Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202110281)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110281

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

22 April 2022


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 response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The complaint was raised by the resident, and, at times, by her local MP.
  2. The resident raised a complaint about ongoing damp and mould issues at her property which became apparent after she moved in. She said that there had been previous inspections and she was given the same advice on each occasion; however, the issue had not improved and the damp and mould had affected walls, furniture and furnishings. She advised that the issues were having a negative affect on both her and her son’s physical and mental health as well as affecting her sons education.  She wanted a full inspection of the property and for the issues to be resolved. She also asked to be rehoused if the issue could not be resolved.
  3. In response, the landlord carried out a damp survey of the property over a ten-day period in December 2020 and found that the damp was caused by condensation as a result of the resident’s lifestyle. It noted that the resident did not adequately ventilate the property, did not use her bathroom extractor fan and dried clothes on radiators but did not use her central heating. It provided a leaflet to the resident with information on how to reduce condensation in the property and said that she would need to utilise the heating and open windows to ventilate the property. It confirmed that there had been no issues in regard to damp and mould prior to the resident’s tenancy starting in January 2020. A mould wash of the walls in the property was completed in April 2021. The landlord attempted to carry out another mould wash in September 2021 but the resident refused access to the property. It also advised that based on the evidence provided, the resident did not meet the threshold for a medical priority transfer and that the resident should continue to express her interest in suitable properties which could be viewed in its weekly newsletter.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould and felt it should do more to resolve the issues. She maintained her position that the issues were affecting her family’s health and wanted to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the damp issues and the resident, or her son’s, health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to application for re-housing specifically made to the landlord. Under Paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. This is a service provided by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority and is therefore a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who can make decisions about the assessment of such applications, and the award of points or banding, to consider. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can be contacted by visiting www.lgo.org.uk.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The landlord’s condensation leaflet states that the resident would be responsible for taking steps to prevent and reduce damp related to condensation in their property. The landlord would only be liable for condensation caused by disrepair to items that it would be responsible for maintaining including the structure and exterior of the building, the services for supply of water or the installations for space and water heating. The landlord would usually be expected to carry out a damp survey of the property following reports of damp to confirm the cause of the issue and establish whether it would be responsible for any remedial works. The tenancy handbook states that large damp proofing repairs including mould washes and injections would be considered as non-urgent repairs which would be carried out within 30 days
  2. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by providing advice to the resident on how to reduce damp and mould in the property. It is noted that historical inspections had taken place and the resident had previously been given similar advice on how to reduce condensation in the property. Following her complaint in November 2020, the landlord took reasonable steps to carry out an in-depth damp inspection over a ten-day period to identify the cause of the damp. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the damp was caused by condensation as a result of the high humidity levels in the property. The surveyor also identified that the resident was not adequately ventilating the property and was not using her central heating and extractor fans.
  3. There are limited steps a landlord can take to combat damp issues caused by condensation as the majority of recommended actions to resolve these issues would need to be undertaken by the resident. For example, opening windows, utilising heating and turning on extractor fans to reduce humidity. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was unable to complete these actions or there were any repair issues which would prevent her from doing so. As such, there were limited further actions for the landlord to undertake as the prevention of condensation would ultimately be the resident’s responsibility where no structural or repair issues had been found.
  4. The resident had advised that she had been following steps recommended by the landlord to reduce the level of condensation but this had not resolved the issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete a mould wash of the bedrooms and living room in the property in April 2021 in view of her ongoing concerns. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have carried the wash at an earlier stage, however, it is noted that this measure would be less effective if the remedial steps, such as using extractor fans and ventilating the property had not also been carried out to reduce the humidity in the property. The landlord attempted to carry out a further mould wash of the property in September 2021 but the resident refused access to the property. It is noted that the previous mould wash had not been successful in resolving the mould issues long-term, however, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer an additional mould wash as it can take more than one attempt, alongside adequate ventilation and heating to combat damp and mould.
  5. In view of the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould issues are ongoing, it is recommended that the landlord continues to discuss the damp and mould issues with the resident and carries out another inspection, if appropriate, to determine whether there are any other factors which may be contributing to the damp and mould in the property or other actions it could take to combat the issues reported. It should also consider providing dehumidifiers to the resident in view of her comments regarding the cost of purchasing this herself.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1.  The landlord’s complaint policy states that the landlord has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should issue a response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint timescale. The policy confirms that MP enquiries would be dealt with outside of the complaints process.
  2. In this case, the resident raised a complaint on 5 November 2020. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 November 2020 which was reasonably within its timescale of ten working days. Following this, the resident pursued her concerns via her local MP. Following contact from the Ombudsman in August 2021, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. It issued its stage two complaint response on 8 September 2021, which was approximately eight working days outside of its ten-working day timescale. In this case, the delay was reasonable as the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by apologising for the delay and providing a new timescale for response.
  3. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint at an earlier stage in this case given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident or her MP had expressly asked for the complaint to be escalated until the Ombudsman’s involvement in August 2021. Ultimately the landlord responded to each MP enquiry within a reasonable timescale and the resident was not significantly inconvenienced or impacted by any delays. The landlord should consider escalating a complaint to the next stage of its complaint process when a stage one complaint response has already been issued and it receives an MP enquiry related to the substance of the complaint. This is to ensure that the overall timescale of the complaint is not prolonged.

Determination

  1.  In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Given that the resident has reported that the damp and mould issues are ongoing, it is recommended that the landlord continues to communicate with the resident and carries out a further inspection of the property if appropriate to determine whether there are any other factors which may be contributing to the damp and mould in the property such as structural issues.
  2. The landlord should consider and alternative means of combating the damp and mould in the property, such as providing dehumidifiers to the resident in view of her comments regarding the cost of purchasing these herself.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers escalating a complaint to the next stage of its complaint process when a stage one complaint response has already been issued and it receives an MP enquiry related to the substance of the complaint.