Waltham Forest Council (202316456)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316456

Waltham Forest Council

10 June 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property and the damage caused to his belongings.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The lease is dated 7 November 2005. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident made a complaint on 13 February 2023. He said:
    1. There was damp and black mould within his home.
    2. It had been like this for 10 years but was getting worse.
    3. He thought rising damp, cracks in the walls, and poor cavity wall insulation caused the damp and mould.
    4. The damp was damaging his home and his belongings and impacting the health of the household.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 March 2023. It said:
    1. Contractors attended on 28 November 2022 and reported that condensation was running down the inside of an external door which was trickling inside the frame, and there appeared to be ventilation issues within the property.
    2. The landlord authorised a replacement back door on 13 February 2023. Its contractor would contact the resident to arrange installation once the door was received. It hoped this would assist with the issues experienced. It partially upheld the complaint in view of the delay approving the replacement door.
    3. The resident is a leaseholder, and any internal repairs should be carried out by him, in line with the lease agreement.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 April 2023. He said he had big patches of damp and mould within his home, and it was damaging his belongings.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 September 2023. It said:
    1. It was sorry for the delay responding to the complaint at stage 2.
    2. The resident is a leaseholder and responsible for the demised premises which generally means the areas within the flat.
    3. The landlord is responsible for communal and structural elements inclusive of the window frames.
    4. Issues of damp and mould within the premises is the leaseholder’s responsibility. However, a structural issue could cause damp and mould which would be the landlord’s responsibility as the freeholder to repair. In this instance, no external issues had been identified which would give rise to the landlord assuming responsibility in this area.
  6. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord provided the resident with details on how to pursue a liability claim through the landlord’s insurance. It also confirmed under the terms of the lease, the resident had buildings insurance in place (arranged by the freeholder). Additionally, it said it expected the resident to have his own contents insurance.

Assessment and findings

  1. We provide a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. We frame our approach by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. As part of its submission to this Service, the landlord provided a damp and mould framework dated July 2023. The Ombudsman recognises the landlord has set out its approach to dealing with the diagnosis and remediation of damp and mould issues. In addition, it identified where it could make further improvements.
  3. In view of the above, the Ombudsman has not made any recommendations regarding the landlord’s approach to reports of damp and mould.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted the health of his household. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of an occupant. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim.
  2. The resident has other complaints with the landlord which the Ombudsman has not considered within this investigation. The resident told this Service on 4 October 2023 that this case is solely about the damp and mould within his home and not the replacement door.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property and the damage caused to his belongings

  1. The lease of the property sets out that the landlord must keep in good and substantial repair and condition the main structure of the building. The lease also states the resident must keep in good and substantial repair the demised premises.
  2. On the landlord’s website for leaseholders, it states that leaseholders are responsible for maintaining the inside of their home.
  3. The landlord’s “damp, mould, and condensation” leaflet (available on its website) says leaseholders are responsible for maintaining the inside of their home, this includes preventative methods for damp, mould, and condensation. It is also a leaseholder’s responsibility to ensure any issues in their home do not impact on fellow neighbours and they should keep their home in good state of repair. It further explains that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the home, and for damp and mould this relates to the building’s structure such as the roof and guttering.
  4. A landlord would usually only investigate the interior of a leaseholder property if there was a fault that lay with the structure of the building. As such, the onus would be on the leaseholder to demonstrate there was a fault (causing damage) which the landlord would be responsible for resolving.
  5. While the resident raised concerns with the landlord about rising damp, cracks in the walls, and poor cavity wall insulation, the Ombudsman has not seen anything to show that the resident provided evidence to the landlord to demonstrate that a structural issue caused internal damage to his property or to support his allegations.
  6. After considering all the information available, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the damp and mould reported by the resident was the result of a service failure by the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to claim from his contents insurance or to make a claim upon the landlord’s liability insurance for the damage to his personal belongings and property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident complained on 13 February 2023. The stage 1 response was issued 22 working days later. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 April 2023. The stage 2 response was issued 156 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate the landlord kept this complaint open for an unreasonable duration.
  3. The landlord recognised and apologised for the complaint handling delays within its final complaint response. The Ombudsman notes the landlord referenced the resident’s behaviour as a contributary factor to the delay, however it has not provided contemporaneous evidence of this. As such, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord acted appropriately or proportionally in the circumstances.
  4. After considering the available evidence and the landlord’s obligations under the Code, the Ombudsman is minded it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for its part in the complaint handling delay and the impact on the resident.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the stage 1 response does not go far enough to set out the landlord’s position in relation to the responsibility of a leaseholder and a freeholder when there is internal damp/mould within a leasehold property. The Ombudsman finds it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide more clarity to the resident here. 


Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within his property and the damage caused to his belongings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.