Harlow District Council (202011433)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011433

Harlow District Council

9 August 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 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould and damp in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is also the local authority. The tenancy commenced in August 2018. The property is a one bedroom flat on the second floor of the building.
The resident’s child was diagnosed with a chest infection in January 2020. The resident has raised concerns about the condition of the property given her child’s health.
The complaint correspondence discussed the resident’s housing application and reports of overcrowding. This element of the complaint is not within the scope of this investigation, although it may be referenced as part of the background.
The resident and landlord may discuss the resident’s housing options and the landlord may signpost the resident to the appropriate authority in case of unresolved complaints about the assessment of a resident’s housing need. For reference, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman may consider complaints about the local authority’s decision in respect of its housing allocation or banding.

Policies

The Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) sets out the landlord’s repair obligations to keep up the standard of repair throughout the tenancy and to put the premises into repair if it was not in good repair, at any time when disrepair is reported.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or, at the very least, minimising potential hazards. Under this rating system the landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including damp and mould growth. This means taking preventative measures that could have a significant effect on harm outcomes relating to moisture production and ventilation.
The landlord’s repair policy states there is a standard priority for damp repairs (penetrating, rising and condensation (minor works)). It comments that a housing inspection is to be arranged to identify cause if required – minor works only. The timescale for a standard priority repair is under 20 working days (under 15 working days for vulnerable persons). For planned priority works the timescale is within 9 months and for urgent priority the timescale is under five working days.
In respect of the pandemic restrictions, the Ombudsman will consider what was sensible and appropriate given all the circumstances of the complaint and law and guidance in place at the time. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have acted within the law and guidance, unless there were clear reasons to do something else and this achieved a fair outcome for the resident. Each individual landlord is responsible for keeping a proper audit trail of its decision making in relation to the provision of services and the operation of a complaints procedure during any local lockdown.
The landlord operates a three stage complaint procedure. This states that complaints will initially be acknowledged within two working days and responded to within ten working days by a service manager. If the resident is dissatisfied within 28 days, they can escalate the complaint which will be responded to within ten working days by a head of service. If the resident remains dissatisfied within 28 days, they can escalate the complaint which will be responded to within 15 working days by a managing director.
The landlord’s remedies guidance states that remedies may be awarded for complaints which are upheld. The remedies range from an apology, an explanation (of what happened and what the landlord will do to ensure it does not arise again), the provision of a service, or compensation as a last resort from the relevant service department’s budget and decided by the chief executive.

Summary of events

The resident first reported damp and mould in the kitchen and bedroom on 26 November 2019. In response, on 29 November 2019 the landlord requested a damp inspection. This was carried out on 9 January 2020.
On 10 January 2020 the surveyor told the landlord that it found “minor mould and possibly undersized radiators” and that it would have the mould removed, surfaces treated and heating checked. It said that the humidity which the resident quoted (90%) was too much, there was poor use of heating and existing ventilation, and this was causing condensation problems.
The surveyor recommended a work order to remove mould from window reveals to lounge/bedroom and top of walls to the bedroom external wall and from inside the bedroom cupboard and to carry out three stage mould treatment, with notice given to the resident to clear out the bedroom cupboard as the space was restricted.
The surveyor also requested a heating survey to be carried out as it believed the radiators could be undersized.
The heating inspection was carried out on 30 January 2020. The surveyor said that the “living room existing radiator was undersized and positioned under the window at one end of the room, this is causing the heat to be all at one end of the living room, which is causing the opposite end of the room to be cold”. It recommended that the landlord replace the living room radiator and also install an additional one.
On 3 February 2020 the landlord asked internally for the recommended works to be considered urgently and in light of the resident’s doctor’s note about health conditions. This was “agreed” but the works were not carried out.
On 24 February 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident said that there was an issue since before Christmas, there was “mould growing and spreading in the bedroom wall and around the window sill. It has a really strong smell…coming also into the living room”. The resident said that her daughter had been to hospital with breathing problems and was “coughing constantly through the night. She has been sleeping in the living room on the sofa which is quite hard to get a good night sleep”. The resident also said that she had been calling constantly and been advised that someone would call back which she found frustrating. The resident asked for work to be done as quickly as possible as it was affecting her daughter.
The landlord enquired internally how long the work would take, there is no follow up on this until June 2020 when the resident chased this again.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 4 March 2020. This said “following the inspection carried out by (the landlord’s housing surveyor) on the 9 January 2020 an order was raised to our contractor… to carry out mould treatment works and a revised appointment has been made for the 23 March 2020. We have also requested for a contractor … to contact you to carry out a survey of the current heating including radiators, once we receive their report our surveyor will contact you with an update…your complaint has not been upheld as the council have not completed the works that were agreed to be carried out”.
On 16 March 2020 the landlord enquired internally about whether there had been damp or mould works and if not whether this could be carried out. The notes state that the resident was called, but had not answered, so no appointment had been arranged. The landlord investigated the records to see if there was evidence of letters sent or screen prints to show calls made; the Ombudsman has not had sight of this. Evidence of the landlord’s communication to the resident to arrange the works has not been provided.
In June 2020 there were several streams of correspondence between the resident to the landlord and between the landlord’s internal departments.
1. The landlord enquired internally on 16 June 2020 if work had been booked in yet following its enquiry earlier in the year in February 2020.
2. On 18 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and conveyed her concern about the mould in the property and the damage to her daughter’s health and their belongings. She detailed her daughter’s condition and her own mental health conditions (depression and anxiety). She provided images which show the mould on the resident’s items, black coloured mould in one ceiling corner of a room dripping down, spots of mould on the walls surrounding the window frame, various forms of medication which her child was given at hospital and an image of a paramedic treating a child in the property. The resident also provided a copy of a hospital letter from 27 January 2020 which said that the resident’s daughter suffered from a chronic cough, she had been admitted for chest infection. The letter said that that “there is a considerable amount of damp in the house in particular the bedroom and mum feels this is aggravating her cough”.
3. On 18 June 2020 the operative for the heating work explained that before the pandemic it was awaiting cost approval, it provided an update on the cost and asked the landlord to approve the cost and raise the order so that it could contact the resident to book in the works.
4. On 18 and 22 June 2020 the landlord requested internally for this to proceed.
5. On 23 June 2020 there was an internal request for the work to proceed. (It next asked for an update in November 2020).
6. In response, internal communication referred to the work booked in June seemingly as reference to the work proceeding. However, it appears that this was the original email from the heating surveyor (18 June) which explained the cost situation and that it required the landlord to raise the work order.
7. There was no work order raised, although the landlord had asked for the work to proceed several times.
There were arranged visits in July, September and October 2020, some of which were missed or rescheduled. During the visit the housing officer and resident were in discussion about housing options (July 2020). On 22 October 2020 the resident asked about the mould treatment work, the landlord “knocked” for the resident on 27 October 2020 but said there was no answer.
There is no evidence the operative had arranged a visit to the property to carry out the work order for the repairs identified earlier in the year. There is no evidence that a work order had ever been raised at the time.
On 3 November 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said that:
1. There was ongoing mould and damp since last year.
2. Her housing officer inspected the property in (roughly) June 2020 and said it was cramped; he would discuss this with the housing options team as there was overcrowding. The resident had to chase the housing officer “a few times” for an update and he arranged a follow up visit in September. Due to health circumstances the resident could not meet the housing officer, and she was unsuccessful in following up (“emailed him several times, called his direct number many times, left messages and hasn’t heard a thing back”).
3. Her three year old had asthma and the damp was making it worse.
4. Her personal belongings were “ruined due to this mould”.
5. She wanted the damp and mould to be resolved and in light of the property size the “only conclusion is to be offered an alternative property”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s enquiry and said this was being treated as a stage one complaint on 16 November 2020. It said:
1. There was a visit from a surveyor in January 2020 who did a damp inspection and raised a job for mould treatment.
2. A heating survey identified the need for a larger radiator which was ordered.
3. The surveyor provided the resident with information about condensation.
4. The housing officer arranged a visit on 2 July 2020 and did not see any significant areas of damp or mould.
5. The housing officer said that clutter was contributing to the condensation levels, it said it would check on the resident’s banding/bidding.
6. There was a visit arranged for 25 September 2020, the landlord visited but there was no answer and the resident emailed an hour later asking if he was going to make it.
7. Another appointment was arranged for October 2020 but this could not be met by the resident due to medical reasons.
8. The resident emailed the housing officer on 22 October 2020 to ask him to arrange another appointment regarding damp/mould. The housing officer knocked at the address on 27 October 2020 but there was no answer. There were further communications made by the resident which were unanswered, during a time the housing officer was away from the office.
9. The landlord would ask the surveyor to undertake a follow up inspection with the housing officer to assess the property. This would be arranged once restrictions eased in early December.
10. The housing officer asked the housing options team about the resident’s banding and they confirmed she was in band two priority.
11. It did not uphold the complaint and advised of the escalation process.
The resident remained dissatisfied (20 November 2020) as:
1. She did not find the stage one complaint response to be accurate; there was mould and damp issues for over a year with no remedy.
1. She had been told to self treat the mould and so, when the landlord attended (in July), it did not get a true assessment of the situation.
2. The landlord did not visit as it said it would in July/August; the resident waited in all day. The landlord said no one was there. There was a rebooked visit but this was cancelled as the resident was in hospital, she did not hear back from the landlord even though she chased it following this. There was no help with the damp and mould issue.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 3 December 2020. It explained that it would not uphold the complaint as:
1. An inspection was carried out on 9 January 2020 which found the damp was caused by condensation. A job was carried out on 23 March 2020 to remove mould to the window in the lounge and bedroom, the wall in the bedroom and the bedroom cupboard.
2. A heating survey was carried out on 30 January 2020; this recommended the lounge radiator be replaced with a larger one and a further radiator be installed with associated pipework. This was delayed due to the lockdown but would be completed as soon as possible; the housing officer would communicate the proposed commencement date.
3. It would request a further survey to address the resident’s present concerns, once the restrictions were relaxed.
4. During a visit by the housing officer (2 July 2020) the resident said that the housing officer said that the house was overcrowded and it would contact the housing options team about the resident’s rehousing options.
5. The landlord said the officer did not recall making this comment, it said the resident’s housing need assessment showed a high need to move and she had been prioritised as band 2 with a date of 19 March 2020 in accordance with the Council’s allocation scheme due to overcrowding. It acknowledged that the resident submitted a medical form with supporting documents and a further needs assessment was being carried out to see if additional priority should be awarded.
6. It referred the resident to the complaint process and detailed how it could be escalated to stage three.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2020 and said that:
1. The works were not completed on 23 March 2020.
2. The housing officer did say the house was overcrowded and contacted housing options who changed the resident’s banding because her daughter turned three.
3. She was not given information on how to reduce condensation or damp at home.
4. She wanted to know where the landlord got this information from; this was taking a toll on her mental health.
5. The resident wanted the landlord to look into the matter to understand what had happened in the last two years.
The landlord issued a final response on 7 December 2020. The record states the reason “having investigated this, I can advise you that your complaint has not been upheld as the Council followed its policies and procedures”. The response said:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response and said that it needed to ensure all the information is available and investigated in order to provide a full response.
2. It apologised for the inaccurate statement that mould treatment works were undertaken on 23 March 2020; it said this was cancelled due to covid–19.
3. It detailed a visit on 2 July 2020 and follow up arrangement on 2 October 2020 which was cancelled. It detailed the discussion about the housing application.
4. It said the works identified in the heating survey took longer to arrange due to lockdown periods, the housing officer would advise the resident of the date when this could take place when this information became available.
5. It referred to information on how to reduce condensation and said this was an important step the resident must take to reduce condensation.
6. It requested a further survey to be undertaken by the surveyor to assess present concerns once the restrictions relaxed.
7. The landlord arranged to replace the lounge radiator and install an additional radiator and pipework; this would take place once pandemic measures relaxed and the housing officer was to keep in contact with the resident to update her.
8. It did not uphold the complaint and referred the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
After the complaint was concluded and as of February 2021 the outstanding work included:
1. Painting (as per an email dated 24 February 2021).
2. Remove mould from window reveals to lounge/bedroom and from top of walls to bedroom external wall and from inside bedroom cupboard and carry out 3 stage mould treatment.
3. A further survey proposed by the landlord in the stage three response of January 2021, this was to assess the resident’s present circumstances.
In July 2021 the Ombudsman enquired with both the resident and landlord about the status of the work. The resident said:
1. The landlord’s operative attended to do a mould treatment in April 2021 – July 2021. The landlord treated and also painted the areas affected by mould. The resident believed the mould would return.
2. The landlord also wanted to install a radiator but the resident declined because she disagreed with the location, this was proposed in the area where her daughter plays and the resident was worried this would be unsafe.
3. The resident was currently sharing a bed with her daughter because the landlord told her to remove the crib/bed for her daughter as this would be a breach of her tenancy agreement. (This was possibly due to the cramped condition inside the property, but this is not clear).
The landlord confirmed that:
1. The mould treatment work was “completed on 16 July 2021 for the damp and mould and first course”.
2. The operative contacted the resident on 7 May 2021 to book in the heating work but this was declined and they were told there was an ongoing dispute with the landlord, this job was now cancelled.
3. There was no record of the conversation regarding the bed, this would not breach the tenancy conditions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord is responsible for responding to reports of damp and mould and taking necessary remedial actions under its repairing obligations. The resident first reported mould on 26 November 2019. An inspection was raised later in November 2019. The inspection was carried out on 9 January 2020 and the surveyor communicated the outcome and identified the required works to the landlord on 10 January 2020.
The landlord had an opportunity before the first lockdown, between 10 January 2020 – 26 March 2020, to complete the works. It then had a further opportunity after the first lockdown and before the second lockdown from June 2020 – November 2020. The landlord raised the work order in February 2021 after the third lockdown of November 2020 – February/March 2021. The work was carried out in April-July 2021, this was a “first course” so it appears the treatment may not yet be complete. The landlord was not proactive in following up with the works once these had been identified, by making sure a work order was raised and completed.
As per the repair policy timescale, the repair priority for damp is ‘standard’ which carries a timescale of under 20 working days (and under 15 for vulnerable tenants). When the resident chased this in February 2020, she provided details of her daughter’s health condition with the view that the mould and damp was not helping her condition. Having learned of the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to prioritise the repairs accordingly. Its internal enquiries of February, June and November 2020 did not result in action being taken. Its initial internal enquiry about the outstanding work in February 2020 conveyed the urgency of the repair in light of the resident’s daughter’s health circumstances, therefore there was an awareness of the high priority of the repair but no follow up action or completion.
As part of its response to the resident’s service complaint, the landlord cited the pandemic restrictions and the resident’s cancellation. However:
1. The resident’s cancellation of October 2020 was not in relation to an operative’s visit to carry out the repairs; this is evident as the work order was only raised in February 2021. The correspondence about the meetings in June-October referred to discussions about the housing options and not when the work order would be raised or repairs completed. Furthermore, irrespective of the meetings, the repair work was recommended in January 2020 and the landlord had internally chased the work order two times before, with no response to confirm the orders had been raised. It was therefore aware that this was outstanding.
2. The pandemic restrictions do not account for the entirety of the period in which there was a delay in completing the works. As stated above, the landlord could have completed the work before the first lockdown and then before the second lockdown. There were two periods in which there were missed opportunities for the landlord to engage with the resident and order the work. This is unreasonable given the known vulnerabilities of the resident and her daughter as well as the lack of confirmative response to its own internal enquiries about whether the works had been raised.
In respect of the heating replacement, installation and associated pipe work, the landlord was informed of the need for this repair on 30 January 2020 after it carried out the heating inspection 10 January 2020. It said on two occasions someone would be in touch with the resident but the evidence has not demonstrated that this happened.
The heating replacement and installation was identified as a response to the cold and damp in the property and it is considered to have the same repair timescale as the damp work (‘standard’). As with the mould work, the landlord could have done this within a reasonable timeframe outside of the pandemic restrictions.
Having delayed this into the first and second lockdowns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord have been proactive in discussing an action plan with the resident to identify any hazards to her or her daughter’s health or to implement interim steps (such as offering temporary heating). Instead, the landlord’s communication has been limited and its complaint response has not considered the impact that these outstanding repairs have had on the resident.
This repair remained outstanding at the close of the complaint in January 2021. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy timescale. Once the landlord contacted the resident to arrange the installation of the radiator in May 2021, she declined. There is limited evidence to demonstrate the landlord’s actions in respect of the replacement radiator in the living room.
The resident already told the landlord of her daughter’s health circumstances (asthmatic, chronic cough) as well as how this was affecting her own mental health. The resident also told the landlord that the mould was affecting her personal items and her mental health (depressed and anxious). While the landlord was aware of these issues, and the resident’s concerns, it failed to take appropriate action to resolve the damp, although it had already identified works that should be completed. It would have been reasonable for it demonstrate consideration of interim steps to mitigate the impact of the repairs while they were outstanding.
Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to resident’s the reports of mould and damp. There was an unreasonable delay between January and March 2020 in completing the repairs required to address the mould in the property, then again from June 2020 until November 2020. The landlord did not ensure the property was free from mould as per its HHSRS obligations.
In respect of the complaint handling, the landlord did not use the opportunity under its complaint process to accurately reflect on the service that it provided, consider the impact of its delays and failure to carry out the outstanding work. Having established that it inspected the property in early 2020 and the outcome of that inspection, it did not consider the reasonableness of its service since then, despite several opportunities to do so. Its final response cited the same reasoning as the initial complaint response, and its assessment stopped there. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to also investigate whether its repair policy timescales had been met, identify any service failure and award appropriate redress. This would have been resolution focused and in line with the dispute resolution principles to put things right. Therefore, there has been service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure in respect of the complaint handling.

Reasons

There has been an unreasonable delay by the landlord in carrying out the appropriate repairs once these were identified in January 2020. Although the landlord has attributed some of the delays in its repair service to the pandemic, the evidence seen does not show that it took reasonable steps to raise the work order to complete the repairs during those times where it would have been reasonable to do so, outside of the lockdowns.
The landlord did not identify the service failure in its complaint response despite at least four opportunities to do so, in the initial complaint and then the subsequent complaint which reached stage three of its internal complaint process. Its responses did not consider the impact of the delay on the resident’s circumstances, if its repair timescales were met, if it could award redress for any delays or offer interim measures to mitigate the impact of the outstanding repair on the resident and her vulnerable daughter.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident with the details of its action plan for any outstanding mould treatment work. This includes the proposed appointments to complete any mould treatment course, if outstanding.
2. Pay the resident £500 for distress and inconvenience due to the delay in completing the damp and mould work.
3. Discuss with the resident the possible location options for installing an additional radiator in the property.
4. Arrange with the resident the outstanding work to the living room radiator.
5. Pay the resident £50 for inconvenience due to the complaint handling.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that:
1. The landlord and resident discuss the situation regarding the resident’s daughter’s bed and it provide clear communication on whether she can put this back up, if she wishes to do so.
2. The landlord confirm that it will revise its complaint response to those complaints where a repair is outstanding; it should still consider the impact of the outstanding repair whether or not this has been completed if the resident has experienced delays. As per the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (section 3.15) at the completion of each stage of the complaint process the landlord should advise the resident of the details of outstanding actions and the details of any remedy to put things right.