Dacorum Borough Council (202300794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300794

Dacorum Borough Council

29 July 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a ground floor 1 bedroom flat in supported accommodation. The tenancy started in December 2022.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident.
The resident first reported mould growth to the landlord around 2 weeks after she moved into the property at the end of December 2022.
On 3 January 2023, its repair contractor attended to check the trickle vents.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 5 January 2023 and commented the property had water ingress coming up through floors, causing “severe condensation”. They requested its repair contractor raise the following works:
1. Drainage contractor to attend to inspect and clear external drain (borders the kitchen) on 6 January 2023.
2. Seal meter boxes on external wall to prevent water ingress.
3. Supply and fit new window in lounge.
4. Carry out a mould wash around living room window.
On 3 February 2023, the resident called the landlord and said she had raised a complaint about mould appearing within 2 weeks of her moving into the property. The landlord told her it had not received her complaint and after looking into this, realised the resident had incorrectly raised it via the local council’s website. The landlord told the resident to submit it via its website.
On 7 February 2023, the resident called the landlord chasing a response to her complaint. The resident stated that she had already explained her complaint to several officers of the landlord.
On 8 February 2023, the works requested on 6 January 2023 were raised as well as:
1. Plumber to assess internal plumbing.
On 9 March 2023, the resident submitted her complaint via the landlord’s website. On 10 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident it would provide a response within 10 working days.
The landlord’s drainage contractor installed an additional external drain on 21 March 2023 to resolve a drainage issue.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord raised work to supply and fit a vent in the lounge wall.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 April 2023. This stated:
1. An operative attended the resident’s property on 3 January 2023 to check all trickle vents. These were all in working order and it recommended the resident ensure all trickle vents on the windows were open and heating was used. Its operative also replaced the mastic around the windowsills on the same day.
2. Gullies were inspected and cleaned and then replaced on 14 March 2023.
3. An appointment had been made for 4 April 2023 to supply and fit a vent in the lounge wall and to seal around the external meter box.
4. An appointment had been made for 5 April 2023 to carry out mould wash works.
5. Following a visit from its repair contractor supervisor, he advised that the water pooling in the kitchen was due to condensation and the lack of ventilation in the kitchen whilst cooking.
6. A fan was provided in the kitchen which should also be used to reduce moisture whilst cooking.
7. Following its review, it was not upholding her complaint as the main contribution of the damp and mould was due to the lack of ventilation and lack of heating in the property.
8. It recommended that the property was ventilated by opening the trickle vents on the windows and using the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom as required and to also heat the property to prevent damp and mould in the property. It had enclosed a leaflet for her information.
On 4 April 2023 the resident called the landlord advising that much of the information in the stage 1 response was inaccurate.
On 4 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor completed meter box sealant works.
On 6 April 2023, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint in which she stated:
1. She reported mould when it appeared soon after she moved into the property. While a surveyor attended on 5 January 2023, this had still not been resolved.
2. No one attended the appointment on 5 April 2023 to carry out a mould wash which had caused frustration.
3. No one attended on 4 April 2023 to fit a vent.
4. She had submitted her complaint on 9 March 2023 however she had only received a response on 9 April 2023.
The landlord called the resident on 12 April 2023 regarding her complaint noting she told it:
1. Mould was present throughout the kitchen, hallway, bedroom and living room and she was concerned about mould causing damage to her furniture.
2. The trickle vents in the living room were not working.
3. A glazier had attended on 11 April 2023 rather than a UPVC window fitter. The resident requested a timeframe for when this would be resolved.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. Within its response, the landlord noted what the resident had told it the previous day and that she told it:
1. No mastic had been applied to the windowsills as advised in the stage 1 response therefore, this information was inaccurate and incomplete. She required the necessary repairs to the vents to be undertaken.
2. Its repair contractor did not keep the 5 April 2023 appointment and the work remained outstanding.
3. Its surveyor called her the previous day and told her he was arranging for a damp specialist to investigate and remedy the mould as soon as possible. She requested a timeframe for when the damp specialist would attend.
4. She would like its repairs team to confirm a timescale for resolution of this work and for all outstanding matters as soon as possible.
The landlord stated that it had examined the original investigation and found this to be unsatisfactory as no one from the repairs team called her to discuss her concerns in the first instance. It said it was sorry she was not contacted within the 5 working day timeframe which had led to frustration and escalation. The landlord said it was sorry that the stage 1 response was unsatisfactory as it relayed inaccurate information from a contractor and there was outstanding work to the property and that her experience of dealing with appointed contractors had been frustrating.
The landlord told the resident it was upholding her complaint and said it offered apologies for any undue stress and inconvenience to her. It had asked the property and place (PAP) team leader to investigate the outstanding issues and stated it had arranged for a member of the team to telephone her with an update on progress and timescales for resolution at the earliest opportunity. It also provided contact details for its PAP team leader in case the resident had any queries.

Events following the landlord’s final response

The landlord’s records indicated that:
1. A mould treatment to the living room wall was completed on 27 April 2023.
2. A vent was fitted to the lounge wall on 9 May 2023.
3. The new living room window was installed on 17 May 2023 as well as French doors in the rear wall of the living room as per the resident’s request.
The landlord investigated rising damp in the bathroom as reported by the resident in June 2023 which led to bathroom replacement works (completed in September 2023).
The landlord also investigated reports of a leak on mains pipe on 1 August 2023.
The landlord offered and paid the resident £1,000 in compensation in October 2023 and reimbursed her for costs of a wardrobe and a mattress which had been damaged by mould growth.
The landlord carried out internal redecoration to the resident’s property and arranged for carpet cleaning in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

The resident told the Ombudsman in November 2023 that she has a mould allergy, experienced coughing and has been given an inhaler which has all come about since she moved into the property.
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As these claims are more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it aims to undertake effective investigations to determine the cause of damp, mould and condensation and that it will implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions and improvements to resolve these issues. Its policy states the landlord will respond to reports by inspecting the property within 7 days (at the latest) and then by completing any remedial work within a reasonable timescale.
At the end of December 2022, the resident reported black mould in the living room, the bedroom and condensation on the kitchen floor. Following this the landlord arranged for its repair contractor to check the trickle vents on 3 January 2023 and for its surveyor to attend on 5 January 2023 to inspect the property. As the landlord responded promptly and within its published timescale, it acted appropriately here.
During the inspection on 5 January 2023, the surveyor acknowledged the presence of mould and “severe condensation” as well as “severe water ingress” coming up through kitchen floors. Given these findings, we would expect the landlord to take urgent steps to assess and determine possible underlying causes to identify suitable solutions to resolve the problem as quickly as possible.
The landlord’s surveyor immediately sent a works order to its repair contractor asking them to raise works to replace the lounge window with trickle vents, apply a mould wash around living room window, re-seal the meter boxes on the external (kitchen) wall and to inspect the external drain which borders the kitchen. This action was appropriate however it is evident that these works were not raised until around 5 weeks later on 8 February 2023. There were then further delays in these works being undertaken and in it carrying further investigations into the causes. The internal plumbing at the property was not checked until 21 March 2023. Although no leaks were found on this occasion, given that the landlord had observed severe water ingress in the kitchen, the 10-week delay in checking the internal pipes was unreasonable.
In the meantime, the resident had raised a formal complaint as she reported the mould had worsened and she was unhappy that no resolution had been provided. By the date of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2023, only the internal plumbing and external drainage jobs had taken place as well as re-sealing around the meter boxes (on the external wall which backs the kitchen). Works including the mould treatments and replacement window and a job to supply and fit a vent in the lounge (raised on 21 March 2023) were still outstanding. While a blockage on the drain had been cleared and an additional drain installed on 15 March 2023 there is no evidence to show the landlord had checked to see if this had resolved the water ingress in the kitchen.
Despite this, in its stage 1 response the landlord stated the main cause of the damp and mould was the lack of ventilation and heating to the property. To suggest the resident was to blame at a stage when the landlord had not completed its investigations or checked if works that it had completed had eradicated or reduced dampness and mould, was unreasonable and suggests an unwillingness by the landlord to acknowledge or take responsibility for the issues.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint disputed what the landlord has said in regards to the trickle vents in the (existing) window working and that mastic around the window seals had been applied by its contractor during its visit on 3 January 2023. She also said no one had attended on 4 April 2023 to fit a vent or on 5 April 2023 to carry out a mould wash as advised in its stage 1 response.
There is no clear evidence to either show that the trickle vents were working when checked on 3 January 2023 or that mastic was applied around the window seals. It is also evident that the appointments on 4 and 5 April 2023 were not kept by the landlord’s contractor. The resident also said although an operative attended to fit the replacement window on 11 April 2023, a glazier had attended rather than a UPVC window fitter as such the window replacement did not go ahead during this appointment.
These issues and the failure of the contactor to act on the landlord’s original request on 6 January 2023 to raise various works in response to the damp and mould issues identified by its surveyor, appear to indicate an issue with the contractor’s ability to provide an appropriate or timely service. It is evident that the landlord had chased its contractor 10 days after its original request when nothing had been done which was appropriate. However, when this also failed to prompt any action, good practice would be for the landlord to have escalated this internally and the contractor to expedite its request to raise the necessary works. However, the landlord did not do this and as a consequence it took a further 3 to 4 further weeks to raise the works. This delay ultimately extended the time taken to find a solution.
In its stage 2 final response, the landlord apologised for its stage 1 response relaying inaccurate information and for works still being outstanding. This shows a willingness by the landlord to learn lessons to avoid the same issue reoccurring. However, in her escalation request, the resident asked for the landlord to provide timescales for when a mould specialist would attend to further investigate (as promised) and when the outstanding work to address the mould would be completed. This request was reasonable yet in its final response the landlord only stated that it had asked for the PAP team leader to investigate and that someone would telephone her to update on progress and expected timescales. Therefore, the lack of any expected timescales included in its final response was inappropriate and failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
This Service is unable to investigate events after the landlord’s final response although we expect the landlord to demonstrate that it followed through with promises made. Evidence seen by this Service shows that the landlord completed outstanding works within a few weeks of the date of its final response including installing a replacement window in the living (and rear doors). However, the evidence also shows that rising damp was diagnosed shortly after its final response, and it was necessary for the landlord to continue investigating the causes of the mould and dampness. This led to it raising further works included installing a new bathroom and it addressing a leak on the mains pipe reported in August 2023.
In summary, it is recognised that finding solutions to the mould, condensation and water ingress in this case was complex and involved various works and repairs to different parts of the property. However, there were unreasonable delays by the landlord in progressing its investigation into the causes and providing repairs raised at the outset. Given the landlord considered the condensation and water ingress was “severe” during its assessment on 5 January 2023, it is clear the landlord did not treat the matter with sufficient urgency during the next 3 to 4 months. This meant the resident had to live with the impact of mould and condensation for longer than necessary and spent a disproportionate amount of time in contact with the landlord trying to get the issues addressed. Furthermore, the landlord’s misdiagnosis of the issue in its stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate and caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
It is acknowledged that the landlord did go on to undertake extensive works to resolve or reduce the risk of further damp and mould at the property. In October 2023 it also paid the resident £1,000 in compensation (based on a 20% reduction of rent for 10 months while works were ongoing) and additional amounts to replace possessions damaged by mould.
However, although when considering a landlord’s handling of the substantive issue, the Ombudsman’s takes into account any redress offered to put right failings, the compensation in this case was provided at least 6 months after completion of the complaints process. Therefore, it was not offered by the landlord during the complaints process nonetheless, we will consider the compensation already paid when assessing an appropriate level of compensation.
In its final response, the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for some of the failings identified during this investigation as well as committing to ongoing works to resolve the damp and mould. However, it failed to offer any compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident up to that stage, which in the circumstances, would have been appropriate. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.
Therefore, it is reasonable to order that the landlord pay the resident £650 in compensation for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. (This is in addition to the £1,000 provided to the resident in October 2023). The landlord has not provided its compensation policy, but this amount falls within the range recommended for maladministration in the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance to remedy failings that adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process which requires it to acknowledge within 5 working days, provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 final response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s policy also says it will accept complaints raised by letter, on the phone or in person. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which states that landlords must make it easy for residents to complaint by having various channels through which they can raise a complaint.
The resident made clear she wanted to raise a complaint with the landlord regarding its handling of damp and mould, during calls on 3 and 7 February 2023. She told the landlord that she had both raised a complaint online and explained it to officers in person. It transpired that the resident had not made her complaint via the landlord’s website as she had incorrectly done this on the local council’s website. Yet there is no evidence of the landlord offering to log her complaint during these calls, rather it told the resident to make her complaint online. It’s action had the effect of placing a barrier to the resident making a complaint and was inappropriate.
Although the resident did go on to do this a few weeks later on 9 March 2023, the landlord’s failure to accept her complaint earlier was a failing and caused unnecessary delay. The landlord then appropriately acknowledged the resident’s online complaint on 10 March 2023. However, while it told her she would receive a response within 10 working days, the landlord did not provide this until 17 working days later on 4 April 2023. The failure to provide its response within its timescale is a failing.
In its stage 2 final complaint the landlord included incorrect escalation details as it signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, when it should have been referred to this Service.
In summary, delays in logging the complaint and providing its stage 1 response is evidence of poor complaint handling by the landlord. This is indicative of maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord while handling the related complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord:
1. Provides an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £800 made up of:
  1. £650 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by the landlord while handling the reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble by the landlord while handling the related complaint.
3. Provides the Ombudsman with a timeline for providing staff training on its damp and mould and complaint policies.
4. Provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.