Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202011308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011308

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

26 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it will keep all fixtures and fittings in the property for the supply of heating and hot water in repair and in proper working order.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook also confirms that it is responsible for addressing plumbing repairs and leaks.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook additionally details a response time of three working days for urgent repairs, for example minor leaks.
As per the landlord’s corporate complaints policy, it adopts a formal two-stage complaints process, with a response timeframe of 15 working days for stage one complaints, and 20 working days for its final stage complaint response. It confirms that it may be necessary to extend these timescales for the resolution of complex complaints. In such cases, it would inform the resident of the reasons why timescales cannot be met, and advise them on when it would provide a full response.

Background

The resident made a previous complaint to the landlord about damp and mould issues which completed its complaints procedure in January 2020. While this is outlined below for contextual purposes, this investigation will focus on events from the conclusion of this historical complaint onwards.
The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a one-bedroom, third floor flat.
The resident had raised the issue of damp and mould in her property in October 2019. This was investigated by the landlord, which had found a water leak in the service duct of the resident’s bathroom. It therefore carried out an asbestos survey before repairing the service duct in February 2020.
This was subject to a formal complaint investigation by the landlord, with £250 compensation being agreed in settlement of the complaint in January 2020.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records confirm that a work order was raised on 10 February 2020, due to “excessive mould” at the resident’s property. It requested work to remove panelling behind the resident’s toilet, trace the leak and replace the panelling with a board prior to redecorating. The landlord’s repair history for the property confirms that this order was marked as complete, with no further information provided.
On 26 May 2020, the resident submitted a fresh stage one complaint to the landlord, stating the following:
1. She had complained in November 2019 about damp and mould in her bathroom, which had no window, and was given a timescale of up to two months from “over [four] surveyors” for the issues to be resolved. However, she was later informed that it would need to search the building to identify the source of the leak.
2. The resident’s and her daughter’s asthma were deteriorating.
3. She felt that she was entitled to compensation as the leak was “getting worse”.
On 11 June 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response to the resident, which is summarised below:
1. It recognised, during its inspection in December 2019, that the resident’s “bathroom needed to be rubbed down and the bathroom would need to be redecorated”. It therefore apologised to her for the following: for sending more surveyors who said the same thing; for not completing this work until February 2020; and for this work not resolving the problems experienced by the resident.
2. In respect of the landlord searching the building, it informed the resident that this did not take place, as “the problem was the service duct in the bathroom”, which was fixed in February 2020.
3. As it understood the resident was still having issues, it would arrange for a specialist damp contractor to contact the resident directly to address the issue.
4. It upheld the resident’s complaint, as it had “taken a while before works began”, and the root cause of the issue had not been resolved. It offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
On 11 June 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, stating the following:

The landlord’s compensation offer of £50 was not sufficient. The resident highlighted that the landlord had offered more in November 2019, and things had got worse since that time.
She had been left with damp and mould in her windowless bathroom and “nothing had been sorted regarding the mould”. She therefore wished to escalate her complaint.

On 18 June 2020, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It recognised that “there was poor service” to the resident, who had to wait “longer than necessary” before work began in her property. It apologised for this, as well as for the inconvenience that it had caused the resident, and confirmed that it had instructed a specialist damp contractor to investigate and resolve the issues that would contact her directly for an appointment.
2. It increased its compensation offer to £250, in acknowledgement of its findings as detailed above, and recognised that works were still to be completed to fully address the issues identified.
On 18 June 2020, the resident responded to the landlord, stating the following:
1. She did not accept the compensation offer of £250, as it did not “solve the problem for the time being”. The resident and her daughter did not want to have a bath or shower in the property because of the impact on their health of taking one, and she felt that the property was not safe for either of them including due to their breathing difficulties and her daughter’s coughing when sleeping in the next room.
2. The resident did not feel that the complaint had been dealt with fairly by the landlord, and that it was offering her “a little amount of money” to satisfy her. She also highlighted her belief that the offer was not enough “for the living conditions [she] and [her] child have had to deal with for this amount of time.”
On 5 January 2021, the resident referred the complaint to this Service, stating the following:
1. The damp and mould in her flat had affected her and her daughter’s health over the last 13 months, with the mould now spreading into other rooms. The landlord had refused to help or move her to another property and had offered her an unsatisfactory level of compensation that she had declined.
2. To put matters right, the resident ideally wanted to move to another property, but “at least for it to be repaired”.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has advised that the stress and inconvenience of her complaint, together with the damp and mould, have had a negative impact on her and her daughter’s mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s comments regarding her and her daughter’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing in the way that a court or insurer might because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused her.
The resident has also requested to be re-housed as a result of the issues detailed within this report and as the outcome to her complaint. Nevertheless, this Service cannot consider complaints which relate to applications for re-housing dealt with by or on behalf of local authorities such as the landlord that meet the reasonable preference criteria. Complaints about the assessment, handling and determination of such applications instead fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
Upon receipt of the resident’s latest reports of damp and mould, the landlord was obliged to inspect the nature of the issue, and complete suitable repairs in accordance with its repairs responsibilities. This is in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook above at paragraphs 2 and 3.
The resident reported continued issues with damp and mould in her property on 10 February 2020. This Service has been provided with no further information on this request. As the resident had continued to experience issues, she submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord on 26 May 2020, which advised the resident on 11 June 2020 that it would instruct a specialist contractor to address the issues in the property, as well then offering her £250 compensation in its stage two final complaint response of 18 June 2020.
It was fair for the landlord to seek specialist advice to support the complaint resolution, and this demonstrated the landlord’s desire to resolve the complaint. However, the landlord failed to act upon the work order from February 2020 to successfully resolve the damp and mould at the property at that time, as it was required to by the resident’s tenancy agreement and its repairs and maintenance handbook, and there is no evidence that it responded to this within the handbook’s three-working-day timescale for it to do so. This resulted in additional time, trouble and distress for the resident in submitting her complaint to the landlord, which was unreasonable.
However, the landlord’s subsequent apology and compensation offer to the resident of £250 for this was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, where awards of £250 to £700 can be made where considerable service failure has been found, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples could include a failure over a considerable period of time to address repairs. This was therefore a reasonable offer of compensation from the landlord, which proportionately acknowledged the likely degree of detriment experienced by the resident due to its acknowledged failures, and so it has been recommended to pay this to the resident below if it has not done so already.
The landlord also demonstrated that it acted appropriately to seek to put right the outstanding damp and mould at the property by confirming to the resident on 18 June 2020 that it had instructed a specialist damp contractor to investigate and resolve the issues that would contact her directly for an appointment. This was suitable because it showed that it sought to rectify these issues with the assistance of an expert contractor that was better placed to resolve them than it was.
In summary, the landlord subsequently responded reasonably to the damp and mould reports by acknowledging that the resident had found the situation distressing and upsetting, as a result of its delay in handling the repair which constituted a failure to resolve this in a timely manner. However, the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaint to fully investigate the reports, recognise its failure in service, and adequately redress those failings by offering appropriate compensation and a specialist damp contractor’s appointment.
Although this Service was able to determine this complaint using the information that was made available by the landlord, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of their actions including in relation to repairs and maintenance. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records, including surveyors’ reports in relation to the complaint. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
It is therefore recommended below that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps, expectations and outcomes were, together with when they occurred.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord delayed addressing the damp and mould issues reported by the resident, in communicating with the resident and it exhibited failures in record keeping.
The landlord has acknowledged its failures in service to the resident and offered compensation which was proportionate to the likely impact that its failures had on the resident, as well as a specialist damp contractor’s appointment to resolve the damp and mould.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. If it has not done so already, pay the amount of £250 compensation to the resident which it offered her in its final stage complaint response on 18 June 2020.
2. Take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all correspondence, repairs and maintenance are recorded and retained so that they can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.