to address rising damp, and acknowledged that it was unclear why internal works were allowed to start before the works to resolve the source had been completed. The landlord accepted that the repairs had been mismanaged and confusion created. This led to the resident and her family living in one room in conditions that were unacceptable for several months longer than was necessary or reasonable.
The landlord said that the rooms they were asked to clear could not be occupied so it should have considered if temporary accommodation was required sooner “if the property was not habitable and no date to restart works could be offered”. A referral had been made for this to be considered and it would contact the resident to discuss this.
In conclusion, the landlord said that restrictions from COVID 19 delayed progress in 2020 but it accepted that the complaint was not considered properly in May 2021 and more should have been done to limit the damage from June 2021 onwards as it was aware that damp had started to appear within weeks of external work being carried out in March 2021. It acknowledged that opportunities were missed and a breakdown in communication was responsible for matters drifting.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had legitimate reasons for raising concerns about the order in which the works had been raised in September 2021. Rising damp was recorded as the cause in 2020 so repairs to level the surrounding ground should have been completed before mould was treated and the property redecorated. It also noted that other repairs to the kitchen and holes in the property were outstanding. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the stress and distress caused. It said it would appoint operatives to restore the bedrooms as soon as possible and seek agreement to carry out the patio work. It said it would keep the complaint open until the work was completed. The landlord offered £800 in compensation, but said if there were further delays, it would review this.
There is evidence that the resident requested a temporary decant at the end of December 2021. However, in correspondence with the landlord, an employee of the facilities company commented that if the works were phased and carried out on a room by room basis, there was no need for this. The landlord has also informed the Ombudsman that a decant was considered but found not necessary as approximately 60% of the work had been carried out by this point including treating mould and repainting two of the three bedrooms.
On 28 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the works and a response about their living arrangements.
In early February 2022, the landlord advised that a further inspection of the property would be arranged to confirm the outstanding internal work. It changed its position in relation to the external works stating that there was no link between the patio works and the mould within the property. The landlord has provided the opinion of an Surveying and Quality Manager who said that there was no link between the proposal to lower the ground levels in the garden and works upstairs in the property. The resident agreed to an inspection and informed the landlord that the wallpaper in the bedrooms that had been treated was falling off.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord’s Technical Supervisor attended the property and concluded that there was no reason for works to continue in the garden as the drain that had been installed “should be sufficient to prevent any damp to the rear of the property”. He considered damp in the bathroom was being caused by blown tiles and missing grout allowing water to penetrate under the bath, which needed addressing urgently. Further, the plaster in the main front bedroom had failed and this room was unusable. The two other bedrooms had had Sempatap applied to the exterior walls in November 2021. He had found moisture on the newly applied Sempatap and he considered this was due to render on the exterior of the property having failed.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it now believed that the original diagnosis was incorrect and there was no need to complete works to the patio but other works outstanding since October 2021 would be given priority. The landlord acknowledged that tiling in the bathroom should have been given more priority as the wall has continued to absorb moisture. It said that it now believed that the design of the building was responsible for the mould forming above the windows in two of the bedrooms.
On 16 March 2022, a Technical supervisor for the services company reported back to the landlord, including that:

No works had been completed to bedroom 1.
The ceiling to bedrooms 2 and 3 had been completed but the walls were not “sempataped, a similar product has been used which is less inferior and which has been incorrectly fitted it also appears that the areas have not been correctly treated prior to its installation”.
No works had been completed to the kitchen.
Bathroom works were partially completed but tiles were blown and mouldy and grout was coming away.
Externally there was no visible evidence of cracks or water ingress into bedrooms.

Various works were recommended, including reboarding the main bedroom ceiling, replacing the Sempatap in the other two bedrooms, new tiling in the bathroom, and externally, it was recommended that render was cut back and a new drip bead installed at the damp course level and re-rendering.
There was a dispute between the landlord and the resident about an appointment later in March 2022. The landlord said the contractor had been turned away and the resident said they had not received details of the proposed works until after the appointment. In April 2022, the parties correspondend about the scope of the works.
On 19 May 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with a list of jobs it planned to complete from 9 June 2022. The contractors did not gain access on this date. However, the landlord has evidenced that works to the bedrooms including thermal boarding in all three bedrooms was completed in July/August 2022. Bathroom repairs including tiling were completed in January 2023.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that while most of the repairs have now been addressed, there are still issues in the kitchen including dampness within some lower cupboards and a design problem meaning they cannot open some of the cupboards. She states that the landlord previously agreed to address this but has since refused. She has also said that some dampness has reappeared on the bathroom tiles. She is also concerned that the drain that was dug next to the property externally is a safety risk to their toddler daughter.
The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that the issues in the property have affected her mental wellbeing and prevented the family from socializing as they did not want people to see the conditions they were living in. They described the experience of living altogether in one room as traumatic. The resident has provided photos showing black mould covering significant parts of some of the bedroom walls and slugs in the bathroom. The ceiling in the main bedroom was damaged and hanging down from the ceiling.
The resident has provided various medical letters referring to one daughter’s recurrent headaches and nosebleeds. The medical letter refers to mould and damp as contributory factors. The resident has asthma and other health conditions. Her husband suffered a heart attack and mental health problems while the repairs were outstanding. The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that one daughter has recently been found to have lumps in her nose due to the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

Under section 11 of the landlord and tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will (in summary):
1. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property;
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation; and
3. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.
Once the landlord has notice of a repair, they should carry out the repair within a reasonable time (this is set out in case law).
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation when the tenancy is granted and for the duration of the tenancy.
In determining whether a property unfit for human habitation under the Act, the key question is whether a property is “not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition” because of various factors, which include freedom from damp and ventilation.

Assessment

Damp and mould

Given that there was a history of the resident reporting damp and mould in the property each year for four years prior to 2020, it was important that the landlord carried out a thorough inspection to determine the cause of the issue and any necessary works in early 2020. A surveyor attended and recommended various works to address the damp, which was appropriate.
It was unfortunate that the national lockdown in response to Covid 19 impacted the landlord’s repairs service before the appointment made for 13 May 2020 took place. It is also acknowledged that landlords were facing an unprecedented challenge in responding to the pandemic and managing their repairing responsibilities in accordance with the relevant government guidance at this time.
However, given that the landlord had been made aware that the resident suffered from asthma and that she had reported the mould spreading to the children’s bedrooms, it is of concern that there is no documentary evidence of the landlord considering whether the works were in fact urgent so as to fall under the exception in the government’s guidance. The guidance was clear that visits could still be made for urgent health and safety issues. The Ombudsman would expect to see some evidence of the landlord assessing or deciding whether this was the case at the time.
Following the change in the government’s Covid guidance on 1 June 2020 (allowing routine repairs), a tiling appointment took place in July 2020, but there is no evidence of any further works taking place that year. It is acknowledged that the landlord may have had a backlog of repairs resulting from the Covid restrictions and that some of the delay in works being progressed can likely be attributed to that. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking steps to address the repairs until the resident chased the works in February 2021. Given the long history of damp and mould reports, the fact it was aware that several rooms had been affected from January 2020, and the vulnerabilities of the family including the age of the children, the landlord should have prioritised these repairs and acted with more urgency in this period.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord arranged a surveyor’s inspection, which was appropriate. However, other than the external works that took place in March 2021, there no evidence of the landlord completing repairs until it attempted to do so in September 2021. From April 2021, the landlord was aware of the resident’s allegation that the conditions in the property had affected her family’s health, including that of her one-year old baby. She also raised concerns that a ceiling was unsafe. The landlord should have responded to these concerns as a matter of urgency and there is no evidence that it did so.
In its Stage one complaint response of 11 May 2021, the landlord said it would arrange inspections. While a surveyor attended in July 2021, no works were arranged. The resident chased the landlord several times and on 13 August 2021, she informed the landlord that there were lumps of plaster falling off the ceiling.
An appointment was made for 9 September 2021, however the parties give differing versions of events as to why no works took place at this time. The resident wanted the landlord to complete repairs in all three bedrooms and said she had been asked to empty all three rooms. The landlord considers that the resident refused the work by insisting it plaster three rooms rather than one. A further inspection took place on 30 September 2021 and there is evidence that the landlord liaised with the resident to arrange repairs following this, which was appropriate. However, an appointment in October 2021 another appointment was aborted due to a dispute over the repairs required.
It is acknowledged that the landlord made attempts to complete repairs at this time in that contractors did attend the property on more than one occasion. However, the landlord itself acknowledged (in its Stage two complaint response), that there was a discrepancy between the works previously agreed and the contractor’s proposal to complete repairs to one bedroom. Given this, it was reasonable for the resident to question the works proposed and understandable that she wanted to make sure all the required works were completed in the most efficient manner (particularly given their living arrangements at the time). It is therefore not reasonable to solely hold the resident responsible for delaying the works at this time.
The landlord was aware that the resident and her family had dismantled furniture and vacated all three bedrooms in the property from 6 September 2021 and that a family of six including a one year old had been living in the living room in the property since then. Given this, the landlord should have made urgent efforts to communicate with the residents about the scope of the works to resolve the dispute. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for completing repairs to the structure of the property including the wall plaster and ensuring that it was fit for habitation.
The landlord should also have considered whether the family should be decanted while works were completed. It is unclear why temporary accommodation was not considered as soon as it was identified that they would be completing repairs to all three bedrooms and that these rooms should be emptied. Expecting a family of six to live in a living room for any length of time is not reasonable and would inevitably cause distress to the resident and her family.
Works were started again in early December 2021, but again paused. The resident has stated that her husband was in hospital following a heart attack and according to the resident, the landlord informed her that they had to either carry on or cancel the works. While the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to confirm this, there is also no evidence of further works taking place at this time. Given the circumstances, the landlord should have been sensitive to the resident’s situation, understood her need to pause the works and made sure works started again as soon as possible once she was able to accommodate this.
Both the resident and a medical professional on her husband’s behalf specifically requested the landlord consider moving them into temporary accommodation at the end of December 2021. When responding to the complaint at Stage two, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it should have considered this sooner and offered to do so at that stage. The Ombudsman would therefore expect to see evidence of the landlord visiting the property and assessing whether temporary accommodation was needed, whether the property was fit for habitation at that stage and whether it was practical to complete works with the family living there. There is no evidence of this. While a contractor gave an opinion that works could be completed room by room, this did not take into account the current living situation in which the family had been advised to clear all three bedrooms.
The landlord has since informed the Ombudsman that alternative accommodation was not needed since it had done some repairs to two of the bedrooms by December 2021. The resident’s position is that the dampness came back soon after these works were completed so they did not feel able to begin using these rooms again. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to confirm the conditions in those two bedrooms between December 2021 and March 2022, but the landlord subsequent inspection confirmed that the December 2021 repairs were substandard and ineffective. Overall, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the landlord satisfied itself that the rooms were usable during this time. Even if the landlord was satisfied that a decant was not needed in December 2021, it should have reconsidered this as soon as it was aware the repairs had failed. There is no evidence that it did so.
No further progress was made until a further inspection took place in March 2022, during which it confirmed that the main bedroom was unusable and the previous works to the other two bedrooms had failed. Appointments were made for May 2022 and then June 2022. At this stage, the resident was challenging the specification of works and this led to a short delay. Various works took place in July/August 2022 including thermal boarding in all three bedrooms. Bathroom repairs were completed in January 2023.
In conclusion, the evidence available in relation to the cause of the damp and mould in the property is confusing and unclear. The landlord changed its position in relation to the relevance of external works. At different points, the landlord’s findings reference rising damp, failure to the external render, and the design of the building. While it is acknowledged that it can be difficult to diagnose the cause of damp and mould and there may have been more than one cause, the time taken to resolve the issues and conflicting evidence as to the cause is a significant concern. The landlord acknowledged itself that it had attempted to carry out internal repairs without addressing the cause of the damp and mould (in September 2021). Without being confident of the cause of damp and mould in the property, the landlord could not be confident it was completing appropriate repairs to address the issue, particularly in the longer term.
Ultimately, the landlord has responsibility for diagnosing the cause/s, completing any repairs for which it was responsible within a reasonable time, and ensuring the property was fit for habitation. The landlord failed to do this.
There were some times when works were delayed due to the resident questioning the work proposed and requesting further information about the proposed works. While it is acknowledged that the resident is required to provide access for repairs under the terms of the tenancy agreement, it is also acknowledged that the mishandling of the repairs previously was likely a factor leading to the resident being apprehensive about the landlord’s proposals. Some of the delays were also likely due to backlog of repairs following the Covid 19 restrictions. However, as set out above, the repairs should have been given high priority. There were also significant periods of time when the landlord’s inaction caused delays.
In particular, there were significant delays due to the landlord’s inaction between July 2020 and September 2021, and between January 2022 and July 2022. Given the vulnerabilities of the family, in particular the number of young children, medical issues, and the knowledge that for a significant period the family were living altogether in the living room, the landlord should have prioritised resolving the issues much sooner. This was also particularly important given the history of reports of damp in the property and the landlord’s admission of “aborted” appointments in 2019.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
When responding to the complaint at Stage two, the landlord went some way to identify its shortcomings and put things right. It acknowledged that the repairs had been mismanaged and that the property should have been inspected before the appointment of 9 September 2021 and that the follow up visit to this should have been given more priority. It also offered compensation of £800. However, given the length of time the resident and her family were living with damp and mould, their various vulnerabilities, the length of time they were living without use of the three bedrooms, and the landlord’s failure to offer temporary accommodation, the landlord did not go far enough to put right its shortcomings when responding to the complaint.
There is evidence that the property was affected by damp and mould between January 2020 and July 2022. Internal repairs to two of the bedrooms had taken place in December 2021 but subsequently failed. The main bedroom was unusable for this entire period and the family did not use the other two bedrooms for the majority of the period between 6 September 2021 and July 2022. The landlord was aware of the resident and her family’s various health problems including asthma and breathing issues affecting the children. A family of six living in one room for any length of time would cause considerable distress to the entire family. The landlord’s failure to address the urgency of this and provide temporary accommodation is a significant failing.
While it is acknowledged that there were times when the resident’s queries about the works did delay repairs taking place, the more significant delays were caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Neither did it appropriately follow through with its proposals in the complaint response, since it took more than six months after the complaint response to complete repairs and there is no evidence of it revisiting the compensation offer. Bathroom repairs were completed as recently as January 2023 and it is unclear why this took so long.
The compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. In addition, the lengthy delays and failure by the landlord to respond to urgent health and safety concerns should have led the landlord to carry out a thorough investigation as to what had gone wrong in its response to, and management of, the repairs, to ensure no other tenants experienced similar delays.
The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, taking into account the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent payments, and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance. The Order takes into account that the resident’s current rent is £124.19. The property comprises six rooms – three bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen.
The main bedroom was uninhabitable from approximately January 2020 to July 2022. The bathroom was also affected by dampness for the majority of this time. It is acknowledged that there were some delays which the landlord was not responsible for, as identified above, but the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay 1/6 of the rent for the period July 2020 to the end of August 2021, and the period January 2022 to the end of July 2022 to address the lack of use of the main bedroom. This is a period of 91 weeks and compensation of £1883.55. In addition, the landlord should pay an additional 5% of the rent for the effect on the bathroom between May 2021 and December 2022. This is a period of 82 weeks and compensation of £509.2.
The other two bedrooms were not used between September 2021 and July 2022 during which the family were all living in the living room. There is some dispute about why works were delayed in September to December 2021 and whether two of the bedrooms were habitable between December 2021 and March 2022. Taking this into account the Ombudsman considers the landlord should pay 25% of the rent to address the impact on the second and third bedrooms, and an addition 10% for the impact on the living room of the whole family having to reside and sleep in this room (total of 35%) for the period 6 September 2021 to the end of July 2022. This is a period of 46 weeks and compensation of £1,999.5.
The Ombudsman has also made additional Orders for compensation to address the distress and inconvenience caused given the resident’s particular circumstances.
Given that the resident has reported that there are still some repair issues outstanding that were raised as part of this complaint, the Ombudsman has included an Order to address this in the Determination set out below.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints policy states that it will respond to a complaint at Stage one within ten working days, and at a review stage within 30 working days.
The resident made a complaint on 26 April 2021 and the landlord responded on 11 May 2021 which was within the timescales set out in the policy. However, the resident requested escalation of the complaint on 7 June 2021 and the landlord did not provide a full response until 23 December 2021, following intervention by the Ombudsman. The landlord did appropriately acknowledge and apologise for this delay. However, given the length of the delay and the lost opportunity to address the repairs during this time, the landlord should also have acknowledged the impact of this delay and indicated how it would prevent such a shortcoming happening again. The Ombudsman has therefore identified a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

The property was affected by damp and mould for at least two and a half years. The landlord had difficulty diagnosing the cause and completing effective repairs and there were long delays in it progressing works. While the Covid restrictions and a breakdown in trust between the resident and landlord did contribute to delays, the majority was as a result of the landlord’s inactions and mishandling of the repairs.
The family had several vulnerabilities in respect of various health conditions of which the landlord was aware. This should have led to the issue being addressed more urgently. It was unreasonable and caused distress that a family of six occupied one room for a significant period of time. The compensation offered by the landlord during the complaints process was not proportionate to the failings identified and distress caused. There were also further delays after the Stage two complaint response.

Orders

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £5,592.25 (this is inclusive of the offer of £800 previously made) comprising:
  1. £4392.25 for the delays in completing the repairs and the associated impact on the property and the resident’s use of it while paying full rent for the property.
  2. £1000 as an additional remedy to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family by the delays in completing repairs in the property taking into account the particular vulnerabilities of which the landlord was aware and the urgency of identified works.
  3. £200 as a remedy to the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in responding to the formal complaint.
2. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report and offer to meet with the resident if she wishes to discuss her complaint any further, to provide the parties an opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.
3. Arrange for a qualified surveyor to attend the property and confirm whether there are any outstanding damp and mould repairs or other repairs for which the landlord is responsible. The resident should be given an opportunity to communicate with the surveyor to set out her concerns before the inspection is completed. If repairs are identified, a schedule of works and proposed dates should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report. This should include consideration of the concerns the resident has raised in relation to the bathroom, the kitchen and the garden.
4. Carry out a review of the handling of the repairs and the complaint to determine what action the landlord should take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Damp and mould Spotlight report of October 2021 and ensure its staff responding to damp and mould reports are aware of it. The review should include consideration of:
  1. The landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to and diagnosing damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s processes and procedures for communicating with and managing its repair service company including when formal complaints have been raised and there are disputes about access.
  3. How the landlord handles reports of urgent health and safety issues and how it takes into account a resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to a repair report.
  4. The procedures it has in place to appropriately consider when a decant is required which takes into account the vulnerabilities of the household.
  5. Whether it can action some of the Recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Damp and mould Spotlight, including:

(1) Implementing a damp and mould policy or framework setting out the process of diagnosing and addressing damp and mould.

(2) Taking steps to ensure they have appropriately qualified and trained staff/contractors to diagnose and respond to the cause of damp and mould.

The landlord should provide a copy of the review to the Ombudsman with any proposals within 8 weeks of the date of this report.