Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202303410)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303410

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

31 October 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 report of damp and mould.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy on a one-bedroom terraced bungalow owned by the local authority landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 28 July 2020. The resident has a spinal condition and uses a walking aid. In the last 10 months, he started using an inhaler and is awaiting further checks by his local hospital. The resident lives with his wife, who has asthma and uses medications and inhalers to aid her breathing at night. She also suffers from depression. For the purpose of this report, both the resident and his wife will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
On 14 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the property was damp, particularly the bedroom and the back wall. He said “sludgy green mould” was spreading from the floor onto the bed and furniture. The records show the landlord identified the issue as structural, and it raised the job with its building contractor. However, the first repair took place nearly 2 years later, on 23 June 2022. The landlord fitted an additional thermal wall across the back wall of the property.
On 19 December 2022, the resident’s neighbour raised a collective complaint on behalf of the 6 residents of the resident’s terrace. The complaint said: “We all have a common problem relating to damp and mould in the rear of the properties affecting mainly the bedrooms of our homes, but I am sure each resident could explain to you their issues and difficulties in relation to this matter, should you contact them directly’.
On 9 January 2023, the landlord arranged for new asphalt flooring to be installed in the resident’s bedroom, and on 11 January 2023, it responded to the resident’s complaint. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect each of the properties to assess the scope of work that was required to rectify the issue and that it would write to each resident individually.
On 16 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated the landlord was not up to date with what had happened in the property. He said that 2 surveyors had already inspected the property; the landlord installed the new flooring in December 2022, and it has since installed underlay and the new carpet. The resident said he moved all the furniture back to the bedroom, only for the mould to reappear in days. He said his wife was affected by her asthma, and they both had to sleep in the lounge, which was also affecting his back condition. He said he bought a dehumidifier, which had not helped, and he asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 10 February 2023, the surveyor inspected the property and advised that the cavity wall insulation, across all properties, was found to be defective and creating a “thermally poor element”, resulting in the cool internal surfaces, creating suitable conditions for condensation to occur and mould to propagate. The surveyor recommended the replacement of the existing cavity wall insulation and a Positive Pressure Ventilation system to be installed.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 11 April 2023, stating it had previously discussed with the resident the importance of adequate heating and ventilation. It said it would fit an “environmental sensor” to determine the levels of humidity within the property and how well the property was maintaining heat over a period of time, which would assist its ongoing investigation. The landlord said the property was scheduled to have a new cavity wall and roof as part of its cyclical major works program and that it would consider the resident’s request to be decanted. The landlord said: “Although we have acted to resolve your ongoing concerns, previously, our communication could have been more efficient. Therefore, we would like to apologise for this”.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 April 2023 and stated he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as the repair work to the cavity wall insulation has been scheduled for 2024/2025. The resident advised that his health was deteriorating, and he asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted his health has been noted. 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 health of the resident and his wife. However, where a failure on the landlord’s part is identified, this Service can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

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

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The landlord’s repairs policy and tenancy agreement reflect the landlord’s repairs obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to “keep in repair” the structure and exterior of the property.
Landlords must consider the properties’ condition using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category-one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should communicate their diagnosis clearly with residents and provide a clear action plan and timetable for the work.
In this case, the resident reported to the landlord in June 2021 that there was an issue of damp and mould affecting the bedroom, and he kept pursuing the repair with the landlord. According to the evidence, the landlord raised the repair jobs adequately. However, most of the repair jobs were cancelled, unbeknown to the resident. This was not appropriate.
Between June 2021 and June 2022, the landlord inspected the property twice. On both occasions, the operatives’ diagnosis was not communicated to the resident. The length of time it took the landlord to arrange the repeated visits, which did not sufficiently identify and/or remedy the issue, was unacceptable.
In the event that a repair is being delayed, landlords can mitigate the impact on residents by providing regular updates explaining the delay and the landlord’s plan to solve it. However, in this case, the landlord did not communicate with the resident effectively during this time; it did not explain the delay, it did not provide a timetable for the work, and it compounded the frustration of the resident, who kept chasing the repair.
In June 2022, the landlord undertook the first remedial work at the resident’s home. It installed an additional thermal wall, followed by installing new asphalt flooring, underlay and carpets in January 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractor’s advice in carrying out the recommended works. However, when it became clear that the works had not been successful, it should have carried out further investigation to identify the cause, and the works required to eliminate the damp and mould from the resident’s home.
in its first stage response the landlord said it visited the property next door and would be in touch when it can appoint a surveyor to visit the resident’s home to inspect the resident’s property. While the landlord’s decision to respond to each resident was appropriate, its generic response was not. The resident had complained about this matter since June 2021, but the landlord failed to address his specific concerns. The use of generic responses made the resident feel the landlord was not up to date, that it did not understand, and it did not listen to the resident, which is what the complaints process is intended to address.
The landlord’s plan to appoint an independent surveyor was appropriate, but it failed to explain to the resident why it was necessary. From the resident perspective, this was yet another inspection by the landlord, on top of the previous 2 inspections, and many visits by operatives carrying out the works. The need for the landlord to inspect the property again was not explained to the resident, who perceived this to be another time-wasting exercise. In this case, it was not, and the landlord missed an opportunity here.
The diagnosis of the independent surveyor was that the orientation, general layout, and topography of the property were the main causes. The surveyor’s recommendations were:
1. Replacement of the existing cavity with a high-performing new cavity wall.
2. Installation of Positive Pressure Ventilation system with heat recovery exchanger.
3. General maintenance repair works.
The diagnosis of the surveyor’s findings was not explained to the resident. Consequently, the resident pressed the landlord to issue its final response letter. The landlord arranged a further visit to the resident’s property on 28 March 2023, and it summarised this visit in its final response letter on 11 April 2023. The landlord said:
1. During the visit, it inspected the property, but no obvious signs of water ingress were identified.
2. It discussed the importance of adequate heating and ventilation within the property and keeping the temperature at a controlled level to help the prevention of damp and mould occurring.
3. It identified that the bathroom and kitchen fans were not running continuously, and the internal doors will benefit from a 10mm gap for cross ventilation throughout the property.
4. In confirmed, it would install an Environmental Sensor to determine the levels of humidity within the property and how well the property is maintaining heat over a period of time.
The language used, coupled with the omission of the surveyor’s finding, shifted the blame onto the resident’s lifestyle. It would have been fair and reasonable to include the surveyor’s findings.
The landlord’s omissions and miscommunications undermined its effort to resolve the damp and mould issue at the resident’s home. Meanwhile, the delay in repairing the property for a protracted period of time resulted in further damage to the resident’s property and his belongings and caused distress and inconvenience.
This was magnified by the fear for his and his wife’s health, whom the landlord knew had underlying medical conditions. The landlord had failed to show any urgency in handling the repair to the resident’s property. The situation was still ongoing over 2 years at that time. The resident’s wife has asthma, and both were using inhalers to aid breathing at night. As such, sleeping in a damp and mouldy room was detrimental to their health. Additionally, the resident has a spinal condition, and as such, sleeping on the sofa also caused discomfort. The landlord has failed to consider that the condition of the property may be detrimental to the resident’s health, and this is a serious failing by the landlord.
The landlord has an obligation to ensure its homes are safe for human habitation. It must meet its regulatory obligations under HHSRS and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under the circumstances, a delay of over 2 years in addressing the damp and mould in the property was not appropriate. If the landlord could not ensure the property was safe for human habitation, it should have rehoused the resident. This should not have taken over 2 years.
Overall, living in a property with damp and mould for over 2 years has caused evident distress and inconvenience to the resident and his wife. The landlord’s responses did not reflect the urgency or seriousness of the situation. The prolonged period of inaction by the landlord; followed by a period of actions that were not adequately explained to the resident; and yet a further period of inaction, amount to severe maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord has taken the decision that it would repair the resident’s property as part of its scheduled cyclical program, which is scheduled take place in 2024/25. As such, it offered the resident the option to move property on 14 September 2023. The resident chose to be rehoused permanently and on 29 September 2023 the landlord confirmed the resident was accepted as band 1 priority on the local authority’s housing list. The resident has since refused one offer, and subsequently, he asked to suspend the process for a few weeks as he awaits final medical certificates that may affect his housing decision. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that, as of 29 September 2023, the landlord established adequate plans to resolve the issue.
In recognition of the distress and prolonged inconvenience experienced by the resident, the loss of room, and the loss of enjoyment of his home, further orders have been made below to put this right. This Service has calculated compensations in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where severe maladministration by the landlord has occurred; the landlord’s response further exacerbated the situation and undermined the landlord-resident relationship. A full breakdown of the compensation can be found in the orders section below.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord learned from the outcome. It provided no details on what actions and by whom it would take to prevent similar issues from reoccurring. As referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, examples of learning include changes to policies and procedures and acknowledging where things have gone wrong. An order has been made below to address this.

Determination

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

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must conduct a full senior management review of the case. The review must include the following:
1. Repair procedures to ensure an effective mechanism is in place to ensure works are not being cancelled without explaining the reason to the resident.
2. Self-assessment against this service’s Spotlight report into damp and mould.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Formulate a plan to mitigate the impact on the resident in the interim period, until it relocated the resident to a different property.
2. Write to the resident explaining it’s the interim plan as per paragraph 33(a) above, together with an apology for the failure identified in this report.
3. Pay into the resident’s bank account a total of £2,383.91 in compensation, as calculated below:
  1. Compensation for the loss of room and loss of enjoyment of his home – 15% of the rent paid, from 14 June 2021 when the landlord was of the disrepair until 29 September 2023 when the landlord established its plan to solve the issue. This Service has calculated the average weekly amount the resident paid during this period of 119 weeks as £77.53 and awarded £1,383.91.
  2. £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould.
Evidence of compliance must be sent to this Service within 4 weeks from the date of this report.