Islington Council (202308362)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308362

Islington Council

15 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 6 September 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident resides at the property with a child who has asthma. The landlord is aware that the resident’s child has asthma.
On 12 January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould affecting both bedrooms in the property.
On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. There was mould in both bedrooms and the living room.
2. The mould was affecting her daughter’s health, who has asthma.
3. The mould was behind her daughter’s bed and under her mattress.
4. The landlord had told her that a surveyor could not attend the property until 14 March 2023.
5. She had spoken to numerous staff members, but the landlord had not responded to her concerns.
6. She had to dispose of curtains, nets, bedding and mattresses due to the damp and mould and mould was also on the carpets.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. It had identified a service failure in that it had scheduled the surveyor inspection outside of its target date for attendance.
2. It had rescheduled the surveyor’s appointment to 22 February 2023. The landlord said the surveyor would raise any necessary work.
3. It could not offer compensation for damage to the resident’s personal belongings. However, the landlord advised the resident to contact her own insurer or contact the landlord’s “Homes and Communities Team” to make a claim.
4. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 18 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. In her escalation request she said:
1. It had been 5 weeks since she had reported damp and mould in the property, and she had made numerous phone calls to the landlord.
2. Her GP had told her not to allow her daughter to stay in the affected rooms due to her asthma.
3. Her family were ill since October 2022, but the resident had only recently noticed mould behind her daughter’s bed.
4. The issue was severely impacting her and her daughter’s health.
On 22 February 2023, the landlord inspected the property. In March 2023, the landlord carried out a mould wash at the property and redecoration works, including the application of a “bio check” mould prevention paint.
On 8 June 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. It had given the resident the wrong complaint reference number.
2. It had offered a cancellation appointment to the resident on 22 February 2023 for a surveyor to attend the property.
3. The mould growth was due to condensation caused by poor ventilation around the windows.
4. It had scheduled works to the property for 1 March 2023, but it had to reschedule the works to 7 March 2023 due to a bank holiday.
5. It had completed a mould wash on 7 March 2023 and decoration works had commenced on 28 March 2023. The landlord said the manufacturer recommended a minimum of 48 hours between the mould wash and decorating works.
6. It “partially upheld” the resident’s complaint due to the rescheduling of the appointment in March 2023. The landlord said the resident had not reported any defects since March 2023 and it had managed the remedial works effectively.
On 29 June 2023, the resident reported further issues of damp and mould in the property. On 25 August 2023, the landlord carried out a second inspection of the property. It completed further repairs in September and October 2023.
On 1 February 2024, the landlord carried out a third inspection of the property.
In referring the complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. There was damp and mould in the property since December 2022.
2. The area around the external brickwork of the property was green and constantly wet.
3. The cupboard under the stairs was full of mould.
4. She wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve the cause of the damp and mould.
5. She wanted compensation for the damage to her personal belongings and the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has indicated that there were issues with damp and mould in both bedrooms of the property for several years.
While it is concerning that the resident said she has experienced this issue at her property for several years, in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
In addition, the landlord’s repair records do not suggest that the resident reported the damp and mould during 2021 and 2022. Therefore, while the Ombudsman has referred to previous issues with damp and mould to provide context to the resident’s complaint, the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events from January 2023 onwards, when the resident reported issues with damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould

The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend to urgent repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk‑based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
There were delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould. The resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 12 January 2023. The landlord did not inspect the property until 22 February 2023. This was 29 working days after the resident had reported issues of damp and mould. This was not appropriate.
The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the resident had informed the landlord that the damp and mould had severely affected her daughter’s health and the mould was present in her daughter’s bedroom.
Between 12 January and 22 February 2023, it appears that the landlord failed to provide the resident with any interim advice or guidance about damp and mould. Further, the landlord failed to carry out any preliminary investigations into the severity of the damp and mould and whether an urgent mould wash or a dehumidifier was required. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord tried to bring the surveyor’s appointment forward; however, there is no evidence that the landlord kept in regular communication with the resident to monitor the level of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord inspected the property on 22 February 2023. The Ombudsman will not relay the entirety of the inspection report, but a summary of the findings are as follows:
1. There was condensation in the property due to poor ventilation. The investigation noted that the curtains restricted the airflow in the property.
2. There was mould growth and staining in the corner of the window reveal in the living room, rear and bedroom. There was also mist on all the windows.
3. There was a relative humidity reading of 71-75%.
4. There were some restrictions with the guttering around the property caused by leaves.
5. A mould wash was required in the affected areas.
From the evidence provided, the resident chased for updates and responses to her concerns regarding the damp and mould between January and March 2023. The lack of clarity and lack of information, particularly during the periods of delay, would have likely made the resident feel frustrated and that her concerns were not being listened to. Landlords need to ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
The landlord carried out a mould wash in the property on 7 March 2023. This was 9 working days after it completed an inspection of the property. The landlord also agreed to carry out redecoration works in the property. There was a further delay of 21 days between the mould wash and the redecoration works, which included the application of a “Bio check” mould prevention paint. The landlord said at least 48 hours were required between the mould wash and the redecoration works. However, the subsequent delay was far in excess of the recommended 48-hour period.
While the use of mould washes was in line with good practice, the landlord failed to monitor the effectiveness of the mould washes to ensure they were working correctly in minimising the level of mould in the property. It failed to discuss this further with the resident to explore other options or resolutions to alleviate her concerns.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord did not receive any further reports of damp and mould in the property until 29 June 2023. The landlord carried out a second inspection on 25 August 2023. There was a delay of 41 working days until the landlord carried out a second inspection of the property. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman will not relay the entirety of the inspection report on 25 August 2023, but a summary of the findings are as follows:
1. There was a damp problem in the property and historic mould in the upstairs cupboard.
2. Insufficient ventilation had caused the damp.
3. A 3-stage mould treatment and redecoration works were required, as well as the installation of a vent to the understairs cupboard door and redecoration works.
There were further delays in the landlord completing the recommended works as per the investigation report dated 25 August 2023. The landlord’s repair records show that it started repairs on 21 September and completed the works on 2 October 2023. It also carried out a further mould wash on 4 October 2023. The landlord has not explained the reason for the delay. This was not appropriate.
The landlord carried out a third inspection of the property on 1 February 2024. The Ombudsman will not relay the entirety of the inspection report, but a summary of the findings are as follows:
1. There was condensation-related mould to the rear bedroom window reveal. The report recommended that the landlord check the drainage system to ensure there are no issues with this.
2. There was mould to the window reveals and discolouring to the laminate flooring, as well as mould in a cupboard.
3. There were some damp patches underneath the damp proof course membrane (brickwork).
4. There were no blockages found in the drains, but the report recommended a CCTV inspection to ensure there were no cracks or splits directly below the affected area.
5. There was condensation in the rear bedroom due to a cold thermal spot of window reveals. There was a lack of ventilation and a build-up of moisture.
6. The proposed works included a CCTV inspection to rule out any further issues other than condensation and cold spots in the property.
A landlord is obliged, in accordance with s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, (as amended by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018), to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Once the landlord was on notice that there was damp and mould affecting the property, and the resident had raised concerns about the health of her daughter, it should have decided whether a health and safety assessment was required. It should have also considered whether dehumidifiers were required to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property.
While the landlord did carry out some remedial works to the property, the Ombudsman has identified multiple delays in the landlord carrying out the works. Further, the resident has reported that there are still ongoing issues with damp and mould. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the remedial works have not fully resolved the cause of the damp and mould. The resident said she is concerned that there are issues with the external brickwork. The most recent inspection report noted that there were some damp patches underneath the damp proof course membrane.
The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to carry out a full survey of the property to identify the cause of the damp and mould and carry out any necessary remedial works.
The resident has explained that her daughter’s asthma was made worse as a result of the mould in the property. In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions about the cause of the breathing problems based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claims or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
In the resident’s initial complaint, she said she had to dispose of personal belongings as a result of the damp and mould. The landlord addressed this point in its stage 1 response. The landlord said it could not offer compensation for the resident’s personal belongings. However, the landlord recommended that the resident contact her insurer or contact the landlord’s “Homes and Communities Team” to make a claim.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has not submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurers. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of any insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the losses incurred. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her report of damage to her personal belongings and establish whether it should contribute towards the costs incurred or whether its insurer is considering a claim.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to appropriately acknowledge the above failings and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. The landlord has not offered any compensation to the resident for the delays in its handling of reports of damp and mould. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the complaint had an impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she was understandably concerned about the health and wellbeing of her daughter as a result of the damp and mould.
In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. There were delays in the landlord attending the property to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. There were delays in the landlord identifying the cause of the damp and mould.
3. There were delays in the landlord carrying out a mould wash in the property.
4. There were delays in the landlord carrying out remedial works.
5. It failed to monitor the effectiveness of the mould washes and failed to discuss this further with the resident to explore other options or resolutions to alleviate her concerns.
6. It did not keep in regular communication with the resident.
7. There are ongoing issues with damp and mould which the landlord has not yet resolved.
8. It did not consider carrying out a health and safety assessment. The landlord also failed to consider whether dehumidifiers were required to address the moisture and humidity levels in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint procedure within 10 working days. The complaint response time was appropriate, in line with good practice, and in line with the landlord’s complaint policy and the Complaint Handling Code.
However, while the landlord acknowledged there was a service failure regarding its target date for attendance at the property it failed to consider whether it should pay compensation to the resident in line with its compensation policy. Section 10 of the landlord’s policy states that the landlord can offer compensation for distress, time and trouble. Section 6 of the Complaint Handling Code also states it is a requirement for landlords to acknowledge where things have gone wrong and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In awarding compensation, a landlord must consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have been incurred, the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.
Further, while the landlord did take some action in putting things right by offering the resident an earlier appointment than it had previously agreed, there was no acknowledgement from the landlord that the resident had to make a complaint for this to happen.
There were significant delays in the landlord providing a stage 2 response to the resident. The resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint on 18 February 2023. The landlord provided its response on 8 June 2023 which was 74 working days later. This was 54 working days in excess of the landlord’s complaints policy. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated, and that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. It would have also prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Further, there was no acknowledgement from the landlord in its stage 2 response of the delays. It also failed to consider whether it should pay compensation to the resident in line with its compensation policy.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all of the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the historic reports of damp and mould as they were not raised within a reasonable time.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The head of complaints or repairs must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,250, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of the damp and mould.
  2. £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.

Contact the resident to discuss her report of damage to her personal belongings and establish whether it should contribute towards the costs incurred or whether its insurer is considering this.
Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for it to carry out a full survey of the property. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure it completes the work within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The landlord must share the schedule of work and action plan with the resident and this service.

The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified in paragraph 48. It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.