Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202126740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126740

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

9 November 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:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
On 21 December 2021, the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom of the property. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 23 December 2021 and a work order was raised to install extractor fans in the property.
On 9 February 2022, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about how it had handled the issue. He described the elements of his complaint as:
1. He had spent over £1,000 decorating the bathroom, which had been ruined by the damp and mould.
2. He had reported the issue several times to the landlord, who had not responded.
3. When the landlord did attend, he had experienced delays in the work being completed and poor communication from the landlord when chasing up both the work and the complaint.
4. Due to the delays in completing the work, the mould in the bathroom had spread.
5. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested compensation for the decorating costs.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2022 and a stage 2 complaint response on 5 September 2022. In its responses, the landlord said that:
1. Due to a misunderstanding, an incorrect work order was raised for the installation of extractor fans following the inspection. This was not required as the property had a mechanical ventilation heat recovery unit installed, which would be serviced and the mould treated. The landlord apologised for its mistake and the delay it caused in completing repairs.
2. It had given the resident information on how he could make an insurance claim for the costs for the damage caused by the mould. The claim had been declined on the grounds that the landlord had responded appropriately to the December 2021 report. It had however agreed to complete various repairs including renewal of the bath panel, bathroom flooring, shower holder and mixer taps.
The resident subsequently referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said that while the landlord had now completed repairs, it should have paid compensation for the damage to the decorations and personal items in the bathroom, and for the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the resident’s tenancy agreement place an obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (which is available on our website) recommends that landlords “should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions” and “should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. The report goes on to advise landlords to “ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould” and “ensure there is effective internal communication between their teams and departments, and ensure that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare”.
The landlord’s repairs service standard document does not give any timescales for when it will complete non-emergency repairs, noting that it will “arrange appointment times to suit you within our normal working schedule”. The industry standard is for routine non-emergency repairs to be completed within 28 calendar days of the issue being reported.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it responds to complaints at stage one within 10 working days of a complaint being raised and at stage two within 15 working days of receiving an escalation request. The landlord is also required to comply with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code which confirms that stage 1 responses should be provided within 10 working days and stage 2 responses should be provided within 20 working days.

Damp and mould reports

On receiving the report about damp and mould in the bathroom, the landlord had a duty to respond to the issue in line with its obligations set out in legislation, the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. The landlord’s records confirm that:
1. It received the report of damp and mould on 21 December and inspected on 23 December 2021. It found that the bathroom was at risk of condensation and advised the resident on how to heat and ventilate the property properly, and clean the affected areas. Following this a work order was raised to install extractor fans in the property.
2. Following several telephone calls from the resident chasing up the status of the work and the complaint he had raised, the landlord inspected the property again on 10 March 2022. The inspection found that the work to install the extractor fans was raised incorrectly and should be cancelled, and the current ventilation system in the bathroom needed to be checked to see if it was functioning correctly. It was also recommended that work was raised to complete a fungal wash of the bathroom and landing ceilings then treat with anti-fungal paint. This was raised on 15 March with a target completion date of 29 April 2022, and marked as complete on 8 June 2022.
3. On 11 April 2023, the landlord emailed the manufacturer of the ventilation system and asked it to arrange an inspection. The manufacturer sent an inspection report to the landlord on 21 April 2022. The report noted that the air valve had become clogged which was the likely cause of the condensation in the bathroom and recommended the ventilation unit be serviced and the valves sanitised. The landlord approved the work and this was completed on 6 August 2022.
4. The landlord raised a work order on 1 August 2022 to renew the bathroom panel and reseal the bathroom window. This had a target completion date of 31 August 2022 and was marked as being completed on 18 August 2022.
5. The landlord raised a work order on 13 August 2022 to rake out and reseal around the bath. This had a target completion date of 19 September 2022 and was marked as being completed on 17 October 2022
The landlord responded to the resident’s initial report in a timely manner by inspecting the bathroom for damp and mould. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord placed the onus on the resident to clean the mould, and there was a significant delay in any further action being taken due to the landlord raising an incorrect work order to install extractor fans. The mould should have been dealt with promptly given the potential risk to health, however this was not treated until over 5 months after the resident reported the issue. This is of concern, particularly given that the resident has children and says that one of them suffers with asthma.
When the correct work was raised after the second inspection, all but one of the repairs were completed outside of the landlord’s target time. The servicing/cleaning of the ventilation system, which was found to be the cause of the mould growth was also delayed, taking 3.5 months to complete after the landlord received the manufacturer’s report. The resident also experienced poor service from the landlord when chasing it for updates.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the delays, it should have also offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience that the delays caused. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases where there has been maladministration by a landlord that has had an adverse effect on the resident. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, to put things right the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation.
There was very little evidence of any learning in the complaint responses as the landlord did not explain what actions it would take to ensure the same failures in its repair service did not recur. It is however noted that the landlord has since completed the Ombudsman’s self-assessment against the recommendations made in the spotlight report on damp and mould. This confirms the actions the landlord is taking to improve its response to reports about damp and mould, including that it will treat mould growth within a high priority of two working days, and arrange a follow up appointment to diagnose the root cause. The landlord has therefore been ordered to review whether it has been able to fulfil this commitment since it completed the self-assessment.
In relation to the resident’s claim for damage to belongings, the landlord appropriately told the resident to provide more details to enable it to assess the claim. The resident did so and detailed that various items had been damaged by mould and rust including the bathroom suite, blind, tiles, flooring and decorations. The landlord rejected the claim stating that it had not been negligent as there had only been one report of damp which it had attended to, and it did not have a legal obligation to service the ventilation system. It did however offer to complete some repairs/replacements to damaged items such as the shower holder, taps, flooring and bath panel.
It should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot determine liability where this is disputed and therefore cannot decide whether the landlord is responsible for the damage to the items claimed for. This is a legal matter that is more appropriately dealt with by insurers or the courts. However, in view of the long delay in the landlord treating the mould and completing repairs to address the cause of the damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have referred the claim to its liability insurer to decide. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to do this.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at both stages of the complaints process. The resident raised a complaint on 9 February 2022 and received a stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2022, 30 working days outside of the published target of 10 working days.
The resident requested the escalation of his complaint on 4 July 2022 and received a stage 2 response on 5 September 2022, 29 working days outside of the published target of 15 working days. The landlord did update the resident on two occasions in the intervening period and therefore took steps to keep him updated on the progress of his complaint. However, the complaint handling code states that extensions should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason and if an extension beyond this is required then this should be agreed by both parties. There is no evidence that the final extension was agreed with the resident and overall there was an unacceptable delay at this stage of the complaints process.
While the landlord appropriately apologised in its stage 2 response for the complaint handling delays, it failed to offer an explanation for the delays or offer any compensation for these failings. Neither did it explain if any steps would be taken to improve its service delivery going forward. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and it has been ordered to put things right by paying £150 compensation to the resident and reviewing its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated formal complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following:
1. Pay the resident £650 compensation, comprising:
  1. £500 for the delays in completing work to remedy the damp and mould.
  2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
2. Refer the resident’s claim for damage to its liability insurer.
3. Review whether it has been able to fulfil the commitment made in its self-assessment against the spotlight report on damp and mould in respect of treating mould and arranging follow on works. If it has not been able to do so then it should explain the action it is taking to address this.
4. Review its complaint handling in this case and implement any necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with its complaints policy and the complaint handling code. A copy of the review’s findings should be provided to the Ombudsman.
Orders a and b should be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this report and orders c and d should be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.