Leeds City Council (202307845)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307845

Leeds City Council

28 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. Reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her young child. The property is a ground-floor, 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord confirms there are no vulnerabilities on its systems for the resident.
2. The landlord’s records confirm that in response to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in the property, it carried out inspections in:
   1. September 2020.
   2. March 2021.
   3. April 2022.
3. These inspections identified that there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp in the property but noted some small areas of black mould. The landlord’s inspections found the cause of the mould was condensation. In response it installed passive vents next to the windows in the bedroom.
4. In January 2023, the resident reported further concerns about damp and mould in the property. The landlord carried out further inspections of the property and identified and carried out minor repairs to remedy small areas of black spot mould.
5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 27 February 2023. She outlined that she was unhappy with the landlord’s approaches to the damp and mould in the property and that it had not attended two arranged appointments. She requested compensation for the time she had needed to take off work and loss of wages. The resident also highlighted the effect of the damp and mould on her and her son’s health.
6. On 20 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in which it stated:
   1. It accepted that it should have attended an arranged appointment at the property on 27 February 2023. It offered an apology for this.
   2. It confirmed that its contractors would attend on 23 March 2023 to treat the affected areas of damp and mould.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and on 12 April 2023 she requested an escalation of her complaint. She stated:
   1. She did not accept the landlord’s apology as she had lost wages by having to take time off work to allow access to the landlord and its contractors.
   2. She felt the landlord was calling her a liar as she was at home all day on 27 February 2023.
   3. The ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property had affected her and her son’s health. She felt that the property was unfit to live in.
   4. The property was cold and the draughts meant that she was spending more on her gas bill to try and heat the property.
   5. She raised other repairs in the property, including that one of the vents the landlord had installed was insecure and a human hand could reach through it.
   6. She stated that she was paying full rent for a property that she was unable to live in due to its condition.
   7. She provided a list of items damaged by mould in the property and wanted the landlord to compensate her for these. She also requested that the landlord compensate her for loss of earnings, stress, and transport costs to attend medical appointments. She outlined that the medical visits were a result of the effects of the damp and mould on her and her son.
8. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 4 May 2023 in which it stated:
   1. It acknowledged that an appointment was missed on 27 February 2023, and it apologised for this. It confirmed that it does not offer compensation to residents for missed appointments, nor does it charge residents who do not provide access.
   2. It did not gain access to the property on 22 February 2023 and 11 March 2023. It had photographic evidence from the operatives who attended.
   3. It listed the measures it had taken to address the reports of damp and mould in the property:
      1. It had installed passive vents on either side of the bedroom window on 1 October 2020.
      2. On 30 March 2021, it took meter readings in the property which confirmed the walls were dry. It stated that condensation was the cause of the reported issues.
      3. On 13 April 2022, it found small amounts of mould around windows, as a result of condensation. In response, it had renewed the sealant around a window and replaced the glass in two units. It noted that the window vents had been taped over which was preventing airflow. It also noted a lack of airflow in the hall and recommended fitting of air vents to internal doors. It did not gain access to the property to fit the vents on 23 May 2022 but the vents were fitted on 1 December 2022.
      4. It carried out a further inspection on 30 January 2023. It raised an order to check the windows and to replace the window sealant which had black mould on it. Its records confirm that it completed this, along with window repairs on 7 February 2023, 8 March 2023 and 19 April 2023.
      5. Its contractors had carried out anti-fungal painting in the property on 16 February 2023 and 18 April 2023.
      6. It had not identified any penetrating or rising damp in the property.
      7. It reminded the resident that she was responsible for ventilating the property by using extractor fans and opening windows to allow moisture to escape. It advised the resident not to tape over the trickle vents in the windows. It also advised the resident how she could safely treat small patches of mould using an anti-fungal spray
      8. It was satisfied that it had taken appropriate action to improve ventilation in the property and to treat the mould. It was satisfied that the vents were necessary and accepted that the resident’s heating costs may have increased following their installation.
      9. It provided the resident with details on how she may be able to access government support with living costs. It advised that she could discuss any support needs with her housing officer.
      10. With regards to the resident’s reports of damage to her belongings, it provided a claim form for her to complete. Its corporate insurance service would consider any claim.
      11. It would not offer any compensation for stress, financial loss or transport for medical purposes. It stated that as it had taken appropriate action in response to her reports of damp and mould in the property, it would not offer any compensation for any effect on health.
      12. It acknowledged that it had provided its stage 2 complaint response outside its target timescale and offered £25 as a goodwill gesture.

Post complaints process

9. The landlord’s records show that it completed a further inspection of the property on 22 September 2023 which recommended:
   1. Installation of passive air vents in the lounge.
   2. Checking of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
   3. Installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
   4. Replaster and decoration of the lounge wall.
10. The landlord attended on 5 October 2023 to install passive vents in the lounge and an extractor fan in the kitchen however it did not gain access. It made a further two attempts on 24 October 2023 and 8 November 2023, but these were unsuccessful.
11. On 23 October 2023, the resident submitted a disrepair claim to the landlord regarding the condition of the property.
12. On 8 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident regarding not being able to access the property to install vents and an extractor fan. Its records state that the resident was refusing access as she wanted these items to be addressed through the disrepair process.
13. On 23 November 2023, the landlord rejected the resident’s disrepair claim. This followed a further property inspection which identified two minor repairs, but no presence of any damp and mould.
14. The resident told this service in an email on 12 January 2024 that there is still damp and mould throughout the property and the landlord’s actions have not resolved these problems.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

15. The resident first reported concerns about damp and mould in the property in April 2020. This investigation primarily focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from October 2020 onwards that were considered in the landlord’s complaint responses.
16. The resident reports that her and her son’s health has been affected by damp and mould in the property. These matters are better dealt with by the courts as a personal injury claim where an independent medical expert can give evidence on the cause of any ill health, and the prognosis.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

17. The landlord and the resident do not dispute that there were areas of mould within the property. The evidence reviewed indicates the resident disputes that the cause of the problem was due to condensation. All the landlord’s inspections during the timescales considered in this case were carried out by a technical officer. This member of staff will be suitably trained and qualified to determine the cause of damp and mould and to make suitable recommendations. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its technical officer. No contradictory evidence to the technical officer’s findings has been presented to this service.
18. The landlord’s records state that there were occasions its operatives could not gain access to the property to complete works. This means that it could not complete some repairs in a timely manner, but the landlord was not solely responsible for this.
19. During the landlord’s inspection of the property on 13 April 2022 it noted a small area of black mould around the windows but no evidence of rising or penetrating damp. It also noted that trickle vents in the windows had been taped over, and photos were taken of this. The landlord determined on several occasions that airflow around the property was poor and was likely to be a contributing factor to the condensation. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that inoperative vents would have also contributed to the problems. The landlord could not be held responsible for this.
20. It is noted that a number of recommended repairs and improvements in the property were identified and completed after the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 May 2023. From the evidence reviewed, it is not clear why it did not identify the later recommendations during its earlier inspections. Had it done so, it could have completed the recommendations sooner and minimised the impact on the resident, who says that she had to take time off work to allow access.
21. The resident stated in her request to escalate her complaint on 12 April 2023 that she felt she could not live in the property due to its condition. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that the property was in an unhabitable condition, or that the resident stayed elsewhere.
22. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord took timely and appropriate actions to address the resident’s concerns around damp and mould in the property. It communicated the findings from its inspections to the resident and offered reasonable solutions and support.
23. However, the landlord should have reasonably identified and implemented all recommendations sooner. This would have reduced the inconvenience experienced by the resident. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that this caused any significant impact on the resident overall based on a review of the inspection reports and the photographs provided of the property.

The associated complaint and the level of compensation offered

24. The landlord has a staff guidance document to assist with requests for compensation. This outlines that it can make discretionary offers of financial redress. The amounts it can offer are based on the level of service failure identified and mirror the amounts listed in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In this case, the landlord offered the resident a goodwill payment of £25 due to not providing the resident with its stage 2 complaint response within the timescales listed in its complaints policy.
25. The landlord provided the resident with a form on which she could submit a list of items damaged by the damp and mould in the property, along with supporting evidence. Its corporate insurance provider would consider any claim submitted. The landlord says that the resident did not return a claim form. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies by providing the resident with the means to make a claim for damaged items.
26. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of £25 in compensation due to providing its stage 2 complaint response one day outside of its target response time amounts to reasonable redress.
27. The tenancy agreement places an obligation on residents to allow access upon reasonable notice. Landlords often would not pay compensation for this unless it was clear there were missed appointments. The landlord’s decision not to award compensation was not unreasonable and a decision it was entitled to make.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for the way it handled the complaint.

Recommendations

30. The landlord may wish to inspect the property again in light of the resident’s recent reports that the mould has returned.