Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202225827)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225827

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

25 September 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

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

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a two-bedroom flat.
3. The resident intermittently reported damp and mould in the property between November 2014 and August 2021. The landlord inspected the property on 16 December 2021 and raised follow-on works for a mould wash and to renew the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathrooms. A further work order was raised on 22 February 2022 to inspect for damp around the windows and balcony. The appointment was rescheduled by the landlord, and the contractor was subsequently unable to gain access on two occasions, so the work order was cancelled.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 October 2022 stating that damp and mould issues had been ongoing since 2008, when she moved in. She said it was impacting her daughter’s health and she thought the property was uninhabitable.
5. In its stage one response, the landlord said that it initially received a report of damp and mould from the resident in November 2014 and various damp repairs were completed between November 2014 and January 2015. The resident made further reports in August 2016, January 2018, and December 2021, and it completed the required repairs following each report. It had also provided advice on managing condensation. Following the resident’s recent report, it arranged a mould wash on 11 November 2022 and a damp inspection on 2 December 2022. It would discuss any required repairs with her during the inspection.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 December 2022 as the damp and mould had continued to return despite the repair works completed by the landlord. She said she wanted the issues to be resolved, or to be offered a priority move. She reiterated her concerns regarding her child’s health. 
7. In the landlord’s stage two response, it said the inspection found that the previous repair works were not successful as vents were not fitted so the mould returned due to high humidity and no ventilation. It said work to remove and replace the existing thermal boards and fit vents would commence on 16 February 2023 and it was “confident that these works will resolve the ongoing damp and mould issues”. 
8. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said she remained dissatisfied as there was damp and mould on every external wall in the flat. She said the landlord planned to remove the thermal boarding, but the work had previously been done and the mould had returned. She was unable to take 6 days annual leave to allow access for the works as she had to reserve time off to look after her children in the holidays. She wanted to move to a suitable property as the landlord had not resolved the issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. It is recognised that the damp and mould issues in the property have been ongoing for several years. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which is typically considered to be 6 months. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
10. Following consideration of all the evidence, the investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issues from August 2021. This is because the resident had consistently reported damp and mould during this period, until the complaint was raised. However, the report will also take into consideration the wider context that the damp and mould has been ongoing intermittently for several years. It is noted the landlord acknowledged the resident’s previous reports in its complaint response. 
11. The resident has raised concerns that the damp and mould in the property is impacting her daughter’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s daughter’s health.
12. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
13. The resident said that a desired outcome of the complaint was to be rehoused to a suitable property. It is noted that the resident had pursued this with the landlord and is on the transfer waiting list and has been assessed for a transfer on medical grounds. 
14. As the landlord is a local authority, complaints about property allocation fall within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Under paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaints-handling body. As a result, the resident was previously signposted by this service to the LGSCO if she wanted to pursue this element of her complaint.

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

15. The landlord’s housing repair guide states that it is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. As such, when the resident reported damp and mould, the landlord should inspect the property, ascertain whether there was a structural cause, and complete any required repairs. It states it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days. The landlord’s repair guide also provides advice on reducing condensation in the property.
16. The resident reported damp in the bedroom and living room on 23 August 2021 and the landlord subsequently attended on 16 December 2021. It is unclear why it took 4 months to arrange the inspection. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident an explanation for the delays, which would have been reasonable. Evidence shows that in the absence of an update, the resident chased an appointment on 8 November 2021.
17. Following the inspection, the contractor noted mould in several rooms and recommended a mould wash and repairs to the extractor fans. The mould treatment was completed on 18 January 2022 but while the landlord told this service that the extractor fan repairs were completed in February 2022, the records show that this did not take place until July 2022. This service is therefore not satisfied that the repair to the extractor fan was completed within the 20-working day repair timeframe.
18. The contractor also noted that the “rooms were quite full of personal items”, which limited air circulation. The resident explained this was due to the size of the property and number of occupants, which made the issue somewhat unavoidable. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have discussed realistic solutions with the resident to improve air circulation. It is recognised that the landlord’s website provides such advice, but there is no evidence to suggest that it signposted the resident to its resources. As a result, it does not appear that the landlord provided appropriate support to the resident, to enable her to take steps to improve the air circulation in the property.
19. The resident made a further report of damp and mould around the windows and balcony on 22 February 2022. An appointment was scheduled for 24 March 2022, but was rescheduled by the landlord to 6 May 2022 due to an emergency. Given that the landlord cancelled the initial appointment, it would have been appropriate for it to have prioritised the second appointment to avoid a further delay of over a month. As the landlord failed to do so, it exceeded its repair timeframe. This was particularly detrimental as the resident said the damp and mould was impacting her daughter’s health.
20. The contractor was unable to gain access to the property on 6 May 2022, 26 May 2022, or 7 July 2022 to complete the mould wash. The work order was subsequently cancelled. The repair records show a no access card was left and the resident was made aware of the rescheduled appointment dates. The landlord’s housing repair guide states that the resident is responsible for allowing access to contractors to carry out necessary repairs. The landlord was therefore not accountable for the additional delays. However, it would have been helpful for it to have informed the resident that the work order had been cancelled and explained how she could rebook the appointment.
21. In response to the resident’s complaint on 7 October 2022 regarding the ongoing damp and mould issues, the landlord arranged a mould wash on 11 November 2022 and a damp inspection on 2 December 2022. The resident cancelled the mould wash as she did not want it to be completed before the inspection. It was reasonable that the landlord arranged the mould wash as an interim solution while awaiting the findings of the inspection. However, it is understandable that the resident wanted to wait for the inspection before completing the work to prevent the need for numerous appointments.
22. The inspection found that thermal boarding had been installed in 2018 but vents were not fitted, so the mould had returned due to the resident washing and drying clothes inside her home. A work order was raised to remove and replace the existing thermal board, fit vents, and install a fan in the kitchen. The works were due to commence on 16 February 2023, but when the contractor attended the resident said she was unaware of the appointment. This service can see that the landlord informed her of the appointment in its stage two response. The works were rescheduled for 15 May 2023, but the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. As referenced above, the resident is responsible for providing access to the property.
23. The resident explained that she must use her annual leave in the school holidays to look after her children, so she was unable to have 6 days off work to allow access for the repairs. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have discussed with the resident whether there were any alternative options to try and ensure the resident was able to allow access for the repairs.
24. The resident also said she was unable to move her belongings to allow the works to take place, as all the rooms including the living room were being used as bedrooms. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to support the resident to move her furniture if she signed a disclaimer form.
25. It is understood that the resident had concerns regarding the scope of the works, as she told this service the same works had previously been completed and the issue had recurred. She did not think the proposed works would be a long-term solution. However, there is no evidence that the resident raised her concerns with the landlord, so it has not had the opportunity to address the issue. Furthermore, the landlord explained that the previous works were unsuccessful as vents were not fitted. It had included the installation of vents in the intended works, which it thought would resolve the problem.
26. Neither the landlord nor this service would be able to guarantee the works would prevent any future recurrences of the damp and mould in the property. It can take several attempts to resolve damp and mould issues in full. Regardless, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to establish the cause of the damp and mould by instructing a suitably qualified contractor to inspect the property and attempting to complete the recommended works. If the issues persist after the works have been completed, the landlord would be expected to assess alternative solutions.
27. Noting all of the above, the landlord has largely taken reasonable steps in attempt to resolve the damp and mould issues. However, there were several instances in which the landlord failed to adhere to its repair timeframes, including the 4-month delay in arranging the inspection following the resident’s report of damp and mould in August 2021 and the 6-month delay in renewing the extractor fans. The landlord has not recognised these delays within its complaint responses. It is acknowledged that subsequent delays were outside of the landlord’s control, as the contractors were unable to gain access on numerous occasions.
28. In line with this service’s remedies guidance, £350 compensation is warranted as the landlord has not acknowledged its failings or taken steps to put things right. The delays in completing the inspection and the repairs compounded to a delay of almost a year to complete the required works. The resident was adversely impacted during this period due to the ongoing damp and mould in the property. Furthermore, it is evident the failings identified in the report were likely to have a greater impact on the resident due to the fact the issues have been intermittently ongoing for numerous years. The landlord should also have demonstrated greater consideration of how it had previously handled the damp and mould issues to reach a permanent solution.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation due to the delay in arranging the inspection following the resident’s report of damp and mould in August 2021 and renewing the extractor fans.
31. The landlord should provide proof of the payment to this service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

32. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to arrange a suitable time to complete the repair works. It should also discuss the scope of the works and respond to any concerns she has.