Islington Council (202122382)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122382

Islington Council

15 August 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:
1. Handling of repairs at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority and the tenancy began on 16 August 2004. The property is a two bedroom flat situated on the second floor of a four storey building managed by the landlord. The resident lives at the property with her two children.
In terms of vulnerabilities the resident has told the landlord that she and one of her children have asthma.

Legal framework

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes external walls, external window frames and sills, external decoration and internal structure.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide and its housing policy explain the landlord’s primary repairs and maintenance responsibilities. It says it aims to maintain its homes to a reasonable standard and confirms its responsibility as those mentioned in the tenancy agreement. It explains that due to complexity of some types of repairs it may be necessary for a diagnostic surveyor to inspect the property. It says that if a survey is required it would attempt to complete the survey within 10 working days.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide says it is responsible for repairing water penetration issues. However it explained that many cases of mould or damp are the result of condensation and not water penetration. It details the information available to manage condensation. If condensation is the cause of reported dampness or mould, it says it will give advice on how to manage condensation and provide a copy of its leaflet. It further adds that the most effective way to help manage condensation is to ensure the property is heated adequately during colder months.
The landlord’s housing policy for repairs and maintenance explains:
1. Routine repair work would be completed within 20 working days. This category of repairs are those that need to be completed before the next scheduled programme of work.
2. Cyclical maintenance work is carried out as part of a regular cyclical programme, such as external decoration work.
The landlord’s major works procedure guide explains the steps involved for major works. Its guide to major works on your home adds further details on what residents can expect. It explains that it operates a 7-10 year cycle of planned maintenance work called a cyclical improvement programme (CIP). It says every seventh year it will survey blocks to decide the works needed to keep the building in good repair and decorative order until the next cycle. It explains that this does not mean major works will be carried out every seven years, only that the blocks will be inspected in that cycle.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Decent Homes Standard sets the minimum expectation of quality that all social homes must meet. It explains that for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must be free of hazards assessed as serious under HHSRS.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 recommends that a landlord should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. Avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident and should evaluate the mitigations it can put in place to support the resident and satisfy themselves that it is taking all reasonable steps.
3. Review the number of missed appointments and consider what stapes may be required to reduce these missed appointments.
4. Ensure that it clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
5. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. It should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
6. Identify complex cases at an early stage.
The landlord’s complaints policy confirms it has a two stage complaints policy.
1. Stage one. A complaint is acknowledged within 5 days and a final response being sent to a resident in 10 working days.
2. Stage two. Referred to as the chief executive stage where a response will be provided within 20 working days of receiving the complaint. An extension of 10 working days should be agreed, if required.

Summary of events

The landlord’s system notes show it was arranging for a damp assessment on 30 June 2020 and it said “ongoing issue with damp and mould tenant has to decorate every year”. The damp assessment report from 6 July 2020 said that the resident reported having to decorate yearly and treat the mould herself. It acknowledged previous roof insulation had resolved issues with the ceiling but said the resident reported the walls had penetrating damp, the windows had cracks and the walls were crumbling. The damp assessment report found:
1. Slight gaps to the front entrance door around the frame which could allow draught into the property.
2. Front bedroom air vent did not extract sufficient air and could hinder positive air flow around the room.
3. Rear bedroom had minimal signs of plaster cracking to external wall under window fittings. It said hairline cracks could cause further damage if left untreated.
4. Bathroom extractor fan did not extract sufficient air and could hinder positive air flow around the room.
5. Front of the property had minimal pointing damage, missing left of the front entrance door and adjusted to the downstairs toilet.
6. It reported finding no other defects but acknowledged that the resident had recently painted affected areas and was unable to inspect the mould.
7. It concluded that the mould growth was due to a lack of ventilation within the property. But said the windows not having trickle vents and the bathroom fan not working properly did not help the issue.
8. It made recommendations for vents and fans to be renewed and for the landlord to inspect windows for trickle vent installation.
9. The listed the following as works to be raised:
  1. Ease and adjust entrance door.
  2. Renew air vent on front bedroom.
  3. Install trickle vent on wood frame window.
  4. Renew bathroom extractor fan.
  5. Plaster works to rear bedroom.
On 23 September 2020 the resident was told the following list of works would take place:
1. Existing windows would be overhauled, eased, adjusted and stained as new.
2. It attached documents and said it hoped the information would assist in resolving the condensation and damp at the property.
3. Communal areas would be addressed.
4. It said it had no plans to demolish the estate.
On 27 October 2020 the landlord said it would arrange to replace the resident’s front door. However on 9 November 2020 it apologised for sending the letter in error and said the door was fire safety compliant and did not need replacing.
The landlord has said the works recommended from its July 2020 inspection were completed in March 2021. This Service has not been provided with evidence to show what works were completed. However it is noted that the resident disputes it completed works to windows at this time. There is no evidence to show it did works to the fans and vents either.
The evidence shows the next contact was on 21 June 2021 when the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf and said:
1. The resident and her children struggled extensively to cope with damp and mould at the property. She said the resident was painting walls with mould block every 6 months and keeping the flat ventilated. She said the mould persists and caused the resident and her son to develop asthma.
2. That the damp and mould caused damage to belongings, windows and balcony. She suggested the issue was with the building as other flats on had the same issue.
3. If a building survey could take place to investigate large scale works to address the damp.
4. The resident reported smell in her flat relating to pipes. She said this caused her and her children to feel sick. She asked it to consider the source and consider repairs.
5. In relation to cyclical works, she said the block was in poor condition making it difficult to consider a mutual exchange. She asked for clarification on the works that were meant to take place 5 years ago.
Following this, on 3 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm an inspection on 11 August 2021 between 8-12pm. It asked the resident to contact it if the appointment was not convenient. The landlord’s system notes show the appointment was cancelled and closed on 13 August 2021. It is unclear why this appointment was cancelled at that time.
On 18 October 2021 the resident told the landlord about issues at the property:
1. Windows – the filler around the windows had water seeping through from the outside. She said the frame was rotten and had not been fixed referring to pictures of the property. She asked when it would provide new windows.
2. Front door- she said the front door had gaps, did not fit and it had not inspected this.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord again on 25 October 2021 and said:
1. The resident had confirmed the landlord did not conduct a survey in July 2021 and it had not made any progress in relation to the damp and mould and windows.
2. She repeated the resident’s concerns about water seeping through windows and about the gaps around the front door.
3. The landlord had provided new doors to some neighbours but not to the resident.
4. She asked for an update on the damp survey and asked the landlord to look into the window and door issue.
Following this the landlord and resident sent a number of emails between 27 and 28 October 2021. These emails show the landlord’s attempts to arrange a diagnostic surveyor to attend the property for a damp inspection. However the resident raised points about the landlord conducting surveys previously but not following the recommendations made. She also said the landlord had said it had fixed a bedroom window frame when it did not.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord said it could arrange for a “chargehand” to attend the property instead of a diagnostic surveyor. It said it would inspect the windows and doors to get an action plan in place for when works start. It is understood that the appointment was for a supervisor to attend.
At the same time the landlord told the resident about the challenges it faced with cyclical works. It said it had appointed a new contractor in July 2021 and it would be on site from spring 2022. It seems the landlord was to include the window and door works as part of its major works programme.
A damp assessment was completed on 15 November 2021 and said:
1. There was mould visible on the bathroom ceiling.
2. It found no damp or mould to the front bedroom and no leaks were found in the kitchen.
3. It made the following conclusions:
  1. Condensation was due to internal environmental conditions.
  2. There was poor ventilation of the property, as all windows were closed.
  3. Furniture and belongings were placed close to external and internal walls restricting airflow.
  4. Kitchen door was removed by resident and said “she respects that the bathroom door open during and after use, this will allow free movement of moisture in these areas to spread throughout property condensation on cold external surfaces.”
  5. Property was insufficiently heated.
  6. Clothing was dried in unventilated areas allowing for excess moisture.
  7. Lack of household maintenance when mould was first seen. It said it was left to grow and develop within bathroom.
4. It reported no further action at that time and arranged for a team leader to attend on 17 November 2021.
On 17 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that it did not look at the windows and door when it said it would. In terms of the damp and mould she said she had spent money and effort in attempts to address the issue and provided pictures to show wet patches on walls. She also provided a further picture of a window frame that the landlord said it had previously fixed and told it about the front door being difficult to open and close. At this time the landlord apologised that its area supervisor could not attend the property to check the windows and door. It arranged an appointment for a carpenter to attend to inspect the property that evening, it is understood that this went ahead.
The resident raised her complaint on 22 November 2021. She raised the following concerns:
1. She had suffered with the known problems at the property since her tenancy began.
2. She said her eldest child had an eye and ear problem caused by damp and mould. Both her and her youngest child suffered from asthma. She told it that the smell of damp and mould prevented her from having visitors and she tried to stay out of the property as much as possible due to the mentioned issues. She told the landlord how she felt “fobbed off” and lied to. She said she had spent a significant amount redecorating and filling cracked walls with specialist paint. She said she had been treated as a “second class citizen” by the landlord and was told to put the heating on all day and night with a window open.
3. Windows – she repeated previous concerns about the windows and added that they were ill fitted, she was constantly woken by outside noise, they were a source of drafts adding to the damp and mould issues at the property.
4. Walls – she told it the walls needed insulation.
5. Door- she told it she was refused a proper fitted door and repeated how it had gaps. She also repeated concerns about the difficulty in opening and closing the door.
In a further email from the same day she said the landlord had incorrectly told her MP that it had completed works in March 2021, when it had not. She asked the landlord to evidence what it had done.
Following the resident’s complaint a number of internal emails show the landlord passed the complaint between its repairs and major works department.
1. Its repairs department said “it had full knowledge of the issue and I can assure you that the complaint is for major works to respond to.” It deemed the issues as insulation, replacement windows and door and decided these were not responsive repairs but improvement and said the major works department should respond.
2. Its major works department said it was concerned that there were a number of defects at the property that were repair issues and had been ongoing for some time. It suggested the repairs appointments were made as soon as possible and that it was not a complaint for the major works department.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response. This appears to have come from its repairs department. It said:
1. Damp and mould – It said it conducted a damp inspection on 30 June 2020 and the recommended repairs were completed in March 2021. It said a further inspection was requested in August 2021 but access was refused. It said a damp survey from 15 November 2021 recommended no further work.
2. Windows and door – It listed its attempts to inspect the windows and doors on 29 October 2021, 2, 17 and 23 November 2021. It said there was no access and repairs were closed. It said it did attend on 2 December 2021 but did not inspect or comment on a repair being required to the door. It said at this time it noted external repairs were required to the windows. It said it discussed the works internally and felt it was prudent that the window works were included in cyclical improvement works expected to take place in 2022.
3. Cyclical improvement works- it said as the works involved insulation, new windows and a new door it referred the matter to its major works department as it felt the works were improvements and not repairs. It quoted that its major works department had said they were “not on site at the moment to look at these nor have we carried out the works here to cause these issues/problems and would therefore suggest that appointments are made for the remedial works to be done by responsive team asap. If it is noted that full renewal is required to some elements please decide if a repair is to be done and advise us if we need to consider full renewal during our works.” It said its major works team would be on site in summer of 2022 and any recommendations to renew the windows or door will be made at that time. It said the external repairs identified should also be included in the cyclical works
4. It concluded that the resident’s complaint was not upheld due to access issues which meant it had not always been permitted to enable it to investigate concerns or carry out repairs. It further added that the request for insulation, new windows and door were not repairs and would be assessed by it major works team in 2022.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord provided the resident with its carpenter’s report which said the windows were in a “poor state” and detailed the works required to the windows.
The resident raised a further complaint on 4 January 2022 about the same issues. She added that she had not received the surveyor’s report and said damp had come back to the bathroom. She completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 7 January 2022.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had been contacted by this Service about her complaint. It provided the resident with a further copy of its stage one response and asked her to write to it if she remained unhappy. The same day the resident wrote to the landlord:
1. She asked if the landlord was stating no works were needed at the property.
2. She asked for a date for the window works as she had been told summer 2022 and 2023 had been mentioned.
3. She said the landlord was incorrect to say there were no access to the property. She said a surveyor attended before the carpenter.
4. She said she had not received reports from the landlord’s inspections.
The resident was provided with the carpenter’s report which said that the windows were in a poor state of repair and that they would deteriorate further if works were not done. She then provided photos of the bathroom and said water was dripping from walls. She asked why it decided it would not do certain works.
An internal email from 10 January 2022 notes the resident’s email from the same day as a reply to its stage one response. It says “for your attention and action, as appropriate.”
Later the same day the landlord sent the resident a text message to say a painter had been booked to inspect the property. The resident asked why a painter would attend and said she would not be available for 25 January 2022. The resident repeated her concerns on 11 January 2022 about the landlord sending a painter and told it that mould block paint would not fix the issue and said the cause needed to be addressed. She said she was not able to get help from its environmental health department as the landlord was the council.
The landlord sent a review response to the resident on 13 January 2022. It summarised its position as per its stage one response. It said that external works were required and as such the work would not be carried out as responsive repairs. It said it raised works for mould treatment and made an appointment for 25 January 2022, it asked the resident to contact if it was not suitable. The landlord said its stage one process had come to an end and the resident could escalate to stage two.
On 21 January 2022 the resident asked for an update on major works. She chased for the surveyors report on 24 January 2022. The landlord provided a copy of the surveyor’s report and repeated its position on the work being improvement works and not repairs. It said its major works team would visit the block later that year. After reviewing the surveyor’s report the resident said:
1. Her windows were open on inspection and dehumidifiers she purchased were also on.
2. She did not leave washing to dry.
3. She wiped wet windows every morning and night.
4. She wanted evidence to support the conclusions made.
On 26 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about support for the costs of heating her property. She repeated previous concerns about walls not having insulation, windows rotting and front door. She said this was contributing to black mould and damp at the property. She told it that having the heating on all day and night with windows open was not possible and asked for support with costs as she was a single parent on universal credit. The landlord said it would liaise with its energy service team and make a health referral to treat the damp and mould.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to contact her and asked the resident to contact it to discuss what it could do to improve the situation at the property. In the resident’s response she said repeated previous concerns about the windows, door and the impact the state of the property was having on her young child’s health. On 7 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord again when it would start its major works and said it was not answering her questions. The landlord acknowledged this email and said it would respond.
The landlord’s internal notes show that it was due to attend the property for a damp assessment on 14 February 2022. At this time the resident told it that it had completed a number of surveys and was well aware of the issues at the property, she said it was refusing to rectify the issues. The landlord’s notes show the appointment was cancelled on 14 February 2022 and it said access was refused due to the resident previously being told nothing could be done.
The resident sent a further email on 8 March 2022 requesting for an update on major works. She repeated the same issues with the property. The landlord responded the same day and said it had provided information on 28 October 2021 on how to control condensation in the property. It said if condensation was left untreated it would develop into black mould. In response to major works it said its previous project manager had retired in December 2021 and the new appointment was due to start on 15 March 2022, but had tested positive for covid-19. It said major works were scheduled to commence at the latter part of 2022.
The following day the resident said to be told the works “might” start in 2022 was not acceptable:
1. She asked the landlord what maintenance information it had sent about rotting windows.
2. She said condensation was not causing damp and said it was a building defect due to no installation in walls, drafts in the property and cracks in walls.
3. She said she had purchased dehumidifiers and redecorated at her own costs. She said she wipes the water off the windows daily and said the problem was not one she caused.
Within its response the landlord repeated what it said about its project manager retiring and said the new appointment would contact the resident in April 2022.
Unhappy with its response, the resident said:
1. The problem with damp and mould was not her fault and giving information on condensation was not enough.
2. The comments about retirement and sickness were not sufficient as the problem had been going on for long enough.
3. She said the previous tenants moved because of damp and mould.
4. She said the issue was an environmental health issue with rising heating costs.
On 18 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again and said her complaint had not been resolved or answered. She repeated her previous concerns about windows, insulation and cracks. She asked the landlord to confirm the start date for major works. The landlord provided a copy of its consultation leaflet and said it anticipated being on site at the latter part of the year. The consultation leaflet confirmed the proposed works as cyclical improvement works and that it would consist of preventative maintenance works and improvement works. On the same day, the resident asked what it meant by latter part, she asked what the work would involve and if the windows could be replaced.
On 21 March 2022 the landlord told the resident again about the retirement of its project manager and said it had previously sent a scope of works booklet. It said that existing hardwood double glazed windows would remain but would be adjusted with any defective ironmongery being replaced. In a further email from the same day it said it would normally repair windows, but if they were beyond repair it would replace and that this was subject to a survey. In her reply the resident asked if the landlord thought her living conditions were acceptable and said she was not closer to knowing the works that would be done.
On 24 March 2022 the resident asked the landlord again about the works that would be done and when it would start these. The landlord responded the same day and listed its previous contact with her about the same points and said she would find answers within its previous emails. It added that there had been delays to major works starting due to a contract change which was signed in July 2021.
The resident sent a further email on 25 April 2022 repeating her previous concerns about the condition of the property. She detailed the impact the condition of the property was having on her children and asked why the issues had still not been resolved.
On 11 May 2022 this Service asked the landlord to provide its stage two response. The landlord told this Service that the complaint had not been escalated and that the programme of work was likely to start in Autumn 2022.
On 1 August 2022 this Service told the landlord to provide its stage two response to the resident by 8 August 2022. The landlord said again that the complaint was not at stage two of its process.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 September and said it had continued to “fob [her] off” and no one had fixed the issues. She told it of worsening conditions of the building. She told it of her unhappiness that it had replaced a neighbours door but not hers. She said the bathroom was next to the front door and continued to suffer from mould.
An internal system note from 15 September 2022 shows that a surveyor was due to attend the property. The landlord’s internal system logs the issues as a routine repair to be completed within 20 days. Here the notes say:
1. Beading on windows was rotting in bedroom on outside. It said this would require scaffolding or windows being removed.
2. Bathroom beading was rotting on outside. Required scaffolding.
3. Front door was ok with gaps being classed as “good” and draught proofing already in place.
4. Sent pictures to department for scaffolding.
5. Raised a repair for beading works.
Further notes show the appointment scheduled for 23 September 2022 was cancelled.
On 3 October 2022 the resident sent the landlord pictures of the property. The landlord acknowledged the information and said it would contact her the following week. The resident sent a further email on 14 October 2022 and asked what had happened following its previous reports and why it had not started any works. She asked why the cyclical work had not progressed.
On 17 October 2022 the resident told the landlord that scaffolding had been put up but she was unsure what works it was doing.
The landlord carried out a roof inspection on 20 October 2022. It noted roof defects and failed previous repairs to vent units on the roof. The surveyor made recommendations for repairs.
Between 24 October and 31 October 2022 the resident sent a number of emails to the landlord. She asked:
1. It to rearrange the appointment scheduled due to her work commitments. She said the number provided by the landlord did not work.
2. She asked when windows would be replaced.
3. She told it that heating was lost through walls due to no insulation.
4. Repeated previous concerns about the door and provided a picture to the landlord. She expressed dissatisfaction in being told the door would not be repaired or replaced.
5. She told it she was not getting any support from it.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint had been registered at stage two of its complaints process. The landlord issued its stage two response from its chief executive on 16 November 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage two and offered £100 compensation to the resident.
2. Damp and mould:
  1. Its report from 15 November 2021 confirmed evidence of damp and mould and provided information on how best to treat it.
  2. It said several factors relating to the presence of damp and mould that were not attributed to windows or lack of wall insulation.
  3. It listed attempts to reassess the damp as access refused on 31 January 2022 and 17 February 2022. It said the resident was not at home on 3 September 2022 and whilst an appointment was agreed on 25 October 2022 there was no access.
3. Door and windows:
  1. A carpenter inspected the property on 14 October 2022 and found gaps in the door were acceptable with draught proofing already in place.
  2. The window inspection found external beading and mastic around bedroom, living room and bathroom windows was rotten and needed replacing. It said beading had been made.
  3. It said window replacements were not proposed in its cyclical works. It said the current windows were double glazed with wooden frames and sills but acknowledged that some windows in the block may be in a state of disrepair.
  4. It said it would assess all windows before cyclical works start to assess and said if windows could not be repaired a full replacement would be considered and this would include replacing windows frames and sills.
4. Wall insulation:
  1. It said wall insulation was not proposed as the walls were solid which meant there was no gaps or space between brickwork to inject insulation to the walls.
5. Outstanding repairs:
  1. It acknowledged the resident’s work commitments and said it would rearrange the appointment for 13 December 2022. It said scaffolding had been erected and beading work would commence once the appointment was rearranged.
6. Cyclical improvement works:
  1. It explained this was a lengthy process involving several stages and said dates were to be confirmed to start in 2023. It said it anticipated works to start in spring/summer 2023 but would confirm start dates.
  2. It referred the resident to its consultation leaflet explaining the stages involved.
  3. It said works were delayed due to covid-19 restrictions and a change in contractor.
  4. It said new beading and mastic around the windows should ensure windows were in the best possible condition.
  5. It said it would inspect the front door as part of this work and would only be replaced if it was not fireproof.

It concluded that the resident’s complaint was not upheld and the delays to works were unavoidable.

Following the landlord’s stage two response the resident continued to repeat her previous concerns about the property and ask for a start date for works. It is noted that beading works were completed to the windows on 2 February 2023. In March 2023 and April 2023 the landlord made attempts for another survey at the property, it is unclear whether this survey went ahead but it is not disputed that the remaining works and major works remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has disputed the landlord’s version of events in relation to no access appointments, it completing some works and the contents of some of its reports. It is important to explain that when two sides have differing versions of events it is not always possible to be clear about what actually happened. However, in such circumstances it is reasonable to rely on the evidence available to this Service. As such where points have been disputed consideration will be given to whether the landlord has provided evidence to show it did works, what steps it took after it had “no access” and the steps it took when the resident disputed the contents of its reports.

Handling of repairs at the property

The landlord’s damp assessment report from 6 July 2020 found there were “slight gaps” to the front door which could allow draught into the property. It acknowledged the resident had recently painted the property and said it found no defect (damp and mould). This report recommended a number of works which included:
1. Windows – the installation of trickle vents on wood framed windows.
2. Door- ease and adjust the front door.
3. Renewal of vent and fan to a bedroom and bathroom.
Whilst the landlord said it completed some work in March 2021, it has not provided evidence to show it completed the work recommended in July 2020. Instead it repeatedly told the resident that the above works would be completed as part of major works. However it has not started its major works or completed works that it is responsible for. This is not appropriate.
Whilst it is acknowledged that delays to the major works were, at times, outside of its control especially in light of the impact of covid-19. However the evidence shows it was reasonably aware of a change in contractor and staff leaving but failed to adjust its approach to complete the works it was responsible for or mitigate the impact until works would go ahead. The landlord’s approach was not in line with its obligations and it is understood that the above work remains outstanding. This is not appropriate.
Between October and November 2021 the resident sent several emails about the windows and involved her MP, who also contacted the landlord about the condition of the property. At this time the landlord was told that outside water was seeping through the windows, there were rotten frames and how the resident believed the condition of the windows contributed to the damp and mould at the property. She said the windows were not fitted properly and she was constantly woken by outside noise. At the same time she also reported concerns about the front door being difficult to open and close. She repeated concerns about the gaps around the door and her concerns about it contributing to damp and mould at the property.
Whilst the landlord inspected the property on 15 November 2021, it failed to assess the windows and door. This was not appropriate.
When the resident raised her complaint on 22 November 2021 the landlord’s repairs and major works department were in communication about who would be responsible for the complaint and works. Here its repairs department said it was confident that the complaint was for major works and went on to issue its stage one response to reflect this. This was despite its major works department saying it was “concerning that there are a number of defects the resident has highlighted that are repair issues, and some look like they have been ongoing for some time… [it said it] suggest that appointments are made for the remedial works to be done by responsive team asap. If it is noted that full renewal is required to some elements please decide if a repair is to be done and advise us if we need to consider full renewal during our works.”
The landlord did not assess the windows or door at this time, it did not complete remedial works or assess whether full renewal was required. Instead it repeatedly told the resident that the windows and door would be assessed by its major works team. The approach adopted by the landlord here was not appropriate.
Between December 2021 and October 2022 the resident continued to repeat concerns about the conditions of the windows and door. She sent the landlord photos of the windows, told it “clumps” were falling off, water was seeping through and about the worsening condition of the building. She also repeatedly asked the landlord if it would replace the windows and door or repair them. It took the landlord until 14 October 2022 to inspect the windows and door at the property. This timeframe significantly exceeded the timeframes set in its repairs policy and was not appropriate.
The inspection from 14 October 2022, was conducted by a carpenter. Here the landlord was told that the windows were in a poor state from the outside and that they would deteriorate further if works were not done. However despite this the landlord took until 16 November 2022 to tell the resident that it would bead the windows. It then took a further 2 months to complete the works to the windows on 18 January 2023. This again was not appropriate.
It is important to note that the resident repeatedly told the landlord how she felt the condition of the windows and the gaps in the door contributed to the damp and mould at the property. However the landlord failed to send a suitably qualified damp specialist at this time. Instead it relied on its carpenter’s inspection who said the gaps in the door were acceptable. This approach was not in line with its policy.
From October 2021, it took the landlord 12 months to assess the windows and door. In total it took it 15 months to complete any remedial works to the windows and the work to the door remains outstanding. This timeframe significantly exceeds the 20 working time frame set within it repairs policy for repair work that it is responsible for. Whilst it is acknowledged that at times the landlord may decide to adopt a cost effective approach to repairs, especially when major works are expected. However, major works do not remove it of its repair obligations. It is concerning that despite what the resident repeatedly told it and what its major works team suggested it do, it took no action for a significant time. This was not appropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s lack of insight into its repairs obligations.
Overall the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property was not appropriate and amount to severe maladministration.
It is clear that the resident has been significantly impacted by the landlord’s approach. She has been left feeling “fobbed off” and not listened to. She repeatedly told the landlord about the impact the situation was having on her and her children. Despite what she said it kept telling her the issue would be addressed by major works but could not tell her when these works would take place or offer any support in the interim.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

It is unclear from the evidence when the resident initially raised concerns about damp and mould at the property. Whilst the historic nature of the issues is not disputed, it is difficult to assess how long the damp and mould issue have been ongoing for. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to arrange a damp assessment in June 2020 and as such it is reasonable to conclude that it would have been aware of damp and mould concerns at the property by no later than this date.
The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately conducted a damp assessment at that time and its damp assessment report from 6 July 2020 found there was mould growth but attributed this to a lack of ventilation. Works were recommended at that time which included the renewal of vents and fans. As mentioned previously, there is no evidence to show it completed the works. This was not appropriate.
On 21 June 2021 the resident continued to report damp and mould at the property. It took the landlord until 3 August 2021 to book a survey. It then cancelled the appointment and took no further steps at this time. This was not appropriate.
In October 2021 the resident made further reports of damp and mould at the property and her MP also contacted the landlord on her behalf. On 27 October 2021 the landlord told the resident that it was trying to arrange an appointment for a diagnostic surveyor to inspect the damp at the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to have conducted an inspection in light of the concerns raised about damp and mould.
However, the evidence shows it said it would send a supervisor instead of a diagnostic surveyor. It was not appropriate for the landlord to have offered to send a supervisor to complete a damp inspection, especially if they were not suitably qualified. From the evidence it is unclear whether a surveyor or supervisor attended. The conclusions made following this inspection on 15 November 2021 attributed the problems to the resident. Here it said:
1. Surface condensation was due to internal environmental conditions.
2. There was poor ventilation as windows were closed during inspection.
3. Furniture and belongings placed close to external and internal walls, restricting airflow.
4. Property was insufficiently heated.
5. Clothing was dried in unventilated area.
6. Lack of household maintenance. It said condensation was left to grow and develop into mould within the bathroom.
In addition to the above points it also said that the resident should leave “the bathroom door open during and after use, this will allow free movement of moisture in these areas”. Despite it accepting mould was present at the property it decided it would take no further action and ultimately blamed the resident for the conditions of the property. This was not appropriate.
Once the resident was provided with the survey report, on 24 January 2022, she disputed the contents and told it that it had “lied” in its report. She said her windows were open and she had dehumidifiers on at the property which she purchased at her own costs. She said she did not leave her washing to dry and wiped wet windows every morning and night. She disputed the contents of the report and asked for evidence to support its conclusions. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to this email, it did not provide evidence of how it reached the conclusions made or offer an alternative approach at that time. This was unreasonable.
The resident raised her complaint on 22 November 2021 and told the landlord how the damp and mould was impacting her health and that of her two children. She said both her and her child had developed asthma and how she felt the landlord had “fobbed” her off. The landlord took no further action at that time and on 14 December 2021 it told her that its inspection from 15 November 2021 recommended no further works. This was despite what the resident said and despite it accepting visible mould in the property. The landlord’s lack of action here was not appropriate and not inline with its HHSRS and wider obligations.
In January 2022 the resident told the landlord that despite her attempts to redecorate, the damp and mould had returned to her bathroom. She sent it pictures of her property and said water was dripping from walls. It is understood that at that time the landlord arranged for a painter to attend the property. When the resident raised questions about its approach and it deciding not to investigate the cause of the damp, it did not respond to explain its decided approach. This was also not appropriate and it is unclear whether it attended for the damp and mould treatment at that time or renewed the vents and fans recommended in July 2020.
It is noted that the landlord’s system notes show it attempted to arrange another damp assessment on 14 February 2022, but cancelled this and said it was refused access as the resident said she had previously been told nothing could be done. It is noted that the resident disputes this.
Whilst it is unclear what happened at that time, the evidence shows the resident continued to report damp and mould at the property throughout March 2022 to September 2022. It took the landlord until 23 September 2022 to arrange a further inspection of the damp and mould at the property. This timeframe was not appropriate. It knew there were visible signs of mould at the property but did not monitor the potential hazard and delayed acting following the resident’s repeated concerns.
It is noted that the resident was unsure of the landlord’s approach of inspecting the damp and taking no action. The evidence shows she repeatedly asked the landlord to refer to its previous reports and complete recommended works. It is also noted that the landlord cancelled the appointment for 23 September 2022 and took no further action at that time. This again was not appropriate.
The resident continued to tell the landlord of the damp and mould and provide it with pictures of the property condition. She sent several emails in October 2022 and November 2022. Whilst in its stage two response the landlord confirmed there was evidence of damp and mould in the property it simply told the resident of its attempts to reassess the damp and took no further action. It took the landlord until 23 February 2023 to consider a further inspection and it has not been able to provide evidence to show a further inspection went ahead.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were not appropriate and amount to severe maladministration.
The landlord accepted there was evidence of damp and mould at the property but failed to acknowledge its obligations under HHSRS and failed to monitor the potential hazard. It repeatedly told the resident that the damp and mould was due to internal environmental conditions and unfairly put the onus on the resident to carry out unreasonable steps to mitigate the condition of the property. It did not evaluate any mitigating factors it could put in place to support the resident.
Its approach meant the resident had to repeatedly raise the same concerns, involve her MP and was left feeling ignored by it.
It is noted that the points of access being refused has been disputed. There is no evidence to show that the landlord reviewed its approach or adjusted it in attempts to gain access and meet its obligations.
Overall, the landlord’s approach was not appropriate and demonstrates its actions fell short of the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 as:
1. It did not take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. It took actions that solely place the onus on the resident and did not evaluate the mitigations it could put in place to support the resident and satisfy itself that it had taken all reasonable steps.
3. It did not review the number of missed appointments and consider what steps may be required to reduce them.
4. It did not ensure that it clearly and regularly communicated with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
5. It did not identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. It did not act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
6. It did not identify complex cases at an early stage.
When deciding an appropriate remedy the landlord’s repeated failings over a significant period of time have been taken into account and rental compensation of 30% had been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. However whilst the evidence shows the issue was reported in June 2020, a deduction has been made to reflect some reasonable attempts made to inspect the property and to acknowledge the impact of covid-19. It is acknowledged that the issue is still outstanding and as such 130 week timeframe for rental compensation is appropriate in these circumstances. The following calculation has been used 30% of the weekly rent of £63.24 is £18.97 per week. This multiplied by the weekly timeframe amounts to £2,466.10 rental-based compensation.
It is important to acknowledge that the calculation of rental compensation is not exact. However here it is appropriate to make a further order for compensation in light of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and to acknowledged that the issue remains outstanding.

Complaint handling.

The resident raised her initial complaint on 22 November 2021 and the landlord provided its stage one after 22 working days on 14 December 2021. This timeframe was not appropriate.
The evidence shows that the resident expressed further unhappiness on 10 January 2022 and sent it pictures of the property. The landlord’s internal email from the same days said “reply to stage one response, for your attention and action, as appropriate.” However, here the landlord provided a review response on 13 January 2022 and repeated its previous position.
Whilst at times a review response can work effectively in attempts to resolve matters, especially if the landlord highlights its stage one response missed a crucial point. However here the landlord repeated its position, offered no interim measures in attempts to resolve matters and as such it added a further stage to its complaint process which was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This was not appropriate.
Following this the resident continued to repeat the same concerns to the landlord, her MP and this Service. It is noted that this Service contacted the landlord on 11 May 2022 and 1 August 2022 asking it to provide its stage two response. However despite this, the landlord said the complaint was not at stage two of its process. It took the landlord until 1 November 2022 to confirm it had moved the complaint to stage two of its complaints process. It then provided its stage two response on 16 November 2022. This timeframe was not appropriate and not in line with the timeframe the Ombudsman said it must not exceed.
The resident was clearly unhappy with the landlord’s response in her contact on 10 January 2022 and the evidence shows the landlord noted this. However it took it a further 11 months to conclude its complaints process. This was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.
It is acknowledged that within its stage two response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in issuing its stage two response and it offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of this. However it failed to acknowledge the extent of its delay for both its stage one and stage two responses. When considering the significant timeframe taken to issue its stage two response and its failure to conclude its complaints process sooner, a greater compensation amount would be more proportionate to the impact caused. The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs at the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property
3. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has not completed works it’s surveyor recommended in July 2020. It told the resident the works would form part of major works, which it has not started, despite its major works team recommending it complete the works as repairs. The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the condition of the property and it took the landlord 12 months to assess the windows and door. It took 15 months to complete some interim work to the windows. But the recommended work from July 2020 remains outstanding. During this time the resident repeated concerns about the repairs impacting the condition of the property, the damp and mould and the overall health of her family.
The landlord knew there was mould at the property from 6 July 2020 however it failed to monitor the potential hazard or ensure the property was ‘decent’. It repeatedly put the onus on the resident to manage and failed to offer any support or mitigation. When the resident told it its surveys were incorrect, it took no further action. It failed to mitigate any potential hazards within the property where the resident lived with her two children.
The landlord attempted to acknowledge the delay in issuing its stage two response. However it failed to recognise the extent of its delay for both its stage one and stage two responses. It also failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and took a year to concludes its complaints process and 11 months of this were due to its delay in issuing a stage two response.
In cases where such serious failings are found, the Ombudsman would normally make orders designed to prevent these failings happening again. In this case, we have not done so in relation to damp and mould or complaint handling. This is because following our earlier work with the landlord, it has already changed its complaint handling policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and is taking other steps to improve its complaint handling practice. It has also already told us what it has done, and plans to do, to improve its response to reports of damp and mould.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior leader responsible for housing to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident). This should be within four weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £5,816.10 in compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
1. £2,466.10 rental based compensation to acknowledged the landlord’s failure to appropriately address the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings relating to damp and mould.
3. £1,500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings in relation to its handling of repairs.
4. £750 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
5. £100 it previously offered the resident, if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord completes an inspection of the property, using an independent damp specialist to assess its condition and outstanding works. Within two weeks of this it is to confirm in writing to the resident and this Service:
1. The outcome of its inspection, which should include works in relation to damp and mould within the property, if required. It should include target dates for the works to be completed, if works are required.
2. The measures it has put in place to monitor whether the proposed works remedy the damp and mould at the property.
3. It should consider the ‘defects’ raised by the resident within this inspection and detail the required remedial works. It should assess whether the windows and door should be repaired and set target dates for repair work to be completed. If it decides full renewal is required and the works form part of its major works, it should detail the interim measures it will take, with support from an appropriately qualified specialist.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to conduct a senior management review of this case within six weeks of the date of this report:
1. It should identify what went wrong and the changes/improvements it will make to ensure its procedures and working practices enable it to meet its repairs obligations when it is considering major works.