Poole Housing Partnership Ltd (202001799)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001799

Poole Housing Partnership Ltd

24 March 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and other repairs required in the property.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused due to the issues and overcrowding in the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a), (e) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident states that the issues have had a detrimental impact on the mental and physical health of members of his family. He has provided doctors’ reports and other medical documents as evidence of his assertions in this regard. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of his complaint.
Our position here is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
The resident has referred to issues occurring since 2012 when he first reported issues to the landlord, and particularly 2014 when he complained about mould in the property. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states as follows: ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in his opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.’ In accordance with the above paragraph, this Service cannot consider the previous incidents in assessing the landlord’s handling of the present case as these have become historical and cannot reasonably be investigated at this time. This means that, although the issues may have been on-going since 2012/2014, this report has considered the landlord’s actions since the more recent reports by the resident, which are within 6 months prior to his formal complaint.
The resident has sent this Service copies of correspondence between him and the landlord on further matters which did not form part of the formal complaints regarding which the landlord sent its final decisions on 2 July and 3 August 2020. These matters have not been considered in this report as the Ombudsman cannot consider any issues which did not form part of the formal complaint. The escalation of an ongoing complaint is not the appropriate forum for raising issues which have either not been reported to the landlord previously or were not being dealt with within the same complaint. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman advises the resident to initially pursue the matter with the landlord, through its internal complaints process.
Any mention of the issues outlined above in other sections of this report are solely for contextual purposes.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a first floor 2 bedroom flat in a block managed on behalf of the council by an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO). The ALMO is referred in this report as the landlord as it deals directly with the resident with respect to repairs and complaints in its management role. His wife is a joint tenant of the property in which they live with their three children.
In an email of 11 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he was not satisfied with its handling of his reports of mould in the property. He had called on 5 March 2020 to report this issue and was advised that there might be a call back. A new bathroom extractor had been installed, was constantly on but had not helped. He used the extractor fan and kept windows open whilst cooking and also used mould traps, which was expensive. He had redecorated the children’s room and kitchen with barrier paint. He also cleaned the property with mould bleach every 5 to 8 weeks. He felt that the property was overcrowded and there were leaks and other issues in the roof or outer building walls. He wanted to be rehoused due to these issues.
The resident also stated that the window replacement appointment, which he cancelled a year previously, had not been rescheduled. There was also an issue with the front door as the interior concrete step was damp most mornings.
In a complaint to the landlord of 16 March 2020, the resident stated that he was not happy with the lack of sympathy or compassion shown to his wife in a telephone conversation with its staff member that afternoon. The call took place after an inspection of the property that day, with respect to the mould and other issues. The staff member had stated that there were mould issues in the property due to overcrowding and his wife had agreed. The landlord suggested that she could register with the council’s allocations site or register for a home swap.
The resident’s wife had explained that they had been bidding on the site for seven years without success. She did not think anyone would want to swap a three-bedroom property for a mouldy two-bedroom one. The landlord suggested that some may want to downsize. She requested that the landlord assist her in seeking a higher banding with the council due to health challenges, but it refused, stating that the council would not be concerned about past illness.
The resident stated this statement upset his wife and furthermore, his three children were sharing a double bedroom suitable for two people. He wanted written confirmation that the mould in the property was caused by overcrowding. He stated that the mould was a health hazard. The landlord appeared to have confirmed that it would not undertake any repairs because the issue was due to the family being in the property, thus, he wanted emergency rehousing. The landlord acknowledged receipt of his complaint and provided a response date.
In its stage one decision, of 17 March 2020, the landlord referenced the inspection visit to the property and the orders raised to replace parts of the windows and renew seals and draught strips to the front door. It stated that mould and damage had been seen at high levels of the walls, as well as in areas where the furniture was against the walls. It proposed to undertake a further inspection to the roof and eaves. It also intended to undertake a damp and mould assessment of the property. However, it was uncertain about when these actions would be undertaken due to the lockdown caused by the pandemic.
On 20 March 2020 the resident requested that additional points be added to his complaint. Primarily that the issues in the property had been overlooked since 2014 when it was first raised; the area around the cooker had also not been expanded since his request in 2012. He had requested for the sideboards to be cut back to allow the installation of a larger cooker. Other flats in the block also had issues of damp and mould and he wanted to know whether any complaints had been made by the residents. He was going to take measures to deal with the mould whilst the lockdown persisted but wanted to know how it would be dealt with afterwards. He wanted the landlord to pay for the costs and inconvenience to him. He disputed the landlord querying him having furniture against the wall as he stated that it would be unsafe otherwise.
In an email to the resident of 6 April 2020, the landlord advised that it had low staff capacity due to the lockdown. It clarified that an email to the resident, of 23 March 2020, in which it had advised of the need to extend its response time to 14 April 2020 had not delivered. The landlord further advised in a letter to the resident of 9 April 2020 that the delays to it responding to his complaint about a staff member was for the same reasons of the lockdown.
In its decision of 9 April 2020, the landlord stated that the staff member had contacted the resident to discuss his housing options. It was its intention to provide honest information regarding what was possible and there was no evidence of the staff member having been rude or dismissive in his communications. It stated that the staff member had suggested that overcrowding may be a factor to the mould growth. As the property was overcrowded, it considered that there may be room for reducing their personal items to enable air flow as the possessions could contribute to condensation. The staff member had suggested that his wife could speak to the council about her health issues and the damp to see if this would enable an amendment of their banding. Its experience was that the council did not take much account of its input with respect to banding.
In his response of 15 April 2020, the resident queried the landlord’s advice that he had to remove some of his personal items, that the property was overcrowded and had had severe mould prior to his tenancy and that his wife’s account of events with the staff member had been dismissed and neither had he been provided with a complaint reference number. In an email of 22 April 2020, the landlord apologised for not providing a reference number and explained it had begun to work from home at the time and did not have access to its system for this purpose. It provided him with the reference number.
On 26 May 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his emails, particularly regarding the mould and works to be carried out. In internal emails, the landlord’s staff members discussed the difficulties in providing responses on the matter at the time due to the lockdown. On 28 May 2020, the resident formally complained about damage to the walls due to mould as this had resulted in the decoration being ruined; the property required complete redecoration and he was unable to swap for this reason; for the landlord to contact the council to inform it that the property was in disrepair and his banding should be increased.
In its response of 29 May 2020, the landlord explained that its contractors were only able to undertake emergency works at the time. It reiterated its planned actions as stated in its response to him and its letter of 17 March 2020. It would however contact the contractor to get an action plan for the works by the following week. The resident responded, repeating the issues in further detail and the fact that the property was not in a condition to mutually exchange and maintained that he wanted to be moved.
In a letter to the resident of 1 June 2020 the landlord confirmed that his complaint had been escalated to stage two of its procedure and a response could be expected by 19 June 2020.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord explained that an order for scaffolding had been raised to enable an inspection of the eaves and roof, where the damp and mould was most prevalent. It would also assess the temperature and humidity in the property, thus, it wanted to know if the equipment could be dropped off at the property in the following week. The resident queried the timing of the assessment because the issues of mould were worse in the cooler months, the duration of the assessment and when the kitchen and bathroom were last renewed.
The landlord advised that the equipment would be in the property for three weeks. It agreed that there was usually more mould in the cooler months but stated that the photographs sent by the resident showed that the mould in the property continued to grow in the summer. It would undertake a further assessment later in the year. It provided him with results of the monitoring which took place in March 2020.
In his response of 11 June 2020, the resident stated that he could not accept the equipment due to the possible expense. He was also concerned that it would be difficult to monitor it with the children being out of school. He requested for another solution which would not entail financial expense to him.
The resident stated that he had been informed that the investigation would take place later in the year and using a different system. He wanted to know why the plan was different now and requested the landlord’s procedure for dealing with mould. He stated that he would not give consent for any measure which would require his making payment or being responsible for the equipment. He was not happy that the landlord put the issue down to him having too many children in the property and also informed his wife about this. He also wanted to know if it had contacted the council’s lettings department on his behalf.
On 18 June 2020 the landlord wrote to advise the resident of the need to extend its response to enable the full investigation of the issue and repairs to the property. It expected to review the matter by 16 July 2020. The resident sent the landlord a further complaint email on the same day. The sub-paragraphs below outline the main points and the landlord’s response to each point, sent on 29 June 2020.
1. The landlord had not responded to an outstanding complaint regarding two of its staff members and he wished for this to be escalated to stage two. The landlord clarified that a separate response to this matter would be provided.
2. He wanted the landlord to confirm repairs to be undertaken regarding the mould and provide specified personnel. This was particularly regarding his request for redecoration of the property and replacement of damaged items. The landlord clarified the staff member dealing with the issue and reiterated the response date.
3. He wanted the refund of rent for the period since he first reported the issue in 2014, as there had been significant health and other impact on his family. Whether the landlord chose to take legal action against any of its former employees regarding the issue. And confirmation that the matter would be responded to by its chief executive as advised. The landlord confirmed the details of the senior staff member considering the issue.
The landlord provided its final decision about its staff members on 2 July 2020. It stated that it had failed to deliver a good service as it had not responded to his email of 15 April 2020 and apologised for this. It upheld this aspect of his complaint and stated that it had addressed its staff members on the issue. However, it maintained that the correct decision had been made on the substantive matter of the communication to his wife by its staff member.
The resident wrote to dispute the landlord’s findings, on 2 July 2020. He also stated that the humidity reading of the property was high although he was working from home with the windows open. The landlord responded with a request to have a telephone conversation with him on 4 July 2020. He responded that he did not have the time to take a call from the landlord as he was working. He however reiterated all of the information in his previous emails to the landlord.
In an email of 17 July 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that the works had not started, and he had not been contacted. He demanded a letter to the council requesting re–banding and rehousing and the refund of rent.
In emails of 20 July 2020, the landlord advised that the matter had been passed to the senior staff member for an urgent response to him. It clarified that the complaint would be open until the repairs had been completed. Scaffolding would be erected on 21 July 2020 for the roofing contractors visit but it could not advise about the rectification works until the investigation was completed. The stage two response would have to be extended by at least three weeks because of this. Other repairs would be discussed when the property was visited but it could not comment on issues raised in 2012.
In further emails, the resident objected to the further extension of a response without communicating with him. He repeated his demands for contact with the council regarding his banding, refund of his rent and maintained that he wanted to be rehoused. He informed the landlord on 24 July 2020 that he had not been contacted by the senior staff member and thought that this was unprofessional.
In an email, of 24 July 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it had begun to contact the council about his housing situation and would contact it again on 3 August 2020. The resident sought clarification that the landlord would inform the council the property was in disrepair and queried why the staff member he complained of, had contacted him on the complaint issue.
In its response of 29 July 2020, the senior staff member apologised for the delay in contacting the resident as an assumption had been made that the issues had been resolved when he was visited. Clarification was provided that the rent would not be refunded and but the landlord would continue to support him in his application to the council for rehousing. The resident continued to pursue a refund as well as to query why the landlord would not provide him with a letter to the council on his banding. He also queried the status of his formal complaints and the validity of his tenancy agreement. He stated that the landlord had agreed that the roof and insulation of the property was defective. He wanted the landlord to make a claim to its insurer for the issues.
In its final decision of 3 August 2020, the landlord clarified that the need for repairs does not make a property uninhabitable. It therefore advised that it could not write to the council to support the resident’s request for rehousing on that basis. It acknowledged that several defects had been reported but stated that these had been, or were being, addressed and it had visited the property several times in this regard. It would therefore not be refunding the resident’s rent payments. It acknowledged that the housing circumstances of the family were difficult due to the lack of space and the size of the family. It, however, had no influence over allocations by the council.

Summary of Events Post-Complaints Decision

The resident stated that the decision had been vague and did not address the issues. The landlord had failed to maintain the property and the property had become an environmental hazard and compensation was warranted. He sought clarification why the landlord had continued to deal with the complaint, when he had ‘completely exhausted’ the process.
A survey report was undertaken of the property and a report, dated 9 September 2020, was produced. It showed that the insulation of the roofing did not cover the wall plate. It found that the property was over occupied and over insulated by the cavity wall insulation, which it recommended should be removed. It also found that the increased insulation within the roof void was causing a lack of ventilation and there were increased moisture levels in the property causing condensation and, consequently, visible damp and mould. Some of the recommendations included repairs to the windows, replacement of the loft hatch, cleaning of the mould in the front bedroom and insulation over the wall plate.
In a letter dated 10 September 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s letter of claim with respect to disrepair of the property. It stated that it would provide relevant documents to the resident as required under the pre action protocol when the survey report was received.
The resident contacted the landlord, on 21, 22 and 23 September 2020 to report that the scaffolding had been up for approximately 60 days and the works had not been undertaken.
In its response of 23 September 2020, the landlord explained that it had now discussed the report with the surveyor who had been on leave and could respond further. It stated that the finding had been that overcrowding was the main cause of the mould. It would order repairs to the windows, doors, loft hatch and boxing as identified in the report. Other residents had to be informed about works to remove the cavity wall insulation as this would impact on them. It would remove the scaffolding as no works would be undertaken to the roofing at the moment. It also intended to wash and treat mould affected areas and redecorate the children’s bedroom. It advised that the works would entail some disruption as the furniture would need moving.
The resident responded that he was requesting rehousing and not the repairs. There was no room in the property to move their personal items for the works and the entire family was being impacted on by the issues. The landlord had also not been accurate regarding the areas affected by the mould as this was in more parts of the property than it stated that it would redecorate.
In a further email of 25 September 2020, the landlord explained that it was a management agent for the council and therefore did not have the right to move tenants between housing stock. The council alone had the right to allocate vacant properties within its policy. It could temporarily decant the family to enable remedial works, but his tenancy agreement would remain operational until the works were completed.

Assessment and findings

The paragraphs above have provided details of some of the communication between the parties after the formal complaint was completed. These communications continued in the ensuing months but details of these have not been provided in this report because, as stated in the jurisdiction section, the Ombudsman investigates issues which have been dealt within the landlord’s complaints process. Furthermore, the further correspondences have mostly reiterated the position of the resident as stated in his emails to the landlord whilst the formal complaint was live.
The resident has raised issues regarding his banding and bidding for rehousing. These are matters to be referred to the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) as the property is managed by an arm’s length management organisation on behalf of the council. This report has, therefore considered the adequacy of the landlord’s response to these issues, particularly with respect to his request that the landlord writes to the council on his behalf.
From the resident’s correspondence with the landlord, as well as all documents provided to this Service, it is clear that the recent communications on the issues began in March 2020. This is confirmed as the resident states in his emails to the landlord that he first reported some of the issues in 2012 and the mould in 2014, his wife became ill in 2017, and he began to report the issues again in 2020.
The landlord’s Housing Repairs and Maintenance Policy provides that its timescale for dealing with routine repairs is 28 calendar days. The landlord inspected the property on 16 March 2020, 6 calendar days after the resident’s report. This was within the requisite timescales for routine repairs. Without any expert report to that effect, this Service is unable to conclude that the issues reported constituted an emergency, thus the landlord’s routine repairs timescale applies to this case.
It is vital to note that the formal complaint was made in the initial days of the first national lockdown caused by the pandemic. This was an unprecedented time for organisations in the country as most began to attempt to deliver services under restrictions. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the difficulties the landlord experienced in trying to both deal with outstanding repairs as well as respond to ongoing complaints. The inspection visit to the property occurred on the same day that the first national lockdown began and the landlord was prompt in providing its stage one decision on 17 March 2020, the day after the inspection.
The repairs to be undertaken to the property were identified in the landlord’s decision and it clarified that, although it had raised orders for these, it was uncertain about when the work could be undertaken, as contractors could not carry out non-emergency works under government guidelines. The resident continued to write to the landlord, repeating his requests regarding the issues, resulting in a very high volume of correspondence within a relatively short time. He made a second complaint regarding damage to the walls of the property due to the mould and it was appropriate that the landlord advised that it would be providing a stage two decision on the earlier complaint as this was on the same matter.
It must be noted that, in addition to the lockdown situation preventing the landlord from taking further action regarding the repairs and mould, the resident’s personal circumstance was an impediment to resolving the issue. His wife’s health condition has been a major issue to be considered in the discussions on a resolution. He has mentioned repeatedly that the property was overcrowded, and it would be difficult to undertake any works as there was no room to move his personal items. However, he continued to dispute that this was the reason why he wanted to move. He insisted that the landlord inform the council that the property was in disrepair and this was the reason why he had to move.
In the month of April and May 2020 the parties continued to communicate on these issues. The resident was promised an escalation of the matter to a senior staff member because of his request for the refund of his rent and that the chief executive contact him. There is no obligation on the landlord to have the chief executive or any staff member contact the resident where it is not within their normal role to do so. Thus, it was helpful that the landlord made this offer. When the specified senior staff member did not contact the resident he sent an email apologising for this and explaining that he thought the issue had been dealt with, as another staff member had visited and discussed the issues with the resident. His response was adequate and demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to be conciliatory and acknowledge it mistakes in handling the issues.
The landlord agreed that there were defects to the property and that it was in the process of resolving them. It was accurate in advising the resident that the need for repairs in the property does not indicate that the property is uninhabitable and a rent rebate due. It is reasonable for landlords to rely on the assessment of their expert personnel with respect to the condition of properties. In the absence of any professional report indicating that the property was uninhabitable, or a safety hazard, this Service is unable to conclude that this is the case.
The resident maintains that the humidity level in the property is unacceptable and has provided the landlord with his readings. It is unusual for landlords to rely on monitoring equipment installed by residents in assessing issues such as the humidity level in a property. Thus, it would have been helpful for the parties to discuss how the landlord’s loggers could be installed so that they could be safely utilised for the assessment of the property without causing a hazard or potentially being damaged by the children. It is noted, however, that the resident strenuously maintained that he did not wish for the equipment to be installed as he also believed there were cost implications, nor did he want repairs to be undertaken as there was no room to move his personal items to enable this and he wished to be rehoused permanently.
The landlord made a commitment to resolve the issues in the property. It also clarified to the resident that the issues of banding and rehousing were not within its remit to resolve as it is an ALMO. This matter is made more complex by the fact that the landlord was keen to undertake works but there was no room to do so whilst the family was in residence. The complexity is increased further by the fact that the resident has stated that a temporary decant would be most inconveniencing due to his wife’s health condition and his work commitments. However, the landlord is unable to offer him a permanent move and this is an issue regarding which he must continue to contact the council. It is within his discretion to decide whether he would opt for registering for a house swap. The landlord has reasonably mentioned this option which the resident is not under an obligation to undertake.
There were delays to the scaffolding being removed from the property as no works were being undertaken for most of the time. The complexities of beginning work in the property when an agreement had not been reached between the parties on how this could be carried out, contributed to delays in undertaking works. The resident was also increasingly emphatic in telling the landlord that he did not want any works to be undertaken as he wanted rehousing.
Ultimately, it is agreed that extensive works are required to the structure of the property in order to deal with all likely causes of mould. Specific works have been identified by the survey report of September 2020. The matter of space to undertake these works cannot be resolved without the resident and his family being rehoused temporarily or permanently. This is not an issue which this Service can decide, as the parties would have to choose how they wish to proceed. The resident may choose to consider a temporary decant, which would likely mean moving to a property of similar size and would also inconvenience the family to a point. On the other hand, the landlord may wish to seek legal advice about whether the nature of the works required to the property necessitates taking action to gain entry into the property by legal means.
Personnel working for landlords are assigned to specific departments. The fact that a resident has complained about a staff member does not result in the landlord restricting communication from the staff member to the resident. This is because the staff member remains tasked with undertaking responsibilities within their assigned role. In this case the landlord found that the staff member had acted within the requirements of their role in their discussion with the resident’s wife. There was, therefore, no reason why the staff member should have been prevented from contacting the resident as part of their duty.
The resident wanted the landlord to contact the council on his behalf in a specific manner and to state the issues in his own words. The landlord did not entirely agree with the resident’s assertions about the condition of the property. There is no policy or tenancy responsibility requiring the landlord to act as dictated by the resident. It was also not under any obligation to write to the council on the resident’s behalf. It agreed to provide this assistance and had the discretion to do so as it considered appropriate. It was not required to adhere to the format dictated by the resident.
The landlord clarified to the resident that his wife’s conversation with the staff member had been partly overhead when it was occurring. It found no evidence of the staff member being unsympathetic of their situation during the call. This Service finds that the staff member was trying to manage the expectations of the family by clarifying the landlord’s position and limitations. It was also trying to ensure that the resident was aware that any decision by the council, with respect to allocation of property, would be based on its assessment of the situation as presented by the resident and not through any representations by the landlord.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident’s email of 15 April 2020. It apologised for this shortcoming and upheld this aspect of the complaint. This Service finds that its response and apology was adequate redress for the issue it had identified. It must be noted that it sent an email addressing the issue of a complaint reference number not being provided, which was part of the issues raised in the email of 15 April 2020.
The resident objects to the landlord’s findings with respect to the main cause of the mould in the property. The landlord maintains that this is due to overcrowding whilst the resident states that the mould is due to defect of the property. The later survey report finds that the walls are over insulated, and the property is also overcrowded. While it proposes actions regarding the insulation, the report is not definite about the situation. This Service finds that until the works are completed, and the situation monitored a conclusive position would be premature. There is no service failure in the landlord stating that overcrowding has caused condensation in the property which has resulted in mould growth as this has been identified as part of the problem. But it is also fair to say there are also currently other contributing factors.
In concluding the stage two decisions on both complaints by the resident, the landlord clarified that this was the end of its internal process and he could escalate the matter externally with the Ombudsman. It is therefore unclear why he remained uncertain about the status of the matters as shown in his queries in further emails.
The landlord was proactive in writing to the resident to inform him about the non-delivery of its email in which it advised about the need to extend the timescale for its stage one decision on the repairs. It also notified the resident about the need to extend its decision time scale on later locations. It is appropriate that the landlord identified that there would be delays and ensured that the resident was informed about this. It was not required to seek the resident’s permission to extend its decision time scales as this extension became necessary as it could not provide the response sooner. Its actions were, therefore, appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and other repairs required in the property.
2. The resident’s request to be rehoused due to the issues and overcrowding in the property.

Reasons

The landlord was unable to fully assess or undertake works to the property due to lockdown restrictions; the resident’s personal circumstances and the lack of mutual agreement between the parties on how to proceed.
The landlord took reasonable steps to assess the situation in the property and both parties agree that it is overcrowded. The parties disagree on the main cause of the mould, but the landlord has demonstrated its willingness to take any reasonable action to resolve it.
The evidence indicates that the landlord’s staff member provided appropriate advice to the resident’s wife during the telephone conversation. The landlord also advised him accurately about its limitations with respect to rehousing.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider contacting the resident to discuss the likelihood of the family undertaking a temporary decant to enable works to the property, with the understanding that the family would be expected to return to the property after.