Harlow District Council (202219873)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219873

Harlow District Council

6 October 2023

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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s decision not to increase her medical priority banding following a medical assessment.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, (“the Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman considers that the part of the resident’s complaint that relates to the assessment of priority banding following a medical assessment is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme says that, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”
Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (“the LGSCO”) and this Ombudsman, complaints about assessments of bandings decisions within a choice-based lettings scheme, are matters for the LGSCO to consider.
The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould at the property and the landlord’s complaints handling are investigated below.

Relevant legal and policy frameworks

The landlord’s duty to keep in good repair and the landlord’s repairs policy.

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s tenant repairs policy says it will handle penetrating, rising and condensation reports of damp (minor works) in under 20 working days and in under 15 working days for those tenants who are vulnerable.

Damp and mould

Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be either avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
This service’s report, “Spotlight on: Damp and Mould, It’s not lifestyle”, (“the report”), published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords and they should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems; and clearly communicate to residents about actions.
The report says that where the cause of damp and mould is non-structural it can be too simplistic to blame residents for drying their laundry on radiators if there is no space in their home for a tumble dryer or the weather is poor, other than those residents fortunate enough to have outdoor space. It stresses that using the term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is the resident’s choice to live in that way. It stressed that occupancy factors do not mean that the landlord has no responsibility, and landlords should take reasonable steps in partnership with residents in these circumstances including considering improving ventilation or other appropriate measures.
In the absence of any specific policies and procedures, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to respond to reports of damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, a period of 28 days is reasonable in the circumstances and in line with common practice in the industry, however, the context of each delay will be taken into account.
The landlord did not provide this service with a copy of its damp and mould policy but said that it was in the process of being updated to ensure a zero-tolerance approach to dealing with and delivering solutions to damp.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage one it says it will take a maximum of 10 working days to respond. At stage 2 it says it will provide a full response within 15 working days.

Scope

The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact she considers her living circumstances has caused to her and her family. This service cannot assess medical evidence and is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Claims of personal injury must be decided by courts of law who can consider medial evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the resident says she has been caused by her and her family’s circumstances.
Some of the resident’s reports of damp and/or condensation go back to shortly after she first began her tenancy in September 2018. However, paragraph 42(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”) sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. In this case, the complaint the Ombudsman is considering was first raised with the landlord on 19 August 2022. Therefore, while the Ombudsman has looked at records which go back to September 2018 for context, we have not made any findings on the period between September 2018 and January 2022, which is the point at which this service has started its investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlords, occupying a fourth floor one bedroom flat with her husband and 2 children. However, at the time of writing the landlord informed this service that the resident had made a successful bid for a 2 bedroom property which she was due to view.
She reports that her son was diagnosed with asthma in or around January 2022 and that her daughter also suffers intermittently with breathing issues. She has carpel tunnel syndrome and back problems, which the landlord says it became aware of on 23 June 2022.
The resident’s tenancy started in September 2018. Shortly after beginning her tenancy, she reported issues with condensation at the property. At that time, she said she had to remove mould from her windows at least once a week. She said she had been sent a condensation leaflet and told to follow the information within for 6 to 8 weeks before any further action would be taken. She said she had been advised to open her windows slightly or open trickle vents (which she said she had also been told she could not use). She said she had taken measures such as avoiding doing any washing and sending it to her parents so that she would not have any damp clothes in the flat. However, she said that even with all the steps she had taken, including purchasing 4 dehumidifiers and an electric humidifier, her son had already had 2 chest infections and ear infections. She said that opening her windows in a freezing flat (at the time of writing it was November), was not an option.
The landlord responded at the time by removing the mould, completing a heating survey and a ventilation survey. This resulted in the installation of new radiators and fans in the kitchen and bathroom of the property.
On 31 March 2022 the resident requested a surveyor to visit again. She said that even though she had previously had fans and radiators installed at the property, she could not keep the damp at bay. She complained that it kept returning.
A note on the landlord’s systems on 1 April 2022 said that damp had last been looked at in February 2019, so a survey was appropriate. The survey went ahead, and a report was issued on 4 May 2022.
The report said, among other things, that:
1. The property suffered from damp consistent with condensation, with black mould growth, mostly found affecting areas of external walls including windows.
2. The average internal humidity levels measured air moisture at 81%. This is higher than normal.
3. The causes of condensation were considered to be intermittent heating. Room temperatures were low during the visit and the surveyor said the heating was not in use.
4. It also considered that poor ventilation was another cause. The property had double glazed windows with closed trickle vents and low ceilings which limited air circulation. The report said most rooms were relatively small which limited air movement and the main curtains were closed during daylight. The report also said an issue was internal drying of laundry and furnishing and storage being kept against external walls.
5. It said examples of mould could be seen to be affecting the bedroom, kitchen and bathroom external walls. The report confirmed that 2 sections of wall in the bedroom were affected by black mould/condensation.
6. It recommended a thorough irrigation cleaning with diluted household bleach or a proprietary fungicidal wall solution followed by 2 coats of anti mould emulsion.
The landlord followed up the report with a letter to the resident on 5 May 2022.
It repeated that the damp in her property was caused by condensation and not from external sources or internal plumbing leaks. It said it had raised an order to remove and treat the mould.
It provided advice to avoid condensation, saying that because of the higher-than-normal humidity levels in the property, there was a significant risk of condensation occurring during morning and evening periods. It pointed out that washing, bathing and cooking are likely to be undertaken during these times which would increase the moisture in the property. It advised her to heat her property at a low level over a longer period and to open all trickle vents or regularly open the windows. It enclosed a condensation guide to provide further advice on how to reduce the condensation in her home.
It also confirmed that it had arranged a ventilation survey to be completed which the records appear to show was ordered on 6 May 2022.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord received a quote to install a ventilation fan in the resident’s bedroom along with servicing the already present fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It was noted that there might be some issues with the bedroom installation because the property was listed and therefore approval was needed.
On 31 May 2022 a health visitor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. She said the resident said the mould was affecting her son’s breathing and she had advised her to send the landlord medical evidence. She commented, “The 4 year old child is diagnosed with asthma, which is greatly exacerbated by damp and mould spores.” She noted that the resident’s baby had also been treated for another breathing condition.
She said the landlord had previously provided fans (in 2018), but these were not working. She said the family had used mould prevention materials to no avail and asked the landlord to provide any assistance it could. She stressed that the situation was “…causing deep concern and stress to both parents, which is detrimental to their emotional wellbeing and that of their children.”
The landlord responded to the health visitor, providing a copy of the most recent report and the condensation advice it had sent to the resident. It also informed her it had made an appointment for a ventilation surveyor to attend at the property on 24 June 2022 to complete damp works in the bedroom and the bathroom.
On the same date a landlord housing officer checked with the housing team whether it had received the medical evidence from the resident about her son. They referred to the communication from the health visitor as above. They said the landlord’s surveyor might need to re-inspect the property. They added: “…this is more than likely not helped by size of flat and size of family other factors could be lifestyle/condensation.”
The resident completed an online Medical Needs Assessment Form for her son on 2 June 2022 which was supported by the information provided by her health visitor. The resident said that the main room that contained mould in the flat was the bedroom where her son slept.
On 23 June 2022 the resident provided a letter from her GP. He supported the resident’s request for a move, citing her children’s illnesses, which he said “…are likely to be the result of inhalation of damp/mould.”
On 24 June 2022 the landlord arranged for the mould wash suggested by the surveyor in May 2022.
On 12 July 2022 the resident sent the landlord photographs showing pictures of mould and condensation in the property. She also sent a picture of medication used for asthma.
On 3 August 2022 the resident asked the landlord if there was any update on actions to be taken by the landlord on the damp. The landlord informed her the next day that an order had been raised for a fan to be installed in her bedroom and for the fans in her bathroom and kitchen to be serviced. The installation and servicing were completed on 16 August 2022.
On 18 August 2022 the resident received the landlord’s response to her request to be moved up the priority banding to move to a new property for medical reasons. It had been refused. She wrote to the landlord asking how it considered that a breathing issue was not enough evidence to provide additional priority under medical grounds.
On 19 August 2022 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property and the priority banding decision. She said, among other things, that:
1. She had provided evidence of the damp/mould in her flat in the form of photographs. She said this was supported by the landlord’s damp/mould report, showing humidity levels of 81%.
2. She considered she had lived in damp conditions for nearly 4 years, exacerbating her son’s asthma, which she said significantly affected his day-to-day life. She also said her 10-month-old had medical issues. She said her GP said their medical conditions were highly likely caused by their living environment.
3. The landlord had a duty to ensure the family were living in suitable conditions. She felt that others had been moved within her block who had less serious medical issues.
On 22 August 2022 the resident’s MP also contacted the landlord. He forwarded an email from the resident. She asked the landlord to repeat its humidity test during the winter months, when she considered it would be higher. She also noted that she had purchased a dehumidifier to address the issues.
On 16 September 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint. It said, among other things, that:
1. The resident had been advised that the property was suffering from condensation, and she had been given advice to deal with this.
2. Damp treatments were applied to the walls and ceilings in the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen on 24 June 2022.
3. Following advice from the landlord’s surveyor, an advanced ventilation unit was fitted in her bedroom and fans in the bedroom and kitchen were serviced on 16 August 2022.
4. It said that having reviewed her bidding history; it was apparent that she was making regular bids for a 2 bedroom house. It explained that the estimated waiting time for that type of property was a further 12 months. However, if she wished to consider a 2 bedroom flat, “…an offer of this type of accommodation would be imminent.”
5. Her complaint was not upheld. It was the landlord’s view that it had followed all due processes and procedures when assessing the resident’s medical needs, communication with officers and the condition of her property.
On 4 October 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. Among other things she said that:
1. Two medical professionals had deemed her flat unsuitable to live in for her son’s condition but this evidence had been ignored. She said her son’s medical condition had not been addressed at all in the stage one response.
2. She considered the landlord had placed her in the wrong banding for medical priority because her flat was overcrowded.
3. She said she could not consider living in another flat because of her back condition and carpel tunnel syndrome in both wrists, which made it difficult to use the stairs. She said she would not put herself in the same position again.
4. She considered the works the landlord had carried out since 2018 had been to mask the damp and had had no effect.
5. She said she had applied damp and mould paint every 6 months but it was just painting over the problem.
6. She said her daughter had to visit Accident and Emergency when she was 10 weeks old with bronchiolitis and she had been back and forth to the doctors since she was born with illnesses. She was awaiting a paediatric appointment for her.
7. As she considered the fans fitted previously had no effect, she did not anticipate the new fan would work either. She said she provided photographs which showed that the damp was still penetrating the walls and therefore still being inhaled.
8. She said that providing her with leaflets about how to manage condensation was not helpful since she had been using those steps and precautions since 2018 but they had not worked.
9. Multiple people in the block of flats were also affected by similar mould issues.
10. She asked the landlord to state in writing that her son was safe to live in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 October 2022. It continued to view that her complaint should not be upheld and advised that she use the condensation advice already provided and allow the new ventilation system an opportunity to work.
It accepted her property was overcrowded and said this meant that the resident was placed in the correct banding, Band 2, which meant she had a ‘high’ need to move.
It said a Band 1 (overcrowding only) band would only apply where a property was considered to be ‘statutorily overcrowded’ as outlined in the Housing Act 1985. It felt this was “unlikely” in the resident’s case.
It acknowledged the reasons she had for not wanting to live in a flat but stressed again that the waiting time for an offer of a flat was minimal but the waiting time to be offered a house could be a further 12 months.
The landlord said it had now requested independent medical advice for her son’s medical condition and once this had been received, the landlord would assess the situation again. She was told she would receive the outcome of that assessment by 14 November 2022.
She was given referral rights to take her complaint to this service.
The report from the independent medical advisor is dated 26 October 2022. The doctor providing the report said that while he acknowledged the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property exacerbating her son’s asthma, “…matters regarding housing maintenance should be dealt with directly by the landlord with some urgency.”
Overall, it concluded that the property appeared to be suitable on medical grounds and no medical priority applied.
On 27 October 2022 the resident’s MP asked the resident why she did not want to move into a ground floor flat. He noted the landlord’s indication that such an offer could be made imminently. On 15 November 2022 the resident responded that there had been very few ground floor flats available that would also be convenient for her in terms of being local to her son’s school. She said that as he had asthma it was vital for him to be able to walk to school to provide him with the exercise he needed. She accepted this made finding an appropriate property more difficult.
However, she said she had spent the last 2 years bidding and it would be foolish to move into another flat after all that time. She also considered it was important for children to have a safe open space such as a garden, which in her case, would also help her son’s condition.
On 17 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to say she had still not been told the outcome of the independent medical assessment. She again asked if the landlord could confirm that her son was safe to live in the property. She said her family had been living in these conditions for 4 years and expressed concern about the risks to her children’s health, citing a well-known case where a child who had been exposed to poor housing conditions had died.
On 24 November 2022 the resident’s MP asked the landlord about the outcome of the independent medical report. He also enquired if the landlord would undertake a further damp reading as it was then the beginning of winter and it might be helpful to compare the humidity results obtained in April/May 2022.
On 1 December 2022 the resident wrote to her health visitor, asking if she could prompt the landlord into providing the outcome of the independent health visitor’s report.
The report, refusing to increase her banding on the housing register because of medical priority, was sent to the resident on 8 December 2022.
On 12 December 2022, internal records show the landlord considered conducting another survey at the resident’s property. It was not considered necessary as the previous inspection had not detected a significant incidence of moisture patterns that would indicate structural dampness.
On 3 January 2023 the resident wrote to this service saying that her daughter was now also on medication for asthma.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord informed the resident that she had been placed on a shortlist for new accommodation. It does not appear that the resident was successful in securing new accommodation because on 21 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident a letter confirming that the medical evidence she had provided in support of her housing application had not increased her priority.

Assessment and findings

On the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at her property.

The Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould provides a guide for how this service expects landlords to respond to those issues.
In this case, whilst some of the landlord’s response was appropriate, as will be set out below the landlord should have been more sympathetic to the resident’s situation, given the repeated reports of damp and mould over a number of years and the anxiety caused by the resident’s children’s health issues.
It is concerning that condensation was detected in the property as far back as 2018 and that this issue had not gone away by the time the resident took her complaint to this service. The records show that when the resident reported issues with mould and damp, the landlord responded.
In summary, it took the following steps:
1. In 2019 it installed fans and radiators at the property, following heat and ventilation surveys.
2. Upon request, it surveyed the property again in May 2022, determining the levels of humidity.
3. It provided advice on condensation and upon determining that poor ventilation was an issue at the property, it commissioned another ventilation survey.
4. It completed a mould wash at the property, serviced the existing fans and installed a new fan.
5. It sought independent medical advice to help determine if the resident’s son’s asthma would be improved by moving property.
However, the landlord was aware, from at least as early as 31 May 2022 that the resident’s son had been diagnosed with asthma and therefore was vulnerable. It was also aware that when the resident reported damp and mould in November 2018 she was already concerned at that time that her son had suffered 2 chest infections after living in the property for 2 months. The resident’s health visitor considered the conditions her son was living in were exacerbating his condition and said that the resident thought the fans that had previously been installed were not working.
This service can make no finding on how a person’s health can be affected by damp and mould. As set out above, that is not within this service’s remit. However, the Ombudsman considers landlords should take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould reports and expects that they should be responded to within a timescale of 28 days. The landlord’s policy says standard works should be handled within 20 working days.
Therefore, once it became aware on 31 March 2022, that the resident said there was a problem with damp and mould at the property again, it should have taken 20 working days to act. It was not significantly over that time frame when it responded with a survey on 4 May 2022. However, it then took until 25 June 2022 to complete a mould wash. It should have acted sooner given the history of the case and given that a mould wash had been recommended on 4 May 2022. It was an inappropriate delay.
When the resident’s health visitor reported that the existing fans might not be working and provided some information about the resident’s son’s vulnerabilities, the landlord’s response should have been quicker. It now had information that confirmed there was a child at the property who was diagnosed asthmatic and was sleeping in a bedroom with black mould/condensation. Its policy says that if there are vulnerabilities in the household, it should address such reports within 15 working days.
It took the landlord from 31 May 2022 to 16 August 2022 to service the existing fans that the resident had said were not working; this is 62 days longer than the timescales set out in its policy and is therefore inappropriate.
When the landlord received a quote for the ventilation fans on 27 May 2022, even given any delays caused by any issue relating to the flat being listed; it was inappropriate that it took the landlord 89 days to install and service the fans.
This service appreciates there can be delays with ordering and installing equipment, but a delay of over 2 months to service fans it had been told were not working and to install the required fan for extra ventilation, was inappropriate. This is particularly the case when it became fully aware that the resident and medical professionals had concerns about her son’s asthma being exacerbated by his living conditions.
Further, this service considers the landlord could have done more to work with the resident to address the issues that were causing condensation. It is expected that the landlord would provide advice about how to reduce condensation but it did not make any enquiries about the resident’s circumstances and whether it might be able to support her in other ways to address the issues in the property. For instance, when the surveyor attended in May 2022, he noted that room temperatures at the property were low and the heating was not in use. The landlord advised that the resident should keep the heating at a minimum level without asking why the resident had not chosen to put the heating on. It could have been that the resident did not feel she could afford to, and she might have benefitted from some budgetary advice or other support to enable her to heat her home sufficiently.
The housing officer involved in the case speculated that the problem could be because of the resident’s lifestyle and the property being so small. But the resident had said previously that she had taken wet laundry to her parents to dry it and that it was not, because of the cold, an option to open her windows. She had previously said she had purchased a dehumidifier and so it is not the case that the resident was not taking steps to try and mitigate against the difficult overcrowded circumstances she was living in. As set out in this service’s report on damp and mould, using the term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is the resident’s choice to live in that way.
The surveyor also referred to the resident drying laundry inside the property and keeping furniture stored close to the walls. This service acknowledges it is likely this way of living did not help reduce condensation levels in the property but the landlord’s response to the resident’s predicament failed to acknowledge that the resident may have had no choice. The health visitor pointed out that the property was overcrowded and the surveyor pointed out that the property’s rooms were “relatively small”. Even so, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord enquired into how small the flat was and whether it may well have been so small that it was statutorily overcrowded; a determination which would have increased the resident’s priority for a move. Instead, it said it was “unlikely” that was the case.
It is accepted that the landlord did take some appropriate steps. It took the right approach by commissioning a further survey and a further ventilation report in May 2022. But it should also have considered that this was a recurring problem and followed up the works it undertook in August 2022 to check whether they had been effective or not, given the particular circumstances of the case with vulnerable children living in the property and the history of repeated reports of damp and condensation. For instance, it installed a new fan in the bedroom on 16 August 2022. It would have been reasonable to ensure that the new fan and the other steps it had taken, had worked. This is especially so since the resident was still reporting issues with damp and mould 2 months after the 16 August 2022 repair works. However, the landlord decided not to undertake another survey. This service considers it should have taken that further step and has made an order to reflect that.
Taken together, this service finds the landlord’s approach to responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were delayed and could have been more supportive.
Illustrative of its failure to demonstrate sympathy with the resident’s ongoing concerns, is the landlord’s approach to communicating with the resident about the outcome of the independent medical report into whether her son’s illness increased the family’s banding. This service makes no comment on the decisions made about banding but does have concerns about how the outcome of its decision was communicated to the resident.
Even though the report is dated 26 October 2022, the resident, her MP and her health visitor had to chase the landlord to provide her with the outcome, which did not happen until 8 December 2022, almost a month later than promised. This is a service failure. The resident’s health visitor had informed the landlord that the resident and her family were finding the situation very stressful. Therefore, the landlord was aware how much importance the resident placed on receiving the outcome of the report. It should have provided it within the time it said it would or explained why there was a delay. Its failure to do so or to communicate why it was late was unsympathetic to her situation.
When considering the contents of that report, which did not improve the resident’s priority, the landlord was unsympathetic in its approach. The report said that her son’s illness did not increase the family’s priority but it also set out that “matters regarding housing maintenance should be dealt with directly by the landlord with some urgency.” The landlord should have addressed that statement and set out what it was going to do to remedy the issues with housing maintenance.
The resident sought reassurance from the landlord that the property was safe for her son. It was unlikely the landlord would have provided such certainty. Even setting aside the issue with condensation in the property, the landlord could probably never say for certain that her son was always going to be completely safe. But it could have provided her with some reassurance through arranging another survey, through demonstrating some sympathy with her circumstances and through trying to find out if there was anything more it could do to help her manage her situation while she waited for an appropriate property to bid on. To bluntly tell her that her son’s medical condition did not improve the family’s priority without further explanation or demonstration of empathy given her predicament, was unreasonable.
This service has made a finding of maladministration. The landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s situation but given the circumstances, it should have avoided delay and given the history of reports at the property, it should have taken further steps to see if its more recent approach had provided a resolution for the family.
This service notes that the landlord told the resident that if she chose to widen her bidding range, an offer of an alternative property, which would have the potential to remove her and her family from the situation, would have been available “imminently”. The resident, for understandable reasons involving being near to her son’s school, did not feel she could compromise on her wish to secure a house, ideally with a garden, for her family. Nevertheless, this service takes into account that the landlord acknowledged she needed to move and it was correct to remind her that she could move out of her situation quicker if she wanted. But in the meantime, with the wellbeing of the vulnerable children at the centre of its approach, it should have sought to do more to demonstrate a zero-tolerant approach to a family reporting living in damp conditions.
The resident has paid £73 (or approximately that sum) per week during the material period of maladministration, which the Ombudsman considers can reasonably be considered to have started 20 working days after the landlord was informed of the resident’s son’s asthma, which was 20 June 2022. From that point to 16 August 2022 the resident and her family had to contend with damp and mould when this should have been addressed sooner. Further, even after a new fan was fitted, the resident still reported concerns about the damp and mould but the landlord decided not to complete another survey. The resident complained that her bedroom was particularly problematic because that was where they slept and where she was concerned her son inhaled mould spores. But she also reported that the other rooms in the house were affected by mould, which was supported by the survey in May 2022. Taking into account the time this service would reasonably expect the landlord to have addressed the issues, since approximately the end of June 2022, the resident has not had the full enjoyment of her property for a period.
The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the loss of the full use of the property from 20 June 2022 until 16 August 2022 of 50% of the resident’s weekly rent. After that point, there should have been a fully working ventilation system in operation in the flat. However, as the resident continued to report issues but the landlord did not chose to take further action, unless the landlord can show that the resident moved out on a certain date or that it can evidence the problem was resolved by a certain date, the landlord should pay the resident 25% of the weekly rent due after 16 August 2022 up until October 2023. This service has reached an approximate figure for that period. However, if a survey determines that there is still damp and mould or condensation in the flat, the landlord should continue to pay the resident 25% of the rent per week until the issue is fully resolved, or the resident is successful in finding new accommodation. If a survey determines that the mould and damp is more severe, the landlord should consider increasing that figure, informing the Ombudsman and resident of its rationale.
Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

The landlord responded to the resident’s first stage complaint in 21 working days, which is over double the time it should have taken and is a service failure. It did not offer any compensation to acknowledge this delay and this service has done so.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s second stage complaint was in 18 working days. While this is not in line with its own policy it was not significantly late. The Ombudsman’s Housing Complaint’s Code (“the code”) sets out that this service expects landlords to respond in 20 days at stage 2 and so its response was within an appropriate time.
As stated above the landlord’s responses at both stages did not acknowledge the stress and worry the resident would have suffered. She and her children were living in a flat with condensation which medical professionals had informed her likely exacerbated the children’s breathing difficulties. At stage one it bluntly informed her that it had undertaken a survey advising that the property was suffering from condensation and it had responded to that by providing fans and completing mould washes. It did not acknowledge that the resident said she still had a problem with condensation or her specific worries about her son’s illness. It informed her that it had assessed whether she had a medical priority and that it considered it had followed its processes in that and in other regards. However, it failed to demonstrate an understanding for the concerns that remained with the resident for her family’s health. Its response was unsympathetic.
At stage 2, in response to the resident’s assertion that the landlord had not acknowledged her son’s condition at stage one, it said it had addressed that in its response about the medical assessment. This was an unsympathetic response. As set out above, while that response had detailed the actions taken in relation to the medical assessment, it did not acknowledge the resident’s real concerns or if there was any further support that could be provided. For instance, the resident had escalated her complaint on 4 October 2022, saying that she still had concerns about the damp and mould. As the new fan and serviced fans had been in operation since 16 August 2022, she had already given them the opportunity to work. Her point was that they did not resolve the problem. Its response detailed the processes it had followed while neglecting to demonstrate any sympathy for the resident’s continued concerns about her family’s health.

Determinations (decisions)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

Given the history of reports of damp and mould at the property and the information that there were vulnerable children at the property, the landlord failed to act in a timely manner to respond to new reports about damp and mould. It also failed to ensure that since the problem had reoccurred, it followed up on the new steps it had taken to ensure it had resolved the situation. It also failed to demonstrate sympathy for the resident’s predicament, responding to her concerns in a perfunctory fashion, referring to policy and process; rather than seeking to assure her it would work with her to resolve the damp and mould issues she said she continued to experience.
The landlord’s response to stage one was late and its responses were unsympathetic in tone, failing to fully acknowledge her concerns.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1350 in compensation. The payment should be made within 4 weeks, comprising:
1. £300 for the period of delay in responding to damp and mould between 20 June 2022 and 16 August 2022.
2. £1000 for the continued failure to respond to the resident’s request for further action to alleviate her continued reports of damp and mould.
3. £50 for the landlord’s late response to the resident’s stage one complaint.
The landlord is ordered to provide an apology, in person if the resident wishes, to the resident from its Chief Executive Officer within 4 weeks. The apology should acknowledge the maladministration, accept responsibility for it, explain clearly why it happened, and express sincere regret.
Within 4 weeks the landlord must arrange another survey at the property to assess whether the ventilation fan installed in August 2022 has had the desired effect. If there is still an issue with condensation/mould the landlord should consider what other steps it can take to deal with the issue, including how it can support the resident and her family while they await the allocation of a more suitable property. It should also consider making a further payment to the resident to acknowledge any further time spent in the property from October 2023 if there are still issues with damp and mould. It should set out its reasoning in that regard to the resident and this service.
Within eight weeks of this report, the landlord must undertake a senior management review of the case to help prevent failures reoccurring. The review should focus on the lessons learnt from this case and how the landlord can meet the Ombudsman’s recommendations as set out in its Spotlight report on damp and mould.

Recommendation

In line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, as the resident reported that other flats in her block have also experienced issues with damp; the landlord should consider proactively identifying potential problems and extending its investigations into damp and mould to other flats in her block.