Wandsworth Council (202102367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102367

Wandsworth Council

28 January 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

The complaint concerns:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to the risk of domestic violence.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant. The property is a first floor, two-bedroom purpose built flat. The landlord is a Council.
The Ombudsman’s Approved Scheme sets out that we will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matter arising.
The resident has indicated that mould was present in 2018 when she discussed the possibility of dry lining with the landlord. As there is no evidence of the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord in 2018 or of her making any further reports about this issue to the landlord until June 2020, this investigation will therefore consider events from June 2020 when the resident made a further report of mould to the landlord. The resident subsequently raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 January 2021 which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 25 February 2021.
The resident reported an issue with mould growth at her property to the landlord’s Estate Manager on 23 June 2020. The landlord replied on 2 July 2020 advising it was happy to raise a work order for a mould wash to be applied to the bedroom wall as well as a coat of paint however it said in regard to dry lining, it would consult with its Building Manager Inspector on whether this was the best of course of action to address the mould.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord raised a work order for mould wash to be applied to affected areas and for the bedroom wall surface to be washed down and repainted. The target date was for 12 August 2020.
On 20 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord advising the mould wash had been applied on two previous occasions but kept returning. She reiterated that she was told in the past that dry lining would be the next step if the mould kept returning.
On 14 October 2020, the resident told the landlord during a telephone conversation that she felt unsafe at the property due to recently seeing her ex-husband on the estate and because he was aware of where she and her family lived. He had also been harassing her over the phone.
On 19 October 2020, the resident applied for a management transfer. In her application she said that she had seen her ex-husband on her estate on two occasions, the last time being on 28 August 2020. She explained that her ex-husband had been violent towards her in the past and she and her family felt unsafe at the property. She said she was living in fear and that she felt isolated and that it was impacting her mental health. The resident also explained that seeing him had also affected her two daughters’ mental health who had previously witnessed their father being physically violent towards her when he had visited them at the property on a previous occasion. The resident provided supporting evidence including a letter from her children’s’ school.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 November and on 13 November 2020 asking for an update on her application for a management transfer. The resident told the landlord that she was afraid to leave her flat as she feared bumping into her ex-husband again.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 November 2020 about the mould in her bedroom, her children’s bedroom and the bathroom.
On 2 December 2020, the landlord replied advising it had passed the information about mould to the contractors. It said that there was an active order on its system for this and so it would chase this and find out why it had not been completed yet.
Regarding her application for a management transfer, it said it had been in communication with the police who had asked for more details in terms of approximate date and location as she had referred to an incident in a neighbouring borough. On 19 November 2020 the landlord had contacted the police for a report relating to the resident’s report of domestic violence.
On 3 December 2020, the resident provided further details of the incident to the landlord which she said happened at the property on 20 November 2016 and witnessed by her children. She said that she reported the incident to police on 20 July 2017 in a neighbouring borough however she was told they could not retrieve evidence of the domestic violence as she had not reported it at the time. The resident sent supporting evidence to the landlord on 7 December 2020, that she said was from “professionals” working with her family, including from a Medical Practice.
On 15 December 2020, the landlord advised the resident it was awaiting the police report and that its Area Housing Manager (AHM) could not make a decision until this has been received.
The resident contacted the landlord on further occasions on 31 December 2020 and 7 January 2021 about the mould issue requesting that the landlord advise her what was being done to address this. The resident also asked the landlord for an update in regards to her management transfer request.
On 14 January 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding mould in property. She requested to be temporarily rehoused because of this which she said would enable the landlord to address the mould issue at the property. The resident said the mould issue was throughout the property including in the bedrooms and bathroom. She said the issue was affecting the mental and physical health of her whole family. They experienced headaches, coughing, sneezing, runny noses and she said that her son gets a rash on his skin that did not go away. Her children were frightened of the mould which affected their sleep. She said that the landlord had not listened to her complaint about mould or resolved the issue.
On 27 January 2021, the resident emailed the AHM advising she was surprised that its contractor had arrived at her property at 8.45am that morning to carry out the mould wash. She referred to a telephone call with him on 25 January 2021 and said she was expecting him to call her back to let her know of the appointment time. She explained she had not let contractors into the property because she was unwell, the appointment had not been confirmed and her husband had not moved her belongings.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2021. It acknowledged that her complaint concerned mould in both bedrooms and the bathroom and that she would like to be re-housed to enable the problem to be resolved. It said:
1. Regarding the mould, it had raised an order for mould works to be carried out after she had raised concerns about this issue in June 2020 and it also agreed ask its Building Manager Inspector what further work might be undertaken to prevent it from returning.
2. Its contractor attended in the week commencing 9 November 2020 to remove the mould when it told the resident she needed to remove some furniture to enable them to treat the mould.
3. The resident then contacted it on 19 November 2020 and was advised on 2 December 2020 that it would liaise with its contractors in relation to the issue.
4. She then contacted it on 15 and 31 December 2020 and on 8 January 2021 to advise she had not been contacted before raising her complaint on 14 January 2021.
The landlord advised it found mould on the main bedroom external wall, in her children’s bedroom on the external wall and window reveal and on the bathroom ceiling during its AHM’s subsequent visit to the property of 19 January 2021. It acknowledged the resident had advised that she washed this off but that it kept returning. It said there were extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom however the one in the bathroom, whilst working it did not appear effective. It said the resident had mentioned condensation on the toilet cistern and asked for it to be changed however it advised condensation would form on the cistern even if it changed this. She then asked for the boxing below it to be removed to which it agreed although it advised this would leave the pipework exposed. The landlord said it also told the resident at this time that it would make good the flooring and decoration.
The landlord said it explained that the repair work would have to wait due to the current Covid restrictions but that it would let her know as soon as it was able to arrange this. It would arrange for the mould to be removed at the earliest opportunity. It advised it would discuss with its Building Maintenance Inspector what other measures could be taken to prevent the mould returning.
The landlord said it then arranged for contractors to attend on the morning of 27 January 2021 to remove the mould and that it discussed the appointment in telephone conversations with her on 21 and 25 January 2021 when she was told it was likely that items would need to be removed to allow them access. It said the resident had asked if contractors could give a specific time for their visit and however its contractors were unable to give a specific time. Its contractors attended on 27 January 2021 however the resident did not provide access for the mould to be removed.
It acknowledged receiving the resident’s email of 27 January 2021 which advised of the reasons she did allow access. The landlord confirmed it would arrange for the following works to be undertaken once Covid restrictions had eased:
1. Repair and/or renewal of the bathroom extractor fan.
2. Removal of boxing under toilet cistern and sink, making good the flooring and re-decorate with mould resistant paint.
3. Dry lining to the external wall in main bedroom and redecoration of that wall.
In its response it said in conclusion, there was evidence of condensation related mould in her property. There was delay with contractors attending after an order was raised for the mould to be removed in July 2020 and its Estate Manager should have followed up with her and its contractors after they attended in November 2020 to arrange for them to reattend to remove the mould. It said the resident should have also been advised of what further work might be undertaken to help prevent the mould from returning although this had now been done. It was sorry that this action was not taken earlier and advised therefore that her complaint was partially upheld.
It asked for the resident to advise when its contractors could return to the property to remove the mould growth. Regarding her request to be moved from the property due to the repair issues, having visited the property it did not consider that she needed to move out due to the current condition of the property or to enable the proposed works to be undertaken.
On 2 February 2021, a work order was raised by the landlord for anti-fungicidal mould wash to be applied to affected areas, dry lining, box removal and a “fan overhaul”. The target date of 31 July 2021 was given to this work.
In a letter to the landlord dated 5 February 2021, the resident requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process. She disputed the landlord’s suggestion that she was contacted by its contractors in the week commencing 9 November 2020. She also said she had not requested for the boxing under the toilet cistern to be removed and said that Its AHM had dismissed her concerns about mould growth.
She reiterated her request to be temporarily decanted from the property whilst works to address the mould were being undertaken. She advised that she had made a housing application for a bigger property due to overcrowding -she had her son on 19 May 2020. She complained about the length of time it was taking the landlord to provide a response to her management transfer request made on the grounds of domestic violence. She had asked the landlord about the progress of this when it had visited on 19 January 2021.
In a response to the resident dated 9 February 2021, the landlord advised that her application for a management transfer had been rejected. It explained its Interest Queue was open to residents who need to move from a situation of immediate risk where the applicant or a member of his/her household was being threatened or harassed or subject to other exceptional circumstances. It explained that the reason it could not support her application was that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that she or her family were currently at risk remaining at the property.
It advised her to report any further incidents to the police and her Estate Manager. It said she may also wish to consider liaising with its Domestic Violence Advocate and to contact it to discuss this if she wished to do so.
Further, the landlord advised she may wish to consider obtaining a non-molestation order against her ex-husband. It also set out her housing options including The Mutual Exchange Scheme and UK Homefinder Scheme. It advised the resident of the option of asking for a review of its decision.
On 18 February 2021, Victim Support contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident asking for it to review its management move decision. In its letter to the landlord, Victim Support reiterated that the resident was a victim of domestic abuse by her ex-husband which culminated in an incident in 2016 in which he tried to strangle her at the property.
The resident has provided a copy of an (undated) letter that she said she sent to the landlord asking for a review of its management transfer decision. In this letter, the resident said that living in the property was a constant reminder of what happened there when her ex-husband had visited. She reiterated the negative impact on her and her family caused by seeing him on the estate in August 2020. She said that she could not go for a walk on the estate or pick up her children from school without being in constant fear.
On 25 February 2021, the landlord provided its final response to the resident. It acknowledged that there was mould growth at her home. It reiterated the stage one findings and events from when she reported the mould issue to it in June 2020 up to its visit of 19 January 2021 to assess the mould issue. It also referred to its contractor’s visit to the property on 27 January 2021 in order to treat the mould.
It said that the apology provided in its stage one response for the delay in the mould being removed from the property, its failure to follow up to ensure those works took place and her not being provided with further information on what action could been taken to prevent mould from returning, was appropriate.
It also said its visit to her home and confirmation provided that it intended to carry out further works to both remove the mould and prevent it from returning, was an appropriate response to the concerns she had raised.
It said it had further checked with its contractor about having contacted her in the week beginning 9 November 2020 and they reiterated their position that it had contacted her at this time. It said nonetheless, its contractor should have contacted her sooner and the mould removed sooner. Further, the landlord said its AHM had understood from the conversation with the resident that she did want the boxing under the cistern removed however if this was not the case, it recommended that the resident contact the AHM to clarify what work she would like undertaken in that area.
The landlord also referred to the telephone conversations it had with resident to arrange the contractor visit of 27 January 2021. It said she was told items would need to be removed to allow the contractors to carry out the mould treatment and reiterated that its contractors could not be more specific about the time it would attend other than on the morning of 27 January 2021. The landlord said it was unfortunate that the resident did not then provide the contractors with access to remove the mould.
It explained that there was no evidence to suggest that she needed to move to an alternative property to enable repairs to be carried out. It said it noted that she wished to move permanently to a larger property and that she had an active housing application however it said she may wish to explore other transfer options and provided a link in relation to this.
It reiterated that said her complaint was partially upheld in relation to delays in resolving the mould problems and it apologised again for this. It said in relation to learning, the Estate Manager was reminded of the need to keep residents informed and to respond to correspondence more promptly.
The landlord recommended that she contact the Estate Manager to arrange a convenient date for the contractors to return to remove the mould growth in her home. It said it had also asked the Estate Manager to discuss the option of installing a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system in the property as it thought this could be an effective alternative to dry-lining to prevent the mould from returning and the installation would be less disruptive.
On 2 March 2021, the landlord provided a response to Victim Support in which it confirmed it had reviewed the resident’s request for a management transfer. It reiterated that it had been turned down as because there was insufficient evidence to suggest that she was at risk at the property. It said having reviewed the information provided it did not believe there were grounds to overturn the original decision.

Post final response

The resident’s councillor wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 explaining that the resident was unhappy with the stage two response. The landlord replied on the same date explaining the steps it had taken to address the mould issue including its offer to discuss with the resident the possibility of installing an PIV system. It said it had contacted her that day but she advised she would not allow it to carry out any further works without her first being moved out of the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 22 March 2021 clarifying that she welcomed the works outlined by the landlord but asked that they were temporarily rehoused to enable a proper job to avoid any risk of the mould spores impacting her or her family’s health. She said her doctor felt they should not have to remain in the property whilst the works were being undertaken.
The landlord then asked the resident if she had any documentation from her doctor which suggested that she and her family need to be temporarily re-housed whilst the works were being undertaken. On 29 March 2021, the resident sent the landlord further medical evidence to support her request to be decanted whilst the works to address the mould were being undertaken.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of this evidence on 31 March 2021. It advised that the resident it had passed this onto its Medical Advisor to assess whether she needed to be moved whilst the removal of mould, redecoration of the bathroom and installation of the PIV system were undertaken. It also advised at this time that the removal of the mould at the property could be completed within a few hours if her husband moved the furniture. It asked her to let it know if she would like it to proceed with arranging the work to take place.
The landlord’s internal records show it passed this to its Medical Advisor providing details of the resident’s circumstances. Its Medical Advisor responded advising that a temporary decant was not medically essential in the resident’s case given that the works were a short-term matter.
The landlord advised the resident of the Medical Advisor’s decision on 31 March 2021 and reiterated that as it was relatively minor repair work, it was not necessary for it provide temporary accommodation. It said it would make every effort to ensure that any disruption or inconvenience was kept to a minimum.
In response to our enquiry with the landlord in January 2022 about whether the works to address the damp had now been provided, on 17 January 2022 the landlord told the Ombudsman that it had not been able to carry out the works to address the mould as the resident had not provided access. It provided evidence of its communications with the resident in July 2021 which indicate it had told the resident at this time that it remained willing to carry out the mould wash if access was provided.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of mould at the property.

Neither the tenancy agreement or the landlord’s repair policy refers to damp or mould however it is reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate any report of damp or mould at a property to decide an appropriate course of action to address this. This may depend on the cause of the issue however even when mould growth is found to be due to condensation there are measures the landlord can take to reduce the risk of mould reoccurring.
Following the resident’s report of mould at the property on 23 June 2020, the landlord raised a work order on 15 July 2020 for its contractors to spray the affected area. This had a target date of 12 August 2020. It also said it would enquire with its Building Manager Inspector about the possibility of dry-lining the walls.
This action was reasonable however, the landlord’s contractors did not attend the property to carry out the mould wash by the target date or within a reasonable time frame of telling the resident it would do this. According to the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses, its contractors were in contact with the resident later on in the year, during the week beginning 9 November 2020. The landlord said they told the resident at this time she would have to move her furniture to allow them space to access the walls. It is noted that the resident disputed that she had received any communication from its contractors in November 2020. As the landlord has not provided any evidence in support of its position that contact was made with the resident in the week beginning 9 November 2020, the Ombudsman cannot be certain that it took steps to apply the mould wash at this time.
The landlord also failed to enquire with its Building Manager Inspector about the possibility of dry-lining the walls as per its advice to the resident in July 2020. Despite the resident raising the mould issue again with the landlord on three occasions between 19 November 2020 and 7 January 2021 before raising it again in her formal complaint on 14 January 2021, the landlord did not take any steps to address the issue until 19 January 2021 when it visited the property to assess the mould issue. The prolonged time taken by the landlord to act upon the resident’s multiple reports of damp was unreasonable and shows a failure in the service it provided when handling the resident’s reports of this issue.
After confirming the presence of condensation related mould during its visit of 19 January 2021, the landlord arranged for contactors to visit on 27 January 2021 to apply the mould wash. In its stage one response it also set out works that it intended to carry out at the property to minimise the risk of further mould. The landlord’s action taken in this regard was reasonable. It is noted the contractors were unable to apply the mould wash at the property when its contractor had attended on 27 January 2021 as the resident did not allow access to the property as she was unwell and she had not been able to move the furniture. Due to this, in both complaint responses, the landlord requested that the resident let it know when it was convenient for its contractors to attend. This was reasonable.
In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay with its contractors attending and it also apologised for failing to let her know about what further work could be undertaken in her property to help prevent mould growth returning once removed. Further it confirmed in its complaint responses that it had reminded its Estate Manager of the need to keep residents informed and respond to correspondence more promptly. This indicates the landlord recognised its shortcomings and shows learning which is one of the Ombudsman dispute resolution principles. However, due to the unreasonable length of time taken before it took steps to address the mould issue despite several follow up communications from the resident from November 2020 onwards, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to also offer the resident a measure of compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by living with mould at the property over an extended period. Therefore, the landlord did not reasonably resolve the complaint during the complaint process.
Regarding the resident’s request to be temporarily decanted the property whilst the mould wash was applied and proposed works carried out, the landlord explained in its complaint responses that due to the works being relatively minor, this was not needed and therefore it did not agree to her request. When the resident further challenged this shortly after the landlord’s final response, it referred her request to its Medical Advisor, forwarding the medical evidence she had provided. The landlord promptly advised the resident of the outcome which reiterated the landlord’s previously stated position. By obtaining the view of its Medical Advisor, the landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s further requests in this regard.
Whilst the scope of this investigation is limited to considering events up to the landlord’s final response, the evidence indicates that the landlord confirmed to the resident on subsequent occasions that it was willing to provide the mould wash and related mould works asking her to provide access, to allow it to do so. This shows the landlord continued to reasonable take steps to provide the works identified but as the resident did not provide access, it was unable to deliver these.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to a risk of domestic violence

The landlord’s policy on management transfers sets out steps the landlord should follow when a tenant needs to move from a situation of immediate risk where the applicant or a member of his/her household is being threatened or harassed.
The landlord’s policy says all enquiries about management transfer should be made to the AHM who will investigate and determine the appropriate action. Further, where the AHM has considered all the evidence and decided that the application does not warrant an urgent move and therefore should not be registered on its Interest Queue, the tenant can request a review of this decision within 10 days of being informed, of its decision.
The resident first requested for a management transfer during a telephone call with the landlord on 14 October 2020 and followed this up by submitting a formal application for the same on 18 October 2020. The landlord advised the resident of the outcome of her request on 9 February 2021.Therefore, it took almost four months for the landlord to notify the resident of the outcome of her request. The landlord’s management transfer policy does not give a timescale for responding to transfer requests however this timeframe is longer than could reasonably be expected.
The landlord’s internal records show that on receiving the resident’s the application, its AHM identified within a few days that it needed to obtain further information in order to fully consider the request. This included obtaining the resident’s housing records and making enquiries with police to establish if they were aware of any incidents and if the resident’s ex has a history of DM/violent behaviour. This action was reasonable.
The Ombudsman has been provided with the police report which shows the landlord requested this on 19 November 2020 and that the report was provided to the landlord on 4 February 2021. As such this suggest that the majority of the delay stems from the time taken to obtain the police report which the landlord is not responsible for. On 2 December 2020, the landlord had asked the resident to provide further details regarding an incident that she said she had reported in the neighbouring borough as the police had requested this information. The resident provided these details including a CAD reference number, to the landlord on 3 December 2020.
Therefore, it is clear that the delay by the landlord in advising the resident of its outcome of her transfer application was because it was still in the process of carrying out its investigation and it was awaiting receipt of the police report. However, it is clear that the landlord was not in regular communication with the resident during this timeframe causing the resident to have to contact it on multiple occasions to chase it up for an update. This included the timeframe after she submitted her transfer application; the landlord did not contact her about this for approximately six weeks until 2 December after she had chased the landlord for a response on two occasions. Further, whilst it then explained to her on 15 December 2020 that it was awaiting the police report and could not provide an answer until it had received this, it did not provide any further updates until its 9 February 2021 letter when it advised of its outcome, despite the resident contacting the landlord on several occasions during this timeframe. This shows that there was insufficient communication from the landlord in this regard and this was a service shortcoming.
Regarding the landlord’s management transfer decision advised in its letter to the resident dated 9 February 2021 that it was unable to support her application, it said this was because of insufficient evidence to suggest she and her family were currently at risk remaining at the property. Its internal records show its enquiries had established that the resident had left housing in a different borough in 2010 due to domestic violence by her ex-husband and that it had details about an incident whereby her ex-husband came to the property in 2016 and assaulted her and regarding the report she made to the police in 2017 about the incident whereby no further action was taken. It also referenced the resident having seen her ex-husband on the estate the last time being August 2020 and the impact of this on her and her children.
The landlord’s policy indicates the resident or her family would have to be at serious risk of harm in order to support a management transfer. The landlord has demonstrated that it took steps to obtain further information and evidence in order to decide if the situation the resident described met this threshold. Furthermore , it has shown that it fully considered the information obtained during its investigation before declining the resident’s application. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately.
Following the resident’s request for a review, the landlord advised of the outcome of its review to the resident via a letter to Victim Support dated 2 March 2021. In its letter it explained that as it was already aware of the information provided in support of the review request, it said it did not believe there were grounds to overturn the original decision. On balance its response was reasonable and it was provided within the timescale stated in its policy.
It is noted however that there is no evidence of the landlord writing to the resident directly to inform her of its review outcome. The resident has provided a copy of the letter that she sent to the landlord; this was in addition to the request sent by Victim Support on her behalf dated 18 February 2021. As such, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have replied directly to the resident. There is no evidence of it doing so and it is noted that the resident told the Ombudsman that she did not receive a response to her review request. As such this was a shortcoming by the landlord. This and the landlord’s insufficient communication to the resident constitutes a failure in the service provided.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports of mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s request for a management transfer due to a risk of domestic violence.

Reasons

The timeframe taken by the landlord of approximately six months to follow up on a works order it had raised for a mould wash in response to the resident’s report of mould, was unreasonable. It also unreasonably delayed with doing what it said it would do regarding identifying further works to minimise the risk of the mould returning even after the resident’s communications sent chasing it for this. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings in its complaint responses and took reasonable steps following the resident raising a formal complaint to address the mould issue at the property, its failure to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the failures in the service provided is evidence of the landlord not adequately resolving the complaint.
The landlord demonstrated it carried out an investigation in relation to the resident’s management transfer request including obtaining a police report to enable it to make an informed decision, which was reasonable. However, its communication with the resident during this timeframe was insufficient and it did not reply to the resident directly when she requested a review of its management transfer decision which would have been reasonable in the circumstances.

Orders and Recommendations.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation comprising:
1. £150 for the delay in taking reasonable steps to address the resident’s mould reports;
2. £100 for insufficient level of communication provided to the resident after she submitted her management transfer application.