Eastbourne Borough Council (202312303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312303

Eastbourne Borough Council

25 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord whose tenancy at the property began on 12 September 2016. The resident is in his eighties and lives at the property with his wife who is in her late seventies.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat within a retirement living scheme for residents aged 60+. The scheme has an on site Retirement Living Advisor.
The complaint was made to the landlord by a representative on the resident’s behalf. They will be referred to as ‘the representative’ within this report.
On 30 November 2021 the representative made a complaint to the landlord about various issues within the retirement living scheme. As part of this they said that the resident’s property had damp and mould in the bathroom and living room.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 December 2021. It said that it had contacted the resident and raised the issues with its surveyors and repairs contractor. The landlord said it had been unable to find any evidence that the damp and mould had previously been reported to it, and so could not uphold the complaint.
The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property on 7 December 2021. The surveyor was unable to find any signs of water ingress and concluded that “the damp and mould is due to the tenants drying washing inside the flat”. However, they did identify an area of damp on the bathroom wall which they believed to have been caused by a leak from the wash hand basin.
On 9 December 2021, the landlord raised a repair to its contractor to inspect the bathroom wash hand basin and remedy any leak.
The representative emailed the landlord on 10 December 2021. They expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s surveyor had indicated the damp and mould was caused by drying washing in the property. They advised that the resident and his wife dried their washing in the bathroom with the extractor fan running. The representative said it was clear from the mould in numerous areas of the flat that the issue was not just caused by condensation.
On 4 January 2022, the landlord’s contractor placed a dehumidifier in the resident’s bathroom to dry out the damp wall.
The representative emailed the landlord on 28 January 2022 expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of updates provided to the resident. They said the resident and his wife had been unable to shower due to the dehumidifier in their bathroom and had not been spoken to about reimbursement for the cost of electricity it was using.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord’s contractor identified and repaired a leak from the bathroom wash hand basin.
The representative contacted the landlord requesting a further update on 21 February 2022. They expressed concern that, although works had been carried out to the bathroom, the mould in other areas of the flat had not been addressed. The landlord made enquiries with its contractor, which reported that its only outstanding repair order was to collect the dehumidifier from the property later that week.
In an internal landlord email of 23 March 2022, the resident’s Retirement Living Advisor said that the dehumidifier had still not been collected and was currently in their office at the scheme. They advised that the damp and mould problem was still ongoing, and the resident had not been contacted or updated about resolving this.
On 29 March 2022, the landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the property. They identified a leak from behind the shower unit which was causing “bad damp” to the inner wall and the external brickwork. The landlord sent the repair to its contractor on 7 April 2022 stating that it needed an “urgent response”. The contractor passed the job to a subcontractor on 11 April 2022.
On 27 April 2022 and 18 May 2022, the landlord emailed its contractor requesting an update on the shower leak repair.
The subcontractor cancelled the order for the shower repair on 27 September 2022, recording that it had been unable to gain access to the property.
The representative asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 25 October 2022. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of communication and action from the landlord in the 10 months since the stage 1 complaint.
In an email dated 18 November 2022, the representative asked that the landlord also include the fact that the dehumidifier was left uncollected for such a long period, and no offer of reimbursement had been made for the electric used, as part of the complaint.
On 29 November 2022, the landlord emailed the representative to say that it required an extension to provide its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord reraised the repair for the leak behind the shower on 8 December 2022. Its contractor agreed to contact the resident directly and book this in for the following week. The landlord also arranged for its contractor to carry out a mould wash in the property. The landlord emailed the representative, asking if it could keep the complaint open until these works had been completed to enable it to provide “a more comprehensive response”.
The contractor attended the property unannounced during the week commencing 12 December 2022 to investigate the leak. It was unable to gain access and did not leave a card advising the resident it had visited.
The mould wash of the property was completed on 15 December 2022. During the mould wash, the landlord’s contractor inspected the windows and pointing to the brickwork and identified repair issues which it passed on to the landlord. The landlord advised the representative that its surveyor would carry out a further inspection of these issues to determine what action was needed.
On 23 December 2022, the contractor attended the property to investigate the leak. The contractor agreed with the resident that it would return after Christmas to “strip out” the wall behind the shower, in order to avoid leaving the resident with no washing facilities over the holidays.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 January 2023. It said that:
1. The delays in dealing with the shower leak “fall far short of the standards of service we would ordinarily hope to achieve”.
2. It had put in place a new procedure for managing reports of damp and mould to avoid such delays going forwards.
3. Its contractor would contact the resident to book a further appointment to continue the leak investigation.
4. Once the leak had been repaired, it would carry out a further inspection “to assess the redecoration needed to make good the affected areas”.
5. It was offering the resident £100 compensation, along with a further £200 from its contractor, for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Events after landlord’s stage 2 complaint response

The landlord and its contractor made payment of the £300 compensation in January 2023.
The leak from the shower was fully repaired on 14 February 2023.
On 5 October 2023, the landlord’s surveyor carried out another damp and mould inspection of the property. They found “isolated mould” in the ceilings of the bay windows in the bedroom and living room. A damp meter detected no damp in these areas. The surveyor provided the resident with a leaflet about condensation and raised an order for mould treatment in the affected areas.

Assessment and findings

In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that it was unable to uphold the representative’s complaint about the damp and mould as it had not previously been notified of the issue. This is supported by the complaint itself, in which the representative states that they attempted to speak with the Retirement Living Advisor about this but had been unable to.
As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord took reasonable steps in contacting the resident directly to discuss matters, with his concerns being passed onto its surveyors and repairs contractor. A surveyor’s inspection was subsequently carried out on 7 December 2021 – the week after the landlord was made aware of the issues via the complaint.
The surveyor did not identify any issues with water ingress and attributed the damp and mould condensation from the resident and his wife drying washing within the property. Whilst the representative’s dissatisfaction with this assessment is noted, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its suitably qualified surveyor. The further inspection completed on 5 October 2023 (this time with the use of a damp meter) replicated these findings – although it is noted that the same surveyor completed both inspections.
The inspection of 7 December 2021 did identify a patch of damp in the bathroom, which the surveyor suspected was due to a leak from the wash hand basin. A repair was raised for this 2 days later, but the leak was not repaired until 7 February 2022. This far exceeded the 28 day timescale for repair or replacement of basins contained within the landlord’s ‘repairs priorities’ document. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this delay.
The landlord’s contractor provided a dehumidifier to dry out the bathroom wall on 4 January 2022. It is evident from the contractor’s email of 21 February 2022 that this was due to be collected. However, a month later, on 23 March 2022, the dehumidifier had still not been collected and was being stored in the Retirement Living Advisor’s office. The representative stated that she had moved the dehumidifier to that location after it had been sat in the resident’s hallway for 3 weeks posing a hazard to the elderly resident and his wife.
The representative expressed dissatisfaction, in both their email of 28 January 2022 and also their stage 2 complaint, that the landlord had not provided any information regarding reimbursement for the electricity used by the dehumidifier – which they said had been running for 5 weeks. Despite including this matter in its definition of the complaint, the landlord failed to address it as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
As the dehumidifier was used to resolve a repair issue for which the landlord was responsible, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to cover the associated costs of running this. Reimbursement of such costs should be considered separately to any compensation award made for distress and inconvenience. An order for such reimbursement has been made below. Estimated figures have been used to prevent causing further distress and inconvenience in asking the resident to provide relevant bills for a precise calculation.
The representative also advised that the resident and his wife were unable to use the shower during the 5 week period the dehumidifier was in operation. Owing to the resident and his wife’s advanced age, it would have been extremely difficult for them to remove the dehumidifier from the bathroom each time they wished to use the shower. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it, or its contractor, considered this or assisted in the provision of alternative bathing arrangements. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response again failed to address the matter – despite defining it as part of the complaint.
Following the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord had recommended for a “further inspection to be carried out when leak remedied and check on condensation problem”. However, no such inspection was completed until 29 March 2022 – 3 months after the leak had been repaired. This appears to have been prompted by concerns for the resident’s Retirement Living Advisor, despite the representative contacting the landlord several times in the interim period.
It was during this inspection that the landlord identified the leak from behind the shower which was permeating the wall and causing damp. It is not possible for this Service to determine whether this leak had occurred since the previous inspection, on 7 December 2021, or was undetected during said inspection.
Despite the surveyor deeming the shower leak to be “urgent”, the landlord failed to log the repair with its contractor until over a week after it had been identified during the inspection. It was then passed to the subcontractor after a further 2 days.
Whilst the landlord did make efforts to obtain updates on the progress of the shower leak repair, it waited over 2 weeks before emailing its contractor – by which point the 7 day timescale its ‘repair priorities’ document provides for “urgent repairs” had already passed. After failing to receive a response to this, the landlord sent a second email 3 weeks later. After receiving no response again, the landlord failed to pursue the matter.
The subcontractor closed the shower repair on 27 September 2022 due to “no access”. The landlord was unaware of this until several months later, when it was discovered during its stage 2 complaint investigation. The landlord acknowledged internally that the subcontractor had not followed its process in attempting to access the property – which it described as “two failed attempts with cards and then referring it to us/housing officer for assistance”. However, it is of concern that the landlord appeared to have no mechanism in place to detect repairs which had been closed by its contractors or subcontractors due to no access – particularly those which had been identified as urgent.
The landlord appropriately reraised the shower repair on 8 December 2022. Despite it advising the representative that its contractor would be in touch with the resident to book an appointment, the contractor attended unannounced and did not leave a card or any other indication that it had visited. This could have resulted in the repair being further delayed – were it not being actively monitored by the landlord as part of its complaints process.
The repair was subsequently rebooked for 23 December 2022. The contractor reasonably agreed to postpone ‘stripping out’ the wall until after the Christmas period at the resident’s request. However, it is unclear why the repair was then not completed until 24 February 2023 – 8 weeks after the Christmas period had ended.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised that it would carry out a further inspection, once the shower leak was repaired, to assess redecoration required to ‘make good’ the bathroom. The landlord has not provided any evidence that this was completed. A further surveyor’s inspection was carried out, but not until 5 October 2023 – after the representative had referred the complaint to this Service.
The landlord also arranged for its contractor to carry out a mould wash in the property, which was completed on 15 December 2022. During this the contractor identified repair issues with the pointing and windows – both of which can be contributing factors in damp and mould. The landlord advised the representative, on 20 December 2022, that its surveyor would inspect these to establish what was required. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that this was done, and no further information regarding this was contained in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the delays in addressing the shower leak and offered an appropriate apology. It also advised it had implemented a new procedure for managing damp and mould cases to try and avoid such delays in future.
The landlord offered £300 compensation – £100 of which would be paid by it, with a further £200 from its contractor – in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident and his wife had experienced. However, considering the length of the delays, vulnerability of the resident and his wife (who were reliant on others to advocate for them), and level of inconvenience caused by them being unable to shower in the property for an extended period, the Ombudsman does not consider this offer to represent reasonable redress in the matter.
The landlord’s compensation offer also failed to consider the costs of running the dehumidifier, as well as water lost through the leak over the lengthy period of delay – which it should reasonably reimburse the resident for.
In summary, although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made an offer of compensation to the resident, this did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the vulnerable elderly resident and failed to consider the costs he had incurred. The landlord also failed to follow up on concerns regarding the pointing and windows raised by its contractor and to assess redecoration after the leak had been repaired – both of which it had committed to in its stage 2 complaint response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

Although the landlord acknowledged some of its failings and made an offer of compensation to the resident, this did not reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the vulnerable elderly resident and failed to consider the costs he had incurred. The landlord also failed to follow up on concerns regarding the pointing and windows raised by its contractor and to assess redecoration after the leak had been repaired – both of which it had committed to in its stage 2 complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £550 composed of:
  1. £130 for the estimated costs of running the dehumidifier for 35 days.
  2. £120 for the estimated costs of water lost due to its delay in addressing the shower leak.
  3. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould.

These amounts are in addition to the compensation previously paid by the landlord and its contractor following its stage 2 complaint response.

Carry out a further damp and mould inspection of the property including a check of the pointing and windows. This should be conducted by a surveyor who has not previously inspected the property in order to obtain a second opinion. The resident should be given the option of arranging this for a time and date when his representative can be present. A copy of the inspection report should be supplied to the resident and this Service.
Arrange a meeting between the resident, his wife and the scheme Retirement Living Advisor to ensure that:
1. All vulnerabilities, contact preferences and reasonable adjustments are appropriately recorded on the landlord’s systems and made available to its repairs contactors.
2. The landlord has ‘made good’ all decorative damage caused by works carried out in the property.

The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.