Central Bedfordshire Council (202224255)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224255

Central Bedfordshire Council

27 February 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:
1. Response to damp and mould following a leak in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident moved into the property in March 2020 following a mutual exchange. Prior to the move, the landlord advised the resident that the property required some improvements and repairs for which it was not responsible. It advised that the internal decoration, including the laminate flooring was the resident’s responsibility. The resident signed to accept this. Upon moving to the property the resident paid for improvement works including plastering, decorating, new flooring and garden work. She moved out of the property in May 2023.
During the events considered in this case the resident advised the landlord that she had a history of anxiety and suffered a “mental health breakdown” in 2010. She lives with her husband and child and also stated that she provided respite care for her mother 3 days a week.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook sets out its repair response timescales as follows:
1. Emergency – It will start the repair within 2 hours and complete or make safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent – It will complete the repair within 5 working days.
3. Routine – It will complete the repair within 20 working days.
4. Larger non-emergency repairs – It will agree a convenient time with the resident.
The housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS) assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property. One of the hazards identified is damp and mould growth. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. It includes physical, mental and social wellbeing ill effects associated with damp, humid and mouldy conditions. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. At stage 1 it may offer a conciliation meeting to try and resolve the matter. It will provide notes of this meeting to the resident. Alternatively at stage 1 it may offer a written response within 10 working days or 20 working days if the complaint is detailed and/or lengthy.
2. At stage 2 it should respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 28 October 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the store cupboard in the property, which was between the bathroom and her son’s bedroom, was covered in mould and was damp. Her belongings stored in the cupboard, which included photographs and irreplaceable keepsakes, had been destroyed by the mould. The landlord advised that it would attend the property on 29 October 2022. It subsequently rearranged this to 31 October 2022 however it did not attend. When the resident chased the appointment, the landlord advised it had no record of the matter.
On 2 November 2022 the resident’s son was prescribed an inhaler by his GP for a “chronic cough”. The resident informed the landlord of this in December 2022.
On 7 November 2022 the landlord raised a job for a contractor to attend to inspect the leak.
On 9 November 2022 the resident’s son was prescribed a second inhaler by his GP. The resident informed the landlord of this in December 2022.
On 18 November 2022 a contractor attended and removed the bath and found that a leak was coming from bath pipework. Part of the flooring was removed, however this could not be fully removed as it was believed there was asbestos in the adhesive. The contractor confirmed that the plaster in the son’s bedroom needed to be removed and mould wash carried out. The contractor advised the landlord that once the leak was repaired, a dehumidifier would be needed. The landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 24 November 2022.
Contractors attended to carry out repairs on 30 November 2022 however the work could not take place due to the likely presence of asbestos in the floors.
On 2 December 2022 a contractor attended to carry out tiling in the bathroom. The contactor advised the resident that more materials were required and left without returning or any further communication.
On the 5 December 2022 a surveyor undertook a full inspection of the property. The landlord could not locate a copy of this report for the resident or this Service. Following this an asbestos survey took place on 7 December 2022 which found asbestos in the property.
On 9 December 2022 the resident’s son attended hospital due to issues with his breathing and was kept in overnight. On being informed of this the landlord decanted the resident and her family into a temporary flat. The resident advised the landlord that the flat “smelt of illegal drugs” and she was concerned over fire safety. She also stated that the flat was on the 3rd floor and that she had anxiety with stairs. As a result she declined the property. She advised the landlord that the private owner of the flat had let her and her family stay in a 3 bedroom property instead.
On 12 December 2022 the resident checked out of the temporary accommodation and returned to her property to provide access to the tiler. This work however did not go ahead as the walls were found to be too wet. That same day, the resident advised the landlord that her son had been re-admitted to hospital overnight. During his stay, he was diagnosed as having flu and advised that his asthma was a result of the damp and mould in the property. The landlord re-booked the temporary accommodation.
The following day, (13 December 2022) an inspection of the resident’s property was carried out which confirmed that a decant was required.
On 14 December 2022 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. It could move the resident and her family or urgently treat the property for mould to enable the resident to move back in with the works being undertaken in January 2023. It concluded that it would extend the stay in the temporary accommodation.
2. The resident had been running a dehumidifier at the property for several weeks and was moving this around the property and emptying it 2-3 times a day. It requested for another dehumidifier to be delivered and that it would contribute to the additional electricity cost of running these.
3. The resident was “very stressed” about the impact the damp was having on the family’s health.
On 30 December 2022 the resident attended the property to provide access to a contractor who advised that the dehumidifier would not help with the damp until the leak had been resolved.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord noted internally as follows:
1. Repairs and asbestos removal was required in all rooms and could not be completed around the resident and her possessions.
2. It had not found a suitable alternative property for the resident to move to.
3. It had extended the stay in the temporary accommodation.
4. The resident was returning to the property every day to do washing and also empty the dehumidifier.
On 10 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would be collecting the dehumidifier as the works needed to be completed first. The resident stated that this had caused her “anger and frustration” as she had spent time and money visiting the property every day to move and empty the dehumidifier.
On 26 January 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. Her son’s health had been impacted by the damp and mould and he had been sleeping on a mattress in the living room to try to avoid the mould in his bedroom. The GP had advised he would not recover from his lung problems until the triggers (mould and damp) were removed from his environment.
2. Both herself and her son had mental health issues. Her son was suffering from low mood, emotional problems and comfort eating. The resident was experiencing anxiety and sleep deprivation.
3. The landlord had advised her that she could not remain in the temporary accommodation due to the cost.
4. She had suffered financially due to the situation. She had been told to run the dehumidifier which she had done since 24 November 2022, costing £4 per day. Many possessions had been ruined including some irreplaceable items. Her and her husband had both taken time off work waiting for contractors.
5. Despite the survey finding damp, no works had been completed.
6. The temporary accommodation lacked space and provided them with no certainty about the future.
7. She had requested a permanent move to another property via a direct let but the landlord had advised this was not possible and she would have to move back to the property when the repairs were complete.
8. The landlord had not addressed the situation with the appropriate urgency and did not return her calls and emails. She had asked on 12 January 2023 about moving her possessions and accessing the housing register but the landlord had not responded.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 January 2023.
On 2 February 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had spoken to the resident who had reiterated that her and her son were struggling with anxiety. She had explained that she did not know when they would move, which made it difficult for her to book work as a self-employed hairdresser.
The removal of the resident’s possessions into storage took place on 13 February 2023. The resident advised the landlord that the removals company had refused to move or store the items affected by mould. The landlord advised that the resident could claim for these via her contents insurance.
On 15 February 2023 the direct let at a different property was approved for the resident (it is not stated but it can reasonably be assumed this was by way of a management transfer). The landlord noted on 17 February 2023 that the resident could not afford to pay 4 weeks rent upfront for the new property. The landlord acknowledged that it had been stressful for the resident and that it would look into options in respect of the rent.
On 20 February 2023 the resident’s Universal Credit stopped as she had not advised them that she was living in temporary accommodation. The landlord advised the resident that it would discuss this with the Universal Credit team.
On 27 February and 1 March 2023 the resident chased a response to her complaint. The landlord noted internally that she was “very distressed” and that she had “had enough”. The resident advised she had contacted this Service.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord took part in a conciliation meeting with the resident. The landlord’s notes from the meeting, which it shared with the resident, outlined the history of the matter and timeline of events. It asked the resident to confirm if she agreed with its notes. It outlined the complaint and its findings as follows:
1. It had not suitably remedied the leak reported in January 2022. The lack of effective action to remedy the asbestos resulted in a significant delay in the works being completed.
2. It acknowledged that the damage to the residents’ belongings had caused her distress and upset and it had failed to suitably investigate the complaint.
3. It acknowledged that several appointments had been arranged but were either not attended to or the contractors could not carry out the work due to the damp or asbestos issues.
4. It should not have provided a dehumidifier until the works were completed. This had caused the resident to be required to visit the property every day from November 2022 to February 2023 to empty the unit and pay the additional electricity costs.
5. Two surveys had been carried out in December 2022. It did not have records of these surveys so had been unable to provide them to the resident. It stated that this was an area for improvement and it was investigating this to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
6. It acknowledge that the resident had received a letter saying that her rent had not been paid and that she would be evicted if payment was not made the same day. (This Service has not been provided with this correspondence). It acknowledged that this was “entirely inappropriate”, lacked compassion and showed a lack of communication between its departments.
7. It acknowledged that the temporary accommodation was “not ideal” and had caused “significant upheaval and stress”. If the leak had been identified and remedied earlier, the need for a decant could have been prevented.
8. It’s request that the resident move back to the property prior to the works being completed was “completely inappropriate”.
9. The resident had received mixed support throughout the process and had been “severely failed” by the voids and repairs teams.
10. It noted its disappointment that the resident did not receive responses from the landlord, surveyors and contractors.
11. It fully upheld all aspects of complaint, apologised for its failings and advised it would take the following action:
  1. Pay compensation for the missed appointments.
  2. Pay compensation for running the dehumidifier between November 2022 and February 2023.
  3. Liaise with the resident’s insurance company.
  4. Arrange for the new property to have a “hard standing and vehicle cross over” and inspect for leaks and disrepair.
  5. Improve its communication systems between its departments, contractors and residents.
  6. Support the resident to resolve issues with her Universal Credit payment.
  7. Agree additional compensation for losses and inconveniences.
  8. Arrange a full investigation into its processes and procedures when dealing with mutual exchanges, repair requests and contractor communications.
  9. It had setup a damp and mould task force to deal with issues as experienced in the resident’s case.
On 27 March 2023 the resident advised the landlord of the works she wanted carried out at the new property before moving in. This Service has not seen this correspondence. On 31 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would carry out the following works at the new property, over and above the standard void works:
1. Move kitchen units and replace kitchen worktop.
2. Install vinyl flooring.
3. Provide a decoration pack.
4. Hardstanding and a drop kerb to the front of property.
5. Removal of items left by the previous resident.
6. Landscape gardening. It noted that this would not be done as standard but it would discuss this with its estates team.
7. Provide an asbestos report.
8. Investigate and remedy cracks in lounge.
9. Install bath panel, shower and re-tile.
On 11 April 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s notes of the conciliation meeting and explained she was not in agreement with them. She stated as follows:
1. She had received payment to address the missed appointments (£180) and dehumidifier costs (£69.16).
2. She was disappointed that the landlord did not send a formal reply to her stage one complaint and that it had not offered compensation.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord sent a complaint response to the resident confirming the findings from the conciliation meeting. It advised how she could escalate her complaint.
On 10 May 2023 the resident moved into the new property.
In May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the flooring in her former property, which she had paid for, had been removed and damaged as part of the landlord’s works to the property. She also stated that during the move, the removal company had damaged her TV and hob. The landlord advised that it was liaising with its legal team and insurers in respect of its final offer of compensation. It confirmed to the resident on 13 June 2023 that its offer of compensation was £1200.
The resident responded the dame day and stated as follows:
1. Compensation of £1200 did not cover her losses.
2. The health and safety of her family had been put at risk for a prolonged amount of time. All members of the family had suffered with “stress, anxiety, low mood and depression”. She had arranged “extra family support” from her children’s school to monitor their low mood and wellbeing.
3. Works to the new property had not been completed.
4. She requested £9310 compensation made up as follows:
  1. £2000 for illness caused by negligence.
  2. £70 hospital expenses.
  3. £40 journeys to the doctors and parking.
  4. £800 time off work as her husband caught flu from the hospital stay.
  5. £2000 for inconvenience, stress and anxiety.
  6. £1500 loss of irreplaceable items.
  7. £100 increase in contents insurance premium.
  8. £250 for additional items whilst in temporary accommodation.
  9. £200 for lack of access to leisure items whilst in storage.
  10. £600 for items broken by the removal company which did not have the appropriate insurance.
  11. £250 for the hob being broken during the move.
  12. £1500 for home improvements done at the former property.
The landlord considered this to be an escalation request and acknowledged this on 19 June 2023. It advised that a stage 2 response would be provided by 17 July 2023.
On 14 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated that as a result of upholding the complaint at stage 1 it had done the following:
1. Provided an apology.
2. Provided a new property for the resident and undertook additional works at the property.
3. Offered £1200 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and damage to belongings. It advised this figure was made up of the following:
  1. £250 replacement of a broken hob as a goodwill gesture.
  2. £600 for items broken by the storage company including a television as a goodwill gesture (no evidence of original cost provided).
  3. £100 goodwill payment towards the increased insurance premium, which this was the resident’s responsibility.
  4. £250 for inconvenience, distress, time and trouble.
4. It had already paid £249.16 to cover the cost of using the dehumidifier and for the missed appointments.
5. It advised that claims for injury or harm to health were matters for the courts to decide. It signposted the resident to its insurer.
6. It noted that it had also provided non-financial remedies as follows:
  1. Intervention with the Department for Working Pensions in respect of the resident’s Universal Credit.
  2. Provision of a new property with it providing £19,677 worth of non-standard works at the residents request.
7. It acknowledged that it had not responded at stage 1 in line with its complaints policy and apologised for this. It advised that staff training would be provided and a review had been undertaken of the complaint handling process which had resulted in this being monitored more effectively.
On 10 August 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. She disagreed that the landlord spent over £19,000 on her new property and there was a leak at the new property.
2. The landlord had retracted its offer to pay £100 for her insurance premium increase.
3. The offer of £1200 was too low. An additional offer of around £1200 would resolve the complaint (£2400.00 in total).

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

In September 2023 the resident advised this Service that there was a leak at the new property.
In October 2023 this Service suggested mediation between the resident and the landlord. The landlord advised that it did not agree with the resident’s proposal, however it offered to pay the insurance excess of £350, in addition to the £100already offered towards the increased premium, bringing its total offer of compensation to £1799.16 including the amount paid for the dehumidifier costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns to this Service about a leak at the new property. As this did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this. The resident has the option to contact the landlord about this and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The resident has stated that personal items were damaged and the landlord signposted her to submit an insurance claim in respect of these. This Service does not consider issues that have been the subject of an insurance claim, however it will consider the reasonableness of the landlord’s response and the impact on the resident in all the circumstances.
It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the actions or inactions of the landlord and the resident’s health, mental health or that of her family. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or that of her family had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.

Response to a leak in the property causing damp and mould

It is not in dispute that the landlord was responsible for the repair of the leak or the subsequent damp and mould. This Service has identified the following failings in how the landlord responded to the matter:
1. The landlord had undertaken surveys of the property but due to record keeping failures it did not have a record of what these surveys had identified or recommended. This prevented the landlord from being able to make appropriate decisions and did not support a resolution-focused outcome for the resident. This also caused frustration to the resident who had request copies of these.
2. It took from 28 October 2022 until 18 November 2022 for a contractor to attend in response to reports of the damp and mould. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the repairs policy. Appointments were rearranged or not attended with the landlord advising that it had no record of the issue.
3. There was a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractors which led to contractors attending to complete works despite asbestos removal not having been completed. The subsequent lack of effective action to remedy the asbestos resulted in a significant delay in the works to resolve the leak being completed. In addition a lack of communication resulted in contractors attending but not being able to carry out jobs due to the walls being wet from the leak. This led to frustration to the resident.
4. The landlord incorrectly supplied a dehumidifier (November 2022 to February 2023) prior to the leak being resolved. This caused inconvenience to the resident who had been making a number of trips each day to the property to empty and move the dehumidifier.
It is noted that the landlord fully upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged what it considered to be its failings in how it how responded to the leak and the damp and mould and the impact this had on the resident. The landlord’s acceptance of responsibility and its upholding of the complaint was in line with its repair policy and was appropriate. When failures are identified by the landlord, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In respect of acknowledging its failings and putting things right for the resident, the landlord has taken a number of actions, as follows:
1. It apologised for its failings and for the impact the matter had had on the resident and her family.
2. It acknowledged that the resident was caused “great distress and upset”
3. It decanted the resident to temporary accommodation the day it was informed that her son had been taken into hospital with breathing difficulties.
4. It permanently decanted the resident to a new property and undertook a number of improvements to the property, over its standard void requirement, at the resident’s request.
5. It identified shortfalls with its processes and investigated these to prevent a reoccurrence of similar events.
6. It set up a damp and mould team and established a new damp and mould policy.
7. It identified staff training needs and actioned this.
8. It signposted the resident to its insurer in respect of personal injury matters.
9. It assisted with the resident’s Universal Credit query.
10. It offered a total of £1799.16 compensation (including the offer made following the involvement of this Service) to acknowledge the following:
  1. Distress and inconvenience.
  2. The cost of running the dehumidifier.
  3. The resident’s insurance excess and increased premium.
  4. Missed contractor appointments.
  5. Items damaged during the move.
Whilst these actions were appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had taken the complaint seriously, there were a number of failings which the landlord did not acknowledge and offer redress for. These are as follows:
1. The landlord did not acknowledge that the temporary accommodation it originally arranged for the resident was not suitable for her needs and the resident subsequently found alternative accommodation.
2. The impact of the landlord’s record keeping failures and the reasons for these.
3. The resident was decanted for 5 months prior to alternative permanent accommodation being found.
4. The offer of £250 for distress and inconvenience was not sufficient given the significant impact the events had on the resident and the time period this took place over.
It is noted that a significant proportion of the landlord’s compensation offer was made up of amounts to cover outgoings the resident had experienced due to the landlord’s failings, such as the insurance excess and dehumidifier costs. These can reasonably be considered as reimbursement of these expenses. It is not clear how the landlord determined the figure of £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience, however this offer was not proportionate with the length of time the resident suffered distress and inconvenience for, nor the significant impact the situation had on her. In line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidelines, compensation of £1000 is considered to be reasonable for failures which had a significant, ongoing impact to the resident. An additional order reflecting this has therefore been ordered below.
It is noted that the resident’s original compensation request of £9310 included compensation for personal injury and associated costs such as hospital parking. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that it could not consider such matters under its complaints procedure and for it to signpost her elsewhere. In respect of the resident’s request, she also asked for compensation for money she had spent on home improvement in her property (such as flooring).
Whilst it is appreciated that the resident spent money on the former property as she believed it would be her long-term home, there is no evidence that the landlord agreed that it would offer reimbursement in respect of these costs as part of the move. It is also noted that the landlord said that it undertook additional works in the new property over and above what it was required to do, although the figure spent was queried by the resident.
In summary, whilst the landlord took some steps to acknowledge its failings and put things right for the resident it did not address all of its failures nor did its redress go far enough. Specifically, its offer of £250 compensation in respect of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was not sufficient. This amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, in having two ways of responding to stage 1 complaints is confusing and is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). A recommendation has been made below for this policy to be reviewed in line with the Code.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint via a conciliation meeting rather than a clear written stage 1 response within the timeframe, caused confusion to the resident. The delay in responding at stage 1 of just under 3 months (26 January 2023 to 12 April 2023) was not reasonable and this failure was acknowledged by the landlord within its stage 2 response. As stated above, when things go wrong, this Service expects landlord’s to take action to put things right.
In respect of the delay with its complaint handling, the landlord apologised and stated that it was undertaking a review of its complaints handling to prevent this occurring again. This was appropriate, however, it did not put things right for the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the impact this delay had on the resident, despite her having explained how it was impacting her mental health. Given the delay in the internal complaints procedure, which in turn delayed the resident from being able to bring her complaint to this Service, compensation would have been appropriate. The landlord’s failure to offer redress to the resident or to acknowledge the impact its failures had on her amounts to a service failure. To acknowledge the impact the delay had on the resident, in light of her vulnerabilities, compensation of £150 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident was negatively impacted by a failing by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak in the property causing damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings in respect of how it responded to the damp and mould. It did not acknowledge in full the impact or distress the situation had on the resident for the significant period of time. Its offer of compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 took just under 3 months. This delay was acknowledged within the stage 2 response and the landlord apologised and outlined how it would take learning from its complaint handling failure. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord did not offer redress to the resident to acknowledge the impact the delay had on her in light of her vulnerabilities. This was not appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £2699.16 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £1799.16, as offered during, and immediately following the landlord’s complaints process;
  2. Additional £750 in relation to distress and inconvenience;
  3. £150 compensation to acknowledge the impact the complaint handling failure had on her.
3. Undertake a case review on the record keeping failures identified in this case and provide a report of this to this Service within 1 month of the date of this report detailing lessons learned.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy in respect of the guidance set out in the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.