Leicester City Council (202011563)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011563

Leicester City Council

22 November 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. His tenancy ended on 30 November 2020.
3. On 12 June 2020 the resident wrote a letter to the landlord. The landlord states that it received this letter by email on 1 July 2020. In his letter, the resident raised various concerns. He said he was experiencing ASB in his area. He explained that the ASB included “the smell of weed” and people using “the road outside [as] a race track tearing up and down at all hour’s night and day”. He said his flat was damp and “mould [was] a constant nightmare to try and control”. He said his area was “unpleasant, and often dangerous”. He asked whether the landlord would help him move properties. There is no evidence of the landlord’s response.
4. Although not entirely clear, the landlord’s records appear to confirm that following this, it received ASB reports from the resident about his neighbour. On 15 July 2020 the landlord noted that it had attempted to contact the neighbour about the matter.
5. The landlord’s records show on 24 July 2020 the resident reported ASB again. He said his neighbour was allowing “unsavoury looking characters” into their flat, the main door was being left open, and that at 22.30 pm that night, there were “drumming noises”. The landlord responded on 28 July confirming that it had forwarded the report to the Estate Management Officer and that the resident was able to report noise nuisance to its noise nuisance team. The resident reported similar issues on 10 August. The landlord visited the neighbour on 11 August and asked them not to cause a noise nuisance or to leave the main door open.
6. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 19 August 2020. She said the resident had advised that his neighbour’s guests were openly smoking cannabis and making a noise in the building. She said the resident had made complaints to the landlord about these matters. She said the resident said his housing officer was patronising and unhelpful. She asked the landlord to respond to her directly.
7. The landlord spoke to the neighbour again on 21 August 2020 who said they were ensuring their visitors did not make noise. The landlord also spoke to the resident on this date who advised that the ASB issues were ongoing. The landlord told the resident to report any criminal matters to the police.
8. The landlord responded to the MP on 26 August 2020. It said it had been investigating the resident’s ASB reports and following its actions so far, the incidents appeared to have reduced. It said its housing officer had spoken to the resident about damp, repair issues, and his options if he wanted to be re-housed.
9. The landlord closed the ASB case on 16 October 2020 due to “improvements & no further complaints”.
10. The MP contacted the landlord on 10 November 2020. She said the resident had explained that his neighbour was continuing to make disturbances. She said the resident had been experiencing damp and mould for a number of years and that she was “deeply alarmed” by this given the resident’s heart condition. She said despite the resident’s complaints to the landlord, it had not addressed his concerns with his “poor housing conditions”. The MP said the resident had decided to end his tenancy as a result of the housing conditions and the ASB.
11. The landlord responded to the MP on 12 November 2020. It said it carried out a damp inspection in the resident’s property in 2016 and completed treatment for condensation in 2017. It said it would carry out a new damp inspection but could not arrange an appointment until after the resident’s tenancy end date. It said it had reviewed photos supplied by the resident and had identified that the issue was from condensation. It explained what advice it usually gave residents who reported damp. For example, it said residents must ensure their home is properly heated and ventilated. It said it had investigated the resident’s reports of ASB and taken action but could not provide details of its actions for data protection reasons. It said that as there had been no further reports, it closed the case. It said investigating ASB was a long process, and it required residents to report and evidence all incidents.
12. The MP contacted the landlord on 4 December 2020. She said that the resident’s neighbour’s property was “being used as a drugs den”. She said the resident contacted the landlord following treatment in 2017 concerning damp and mould, but was told he was responsible for the removal of it. She said the resident felt his home had become unfit for use, and that the landlord had not acknowledged his concerns. She asked why it had not provided the resident alternative accommodation, and what action it would take to close the “drug house”.
13. The landlord responded to the MP on 21 December 2020. It said its voids team inspected the resident’s flat (after he had left), and found some black mould in the bedroom at low level. It said the mould appeared to be as a result of condensation which may have been attributed to the resident’s living conditions. It said it did not expect the property to suffer from damp considering its construction and if it had visited the property whilst the resident lived there, it would have offered him advice regarding the damp, or undertaken remedial work. It said there were no grounds to deem the property uninhabitable due to damp. It said it fully investigated the resident’s complaint about his neighbour. It said it discussed his concerns with the neighbour and sought involvement from support agencies. It said following the MP’s suggestions that the neighbour’s flat was a “drug house”, it made enquiries with the police. It said the police had confirmed they had no concerns about the neighbour.
14. Following correspondence from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 14 January 2021, asking it to provide the resident with a final complaint response. The landlord subsequently advised this Service that its response to the MP on 21 December 2020 was its final reply, and as per its process, it responded directly to MPs and did not forward its response to residents. It said that it had not been approached by the resident directly and he was still able to raise a complaint under its complaints procedure. On 25 March 2021 this Service asked the landlord to register the resident’s concerns as a formal complaint, which the landlord agreed to do.
15. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 April 2021 and in summary this said that:
    1. It could not find evidence to show the resident made it aware of ongoing damp problems and the last time it had inspected in relation to damp and mould was in 2015. It noted that its previous correspondence had made an error in regard to the dates of inspections, as it had mistakenly stated the last inspection was carried out in 2016. It apologised for this.
    2. The MP made it aware of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in November 2020 by which time the resident had already ended his tenancy. It said it was unable to investigate matters it had not been made aware of.
    3. The ASB was first reported to it in July 2020 and its ASB investigations could take time as it needed to gather evidence. However, the resident ended their tenancy shortly afterwards. It was satisfied that the ASB process was followed.
    4. The resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

16. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy booklet confirms that the landlord will maintain the exterior and structure of the property. This repairing obligation includes carrying out repairs to stop water entering the property causing rising or penetrating damp.
17. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
18. The landlord’s conditions of tenancy booklet sets out that it is not responsible for condensation or the effects of it, unless caused by a breach of its repairing responsibilities. The resident is also required to ensure their home is properly heated and ventilated. If the resident fails to do this, and there is consequential condensation or mould, they are responsible for removing it. The resident is responsible for reporting repairs to the landlord.
19. The landlord has provided records showing that it attended the property during 2015 in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and that it did not receive any further reports following this until it received the resident’s letter dated 12 June 2020. There are limits to how far back an Ombudsman investigation can go and this investigation has therefore focussed on the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports from June 2020 onwards.
20. The landlord told the MP that it had spoken to the resident about the damp and repair issues. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service to show that this was the case or that the landlord took any other action to address the resident’s report about damp and mould following receipt of his letter dated 12 June 2020. This was a failing as the landlord was required to ensure that any damp and mould was not being caused by building defect and that the mould growth did not amount to a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
21. There is no evidence that the resident or the MP reported the damp and mould again until the MP wrote to the landlord on 10 November 2020. In response the landlord told the MP that it would inspect the property, but it was unable to do this immediately. The resident moved out of the property on 30 November 2020, and therefore, the landlord was not given adequate time to inspect the damp and mould and address any defects it was responsible for. The subsequent void inspection by the landlord concluded that the mould in the property was being caused by condensation, therefore suggesting that the mould was not being caused by a building defect for which the landlord was responsible for rectifying.
22. It is acknowledged that the resident says he has lived in damp and mould conditions for a significant length of time, and that this was likely to have impacted on his living conditions. However, the landlord can only be expected to address damp and mould issues in its properties if it is made adequately aware of them and there is no evidence the resident continued to report his concerns about damp and mould after his initial reports in 2015.

ASB reports

23. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that when a resident reports ASB it will interview the complainant and the alleged perpetrator. It will then agree on an action plan with the complainant, and keep them regularly updated. It can close an ASB case when there is no formal action required, and the complainant makes no further contact.
24. The evidence shows the resident began reporting his concerns about his neighbour in July 2020. In response, the landlord discussed the reports with the resident and made him aware that he could report noise nuisance to its noise team and any criminal activity to the police. It then met with the neighbour to make them aware of the reports and following receipt of further reports, it spoke to the neighbour about the matter again. There is also some evidence that support agencies were involved. The landlord provided a reasonable initial response to the ASB reports, in line with its ASB policy.
25. Landlords require sufficient evidence of the ASB being reported before they can take any formal action against an alleged perpetrator. In this case, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident continually reporting ASB. The evidence shows he made several reports during July and August, and as such, that landlord’s decision to close the case in October was reasonable, as its ASB policy allows it to do so when the complainant makes no further reports.
26. When the MP contacted the landlord on 10 November 2020, she said the resident had decided to end his tenancy. In light of this, it was reasonable for the landlord not to reopen the ASB case as the resident would be moving out and would be unable to report any further incidents. Although it is acknowledged that the resident’s situation would have been frustrating, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy, and its actions were reasonable and proportionate to the issues being reported.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Reasons

29. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in his letter to the landlord dated 12 June 2020. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took action to address the matter at this time.
30. The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s reports of ASB, which was in accordance with its ASB policy.

Orders and recommendations

31. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress caused by the failings identified with its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.