Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202119072)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119072

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

3 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Policies, procedures and good practice

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s legal obligation to “maintain and repair the structure and exterior of your [the resident’s] property”, including, gutters, external pipes, windows, walls, floors, drains, foundations.
In June 2020 the landlord introduced an interim Repair Policy. The policy stated that “RBH asks that tenants report repairs promptly and allow RBH representatives access to their homes to carry out property inspections, routine and emergency repairs and any work that RBHG consider necessary to ensure that our properties do not put tenants, employees or members of the public at risk”.
The policy confirmed that the landlord could attend all jobs reported in the order that they were logged. The Responsive Repair Policy was to go through a full policy approval process before being introduced in June 2021 although the new policy is dated February 2022, and is not publicised on the landlord’s website.
The landlord’s website as of 6 January 2023 contains guidance to residents on damp and mould. It notes four main types of dampness – rising damp, penetrating dampness, defective plumbing and condensation, but notes “Condensation is probably the biggest cause of damp in homes. A lot of information and advice is included in these pages to help tenants identify and reduce condensation”. The website notes that “Condensation is caused by water vapour or moisture from inside the dwelling coming into contact with a colder surface, such as a window or wall. The resultant water drops (condensation) appear on colder surfaces such as walls, windows, ceilings or mirrors….Black mould is frequently seen on this type of dampness. The cold surface and lack of ventilation allows mould to colonise these areas”.
The website outlines steps to reduce condensation and mould. This includes advice on “dealing with black mould”:
1. “Black mould can grow on walls, ceilings, furnishings and even on clothes and toys. Customers are able to clean areas of mould in properties just as areas of dust and dirt would be cleared away.
  1. Carefully remove excess mould with a damp cloth or kitchen paper and throw away after. Do not brush mould as this releases spores into the air.
  2. Wipe down affected areas with a soapy solution.
  3. Tea Tree oil is a natural antiseptic and disinfectant but it’s also great for cleaning especially on mould or mildew. Try a dilute of three to four drops of Tea Tree oil in two litres of water. Soak mildewed items in the solution or spray on to trouble spots.
  4. Dry clean mildewed clothes and shampoo carpets”.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 the landlord will send a “full and thorough” response within 10 working days or within an agreed timeframe. At Stage 2, the landlord will respond within 15 days or within an agreed timeframe. At the time of the resident’s complaint, residents thereafter had the option of approaching a Designated Person for resolution of the complaint. The Designated Persons were the resident’s MP, a local councillor, or the landlord’s Tenant’s Complaints Panel.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. “Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
2. “Avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident. They should evaluate what mitigations they can put in place to support residents in cases where structural interventions are not appropriate and satisfy themselves they are taking all reasonable steps”.
3. “Review, alongside residents, their initial response to reports of damp and mould to ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed”.
4. “Consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. We would encourage landlords to go further and consider whether their record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to 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. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner”.
6. “Ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. The distress and inconvenience experienced by residents in this area is some of the most profound we have seen, and this needs to be reflected in the tone and approach of the complaint handling”.

Summary of Events

The resident’s property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a two-storey building. His tenancy commenced in August 2017. The resident has a partner and three young children.
Following a report of damp and mould in a bedroom on 24 December 2018, the landlord arranged for a contractor to inspect the resident’s property on 26 March 2019. The contractor recommended the installation of a chemical damp proof course to remedy rising damp. The contractor also recommended the renewal of wall plaster to prevent future dampness problems due to hygroscopic salts and to control lateral penetration of moisture. On 5 April 2019 the landlord raised an order for damp proof course works which was carried out in May 2019.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the resident continued to report dampness in his property as an order was raised in May 2019 to carry out a survey to install a ventilation unit in June 2019. The records also show that the landlord completed an order to “treat mould to front and rear bedrooms” in July 2019. The resident again reported damp and mould on 21 November 2019 which he stated affected his two year old child and new-born baby, although in this instance there is no record of the landlord taking further action other than asking for photographs.
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised an order to carry out repointing works “around the bottom of the property” in December 2019 and that in January 2020 it raised an order to repair blocked external drains at the rear of the property, where the kitchen waste was situated, which had caused flooding. It also raised an order to lift flags at the rear of the property where the cold water feed entered the property.
In January and February 2020 the resident reported that there was damp and mould again in the property, including under the carpet and underlay, and that he had needed to dispose of furniture in the main bedroom. He stated that he, his wife, two year old child, and four months old child all slept in the main bedroom and that their health was affected (other correspondence indicates that one of the resident’s children was prescribed an inhaler); however, a technical officer had only recommended a “bit of paint”. In response, on 19 February 2020, the landlord advised that protimeter readings had not shown damp in the property but that there was mould which it would treat. The resident has provided this correspondence to this Service; the landlord has not provided this correspondence or evidence of the protimeter readings referred to in its email.
It is not known when the resident submitted an application for rehousing, although the landlord has advised this Service that he held Band C Medical Priority on 8 February 2021. At the time, the landlord (until April 2022) was managing the local authority’s Allocation Scheme on its behalf. This Service has asked the landlord to confirm why priority was conferred, but the landlord has not provided this information. However, an email from the local authority to the resident confirms that “… consideration has been given to the impact of the current home is having on medical conditions of your children and priority Band C for medical was awarded in February 2021”.
The following year, on 6 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to report a number of issues including that he still had damp and mould in the main bedroom and in the windows of both bedrooms. On speaking to the resident on the same day, the landlord noted concerns “of damp and mould because of the overcrowding”. It advised that the resident had already been awarded medical priority for a transfer and that he should check the local choice based lettings systems. On 14 September 2021 the resident reported mould and damp in his property “yet again” according to the landlord’s repair record. The repair record noted that the areas affected were “walls ceilings floors and stairs”.
On 20 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising that a contractor who had visited his property that day had informed him that damp and mould in the main bedroom was due to him having a bed against the wall; however, this was unavoidable as there were two cots in the room. The landlord has not provided evidence of this visit. After speaking to the resident about his email, the landlord raised a complaint noting he was contending that the damp treatment works and the use of a mould treatment paint were unsuccessful as mould had now returned in the main bedroom. The landlord noted that the resident requested that it meet the cost of replacing his bed and carpet which he stated had been damaged by mould.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s property in response to the resident’s email of 20 September 2021. The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of the inspection, other an internal email sent on the same day which contained one photograph of a small area under the carpet at the bottom corner of a wall. The email noted that “There is a small amount of black mould in the property however, this is due to lifestyle and the number of people in the property …. Their frustration is that they want a bigger home and can’t get one”.
Also on 24 September 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint in which it stated it did not detect any moisture or dampness under the carpet at the inspection that day, nor was the wall damp. It stated it saw a small amount of black mould in the corner of the bedroom which it believed to be the result of condensation “due to tenant lifestyle” and which could be wiped away with a damp cloth. It explained that the number of people sleeping in the room, combined with the beds being against the wall meant that condensation would form and, if not cleaned, mould would grow over time. In conclusion, the landlord advised that the mould was not the result of failed damp treatment works and it would not accept liability.
The resident responded on the same day questioning the competency and qualifications of the member of staff who had visited that day. He noted the staff member did not carry out testing whilst the contractor who had attended previously had taken pictures of the external wall. He also advised that the room was ventilated constantly as the window was on the latch and there was no room to move the cots from the wall as he had been advised. The resident requested that a fully trained surveyor attend to test all relevant walls/floors and to explain how it was possible not to have a bed up against a wall.
In a further email sent that day the resident noted that the mould would recur if cleaned due to the size of the property and advised of the strain on his and his family’s mental health from their living conditions. On 27 and 30 September 2021, and 6 October 2020, the resident confirmed that he wanted his complaint to be escalated, again asking for the credentials of the member of staff who inspected his property on 24 September 2021.
On 12 October 2021 the landlord’s surveyor carried out another inspection of the resident’s property in response to the resident’s escalated complaint. Again, it has not provided a contemporaneous report of the inspection, other than a short internal email sent the following day. The email stated that there were no issues with damp and “the cause of the mould, which is minimal, is due to tenant lifestyle which I explained to the tenant. His main issue is that he wants to move to a larger property as he feels his current one is overcrowded”. The email made reference to testing a wall with a protimeter and obtaining dry readings, but there is no accompanying evidence of readings that may have been taken.
On 18 October 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It stated:
1. At the visit of 24 September 2021, it had detected no moisture or dampness in the bedroom, either on the floor or the wall.
2. A small amount of black mould could be seen in the corner of the bedroom which appeared to be as a result of condensation, and which could be wiped away with a damp cloth.
3. The member of staff who had visited on 24 September 2021 was “more than suitably qualified” to have carried out the inspection and handle the Stage 1 complaint.
4. It had carried out a second visit which took place on 12 October 2021 at which a damp meter was used but no damp was found. The member of staff in attendance was of the same view that the mould was the result of condensation due to living conditions. Based on the visits, it concluded that the damp treatment carried out in 2019 had not failed.
5. It would consider any new information that may affect the resident’s priority band for rehousing.
The landlord visited the resident’s property on 10 November 2021 in response to the repair logged on 14 September 2021. The landlord’s record of the visit notes that the resident advised that there was “no mould/damp at present there were no issues regarding this property”.
On 16 November 2021, the resident’s MP, in his capacity as a designated person, referred the complaint to this Service for investigation.
In correspondence to the local authority about his rehousing application on 6 July 2022 the resident advised that he was still dealing with damp and mould.
The parties have confirmed to this Service that after the landlord noted mould in a rear bedroom cupboard at a visit, it carried out further works in December 2022. The resident has advised that the landlord applied more damp proof paint whilst the landlord’s records indicates that it installed isotherms on the walls.

Assessment and findings

This report should be read in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021), and the Ombudsman’s letter to the landlord dated 16 November 2022. The report highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
This report does not seek to make an independent, technical assessment of the damp and mould reported by the resident. In this case, the Ombudsman has assessed the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s response to matters raised, taking into account whether it reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with relevant legislation, and followed good practice.
In this case, the parties accept that there was rising damp in the resident’s property in 2019 resulting in the landlord installing a damp proof course. However, by the end of the year and in early 2020 the resident reported again the presence of damp and mould. Whilst the landlord raised repair orders for the property it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of any inspections carried out for damp and mould or that it otherwise sought to establish the extent of the problem and how best to resolve it. There is also no evidence that it raised an order to treat mould at this time or that protimeter readings were taken as stated in the email of 19 February 2020. The lack of evidence of investigation into recurrent damp and mould was particularly unreasonable given the resident had stated that the mould was serious enough to cause him to dispose of belongings and to cause health issues in his family.
It is not evident that the resident consistently raised further reports of damp and mould with the landlord until September 2021 although by this time, in February 2021, the resident had been awarded medical priority for a transfer due to impact of his property on his children’s health. The landlord was managing the local authority’s Allocations Scheme at the time therefore its housing management service should have reasonably been aware of the award of medical priority and the reasons why.
Following the report of September 2021 it was appropriate and in line with the Repairs Policy in effect at the time that the landlord arranged a visit. This is because inspections by appropriately qualified staff are crucial to the diagnosis of issues. However, the landlord did not keep a detailed record of the visit that confirmed the areas of the property it had inspected and which justified its findings from the visit. It simply sent an internal email on 24 September 2021 which did not confirm that it had inspected the windows in the bedroom or considered the resident’s claim of damage to his bed and flooring from mould. There is also no evidence that the landlord inspected the exterior walls as the resident had suggested. The landlord’s email simply concluded that there was a small amount of black mould due to “lifestyle”, which does not in itself confirm that it had assessed the extent of dampness and mould within the property or identified possible reasons.
When the landlord revisited on 12 October 2021, it again failed to keep an appropriately detailed record of the visit upon which it could rely to justify its findings; again, it simply wrote a short email which summarily concluded that there was a “minimal” issue caused by lifestyle issues. It was particularly unreasonable that the landlord did not evidence any testing for dampness and moisture, such as protimeter readings, given that the resident when escalating his complaint had suggested that the damp proof course works had failed and had specifically requested that the landlord carry out such testing. Moreover, the resident had referred to health issues affecting his children and had been awarded medical priority for a transfer application on this basis by this time, which further confirms that the landlord’s failure to keep records of any testing for dampness and moisture was unreasonable.
It is important that landlords are transparent with residents so as to help them understand the findings reached in complaints about repairs. In this case, the resident raised concerns about the methodology and the credentials of the original member of staff who visited. Whilst the landlord facilitated the resident’s request for a further visit by a surveyor, it did not explain why it considered the initial member of staff to be suitably qualified and why it had relied on their assessment of the damp and mould reported.
The landlord has advised this Service of the member of staff’s qualifications which did not have to be necessarily divulged to the resident; however, simply asserting that the member of staff was suitably qualified, as the landlord did, could be construed as evasive and in this case was not sufficient to build trust and confidence in its actions. Regarding the findings reached at the second visit, the landlord did not explain how it satisfied itself that damp was not an issue. This lack of transparency understandably contributed to the resident’s perception that the landlord had not carried out comprehensive, expert investigations into his reports and reached fair conclusions.
It is noteworthy and of concern that both members of staff who visited decided that the mould in the property was attributable to “lifestyle”, and manageable. In this way the landlord placed total responsibility to deal with the mould on the resident, advising him to move his bed and the children’s cots and clean it himself. This was an unreasonable and seemingly impractical suggestion given that the landlord was aware of the size and make-up of the family, and that the resident had advised that it was not possible for these essential pieces of furniture to be moved elsewhere.
When the resident advised that it was not possible to follow this advice the landlord did not respond to him, again thereby missing an opportunity to consider how the rooms could best be used and other options that may reduce or eradicate the mould. It was particularly unreasonable that the landlord did not consider improving the ventilation given that the resident advised that he ventilated his property, or that it may have been an issue in itself that the resident felt it necessary to leave a window permanently on the latch.
Generally, landlords should recognise and accept the challenge that some homes were not designed with modern living in mind, and therefore should not use occupancy factors to absolve its responsibility to deal with reports of damp and mould. The landlord’s complaint responses in fact emphasised the resident’s “lifestyle”, “living conditions”, and the “number of people” despite being aware that these circumstances would not change.
Furthermore, the landlord’s internal emails considered that, fundamentally, the resident was raising the issue of damp and mould to support a transfer to a larger property. These documents demonstrate that the landlord lacked empathy and was not appreciative, even dismissive, of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the mould. In particular, there was no acknowledgement that young children were living in a bedroom with mould (and with a window stated as being permanently on the latch), or that the resident had stated items had been damaged by mould. This was wholly inappropriate given the circumstances of the case, and demonstrated an unsympathetic and heavy-handed approach which served to increase the resident’s distress and frustration. This Service’s Spotlight report specially states that landlords should not automatically apportion blame to tenants who report damp and mould, and that residents should be treated with respect and empathy. This did not happen in this case.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord has guidance on its website for residents regarding identifying and tackling damp and mould which may be useful to residents in some cases. However, providing guidance to residents does not diminish a landlord’s responsibility to be proactive in responding to individual reports of damp and mould. Additionally, the guidance on the landlord’s website in effect places the responsibility for dealing with condensation and black mould on the resident, thereby minimising the issue. The guidance also likens treating mould to cleaning dust and dirt, again minimising what can be a serious repair issue with significant health implications. Further, there is no recognition that the ease of cleaning mould is dependent on the severity and cause, or of the fact that residents have differing capabilities. The advice for residents to deal with mould themselves is unlikely to be proportionate in all cases and, again, does not align with the guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report of October 2021.
The Ombudsman intends to conduct a further investigation beyond this initial complaint, to establish whether there is any evidence of systemic failings in the landlord’s handling of these issues.
In deciding an appropriate level of redress in this complaint, this Service has considered the resident’s level of rent. The landlord has advised that the resident’s current rent is £100.50 per week. The property has five rooms – two bedrooms, bathroom, living room and kitchen. The resident reported the recurrence of damp and mould on 21 November 2019 after the damp works carried out that year. The matter remained unresolved after he completed the complaints procedure on 18 October 2021, a period of 100 weeks, within which time his household was awarded medical priority for the impact of damp and mould.
Taking into account the resident’s enjoyment of one bedroom was severely curtailed, an order has been made for the landlord to pay as compensation 1/5 of the rent for the period that it failed to appropriately deal with the damp and mould, until the complaint completed its complaints procedure. This totals £2,010.00. An additional order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case and this Service’s remedies guidance.

Record Keeping

Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman or otherwise justify its decisions on repair cases when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the structure and its fittings within the property over time, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should any contractors undertaking work on behalf of the landlord.
As noted, there are gaps in the landlord’s repair records. The resident reported damp and mould in late 2019 / early 2020 but there is no evidence of any inspections or investigations carried out or orders raised at this time, or that an order was raised to treat mould at this time. Nor has the landlord provided its email correspondence with the resident during this period.
After the resident reported damp and mould again in 2021, raising a formal complaint, the landlord did not keep a detailed or technical record of the visits upon which it made its findings; it simply sent short internal emails which summarily concluded that it need take no further action. As such, the emails did not constitute an audit trail upon which the landlord could reasonably rely on in reaching its decision on the resident’s case. This was a further failing in the landlord’s record keeping.
Furthermore, the resident also referred to a visit by a contractor on 20 September 2021 for which the landlord has no record of.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 49, the Ombudsman is concerned that, regarding the issues raised around the landlord’s response to reports of mould and damp, there is presenting evidence of service failure that may be indicative of a systemic failing.

Reasons

After the landlord carried out damp works in 2019 the residents made further reports of damp and mould by the end of the year and in early 2020. However, there is no evidence of any inspections that the landlord may have carried out or that it otherwise sought to establish the extent of the problem and how best to resolve it.
After the resident again reported damp and mould in 2021, the landlord’s records from its visits did not provide justification for its findings. It simply wrote short emails which did not have details of the areas of the property it had inspected and which summarily concluded that there was a “minimal” issue caused by lifestyle issues.
It was particularly unreasonable that the landlord did not keep evidence of any testing for dampness and moisture given that the resident when escalating his complaint had suggested that the damp proof course works had failed and had specifically requested that the landlord carry out such testing. This failure is compounded by the fact that the landlord was aware that the resident had been awarded medical priority for the impact of his property on his children’s health. Nor is there any evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s report that his bed and flooring was damaged by mould, or that it inspected external walls as requested. Related to these failures, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to ensure the resident understood the findings it had reached and this caused further distress and inconvenience.
In fact, the landlord attributed the presence of mould to the resident’s “lifestyle” and placed total responsibility on the resident to deal with the mould. This position was dismissive, impractical and not in line with good practice especially given the size and make-up of the resident’s family. The landlord failed to explore other options to reduce or eradicate the mould, such as guidance on the use of the rooms and additional ventilation of the property.
The guidance on the landlord’s website in emphasising that it is a resident’s responsibility to deal with mould and condensation, regardless of circumstance, does not reflect good practice and minimises the landlord’s repair obligations. Taken together with the handling of the resident’s case, this indicates a systemic issue in its handling of damp and mould cases.

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident) for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £2,010.00 compensation for the failure to deal with the damp and mould in the resident’s bedroom.
3. Pay the resident an additional £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
4. Arrange for a survey of the property by an independent, mutually agreed, and suitably qualified surveyor. The outcome of the survey should be shared with the resident and this Service within two weeks of the survey. This should include a schedule of any required works with timescales for completion. Any required works should then be completed within the timescales set out.
It is acknowledged that the landlord is currently reviewing its approach to damp and mould. This case should be used to inform that work. Specifically, the landlord is ordered to (within the next eight weeks):
1. Consider the failings identified in this report, identifying what changes will be made to reduce the risk of the failings happening again. This review must also include consideration of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. The landlord should report the outcome of this review to its appropriate governing body.
2. Correspondingly, the landlord should devise a policy and procedure for responding to reports of damp and mould within its housing stock as part of its review of its approach to damp and mould. The policy and procedure should include reference to monitoring of and adhering to agreed timescales, completing work to appropriate standards and keeping residents informed.
3. Considering the record keeping failings identified in this report, review its record keeping practices for repairs and maintenance, in particular for cases where damp and mould is reported. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of inspections and surveys carried out, and of works raised and completed. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome. All identified actions should be accompanied by a timescale for completion.
Within the next 12 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Remove and update the information provided on its website relating to damp and mould, taking into account the outcome of orders in paragraphs 57a – 57c.