Wolverhampton City Council (202203703)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203703

Wolverhampton City Council

10 May 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that communal facilities were connected to his electricity supply.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the property, including works to address damp, mould, water ingress and structural issues.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident occupies the property with their partner and young child.

Scope of investigation

Within his communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has expressed concern over the impact of damp and mould in the property on the health of his family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his family’s health; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. These matters are best suited to be considered as part of a personal injury claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on pursuing this aspect of his complaint further. This report will consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the residents.
The resident has also expressed dissatisfaction with the assessment of his housing application and the banding awarded. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to applications for re-housing specifically made to the landlord. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, including the award of points or priority banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, this report will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to October 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in January 2022.
The evidence suggests that the resident pursued a compensation claim with the landlord’s insurance team regarding damage to his laminate flooring during works undertaken in September 2021. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers. It is noted that the resident has advised that he has not yet been compensated as agreed and a recommendation has been made below.

Summary of events

The resident had historically reported issues with plaster coming away from the walls and has reported various incidents of damp in his property, affecting his kitchen, bedrooms, bathroom and lounge from 2014 to date. Various repairs had been completed, including, but not limited to, work to re-plaster in various rooms, treat the smaller bedroom and bathroom with anti-fungal paint and repoint the external brickwork and chimney stack between August 2014 and January 2019 (in response to reports of damp).
The landlord’s contact logs also show that the resident had contacted the landlord on several occasions between August 2016 and July 2020 to request a refund for additional energy usage due to the communal door entry and lighting system being connected to his personal electricity supply. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that he received a response from the landlord following communication in November 2016.
The resident reported that his kitchen ceiling and hallway had cracks and bubbling paint and that the tiling was coming away in his bathroom, leading to water going behind the tiles and causing damp. An inspection was carried out around 21 October 2020 which established that the bathroom needed retiling and identified that a further inspection was required due to damp at the bottom of walls in every room of the property.
The resident pursued his concerns on 23 December 2020 and the landlord’s records suggest that some work to the bathroom tiles was carried out on 18 January 2021. On 21 January 2021, the resident expressed concerns that no further inspection had been carried out following his reports of rising damp within the property, despite an operative attending in October 2020.
The landlord’s repair records show that work to hack off and renew the tiles in the bathroom and seal gaps around where the bath met the window wall were carried out on 26 January 2021. Further work to apply liquid damp proofing treatment to the bathroom wall and hack off and renew the plaster was completed on 21 April 2021. Following this, the landlord’s records suggest that work to remove and renew approximately one metre of plaster at the bottom of various walls in the property and replace skirting boards was completed between September and October 2021 to address apparent damp and mould. The resident has advised that the damp proof layer was also injected around this time.
A damp survey of the resident’s property was carried out on 9 November 2021 by an independent surveyor. The landlord’s records show that this was initially requested on 12 February 2021. The survey report detailed the following:
1. There was no evidence of rising damp or penetrating damp, but condensation affecting various areas of the property.
2. There were high damp readings recorded at a low level in the lounge, but the wall was found to be touch-dry. The report identified the high damp readings to be false and the result of contaminated salts in the walls (efflorescence).
3. There were high damp meter readings recorded at a low level in the kitchen and rear bedroom where plastering had been completed, but all walls were touch dry.
4. In the lounge, the resident had noted black mould growth on the external facing wall. The surveyor found no black mould, and low damp meter readings above previous plastering at the time of the inspection but noted that the resident’s sofa was close to the wall which restricted ventilation. It identified that the radiator in this room should ideally be placed on the front external wall rather than its current position. It also identified some weakness to the timber joist of the flooring adjacent to the lounge door but could not investigate further without accessing the void.
5. In the front bedroom, it found a small quantity of black mould due to condensation, with items stored tightly against a cold wall. It also identified three failed double-glazing panels.
6. In the bathroom, a small number of lightly concentrated black mould deposits were present above the shower which was established to be due to condensation.
7. It confirmed that drill holes were present, suggesting that insulation had been injected into the cavity walls but that there was no record of this on the Building Control register. It found that the damp proof course layer to the property was in a satisfactory condition with some missing mortar.
8. The survey identified several structural issues and recommended work to replace the lintel above the resident’s lounge window, stitch external cracks in the brickwork and repoint the external mortar, replace three failed window panes and replace the filters of the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
The resident requested a further inspection of the property on 28 January 2022. He maintained that there was damp throughout the property and mould in the bathroom despite treating it himself. He advised that the plastering that was completed in September-October 2021 was coming away from the walls in the bedroom, living room and bathroom. He also reported that the flooring in his kitchen required attention, with damp patches forming in areas of the room. The landlord’s records highlight that he had raised concern that the wooden flooring below the floor covering could be the issue.
The landlord’s repair records suggest that an inspection of the kitchen floor was completed on 31 January 2022. The operative’s notes identified that the flooring below the lino could be the issue.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 8 February 2022 and detailed the following:
1. He advised that the communal door entry system and lock did not work unless there was credit on his electricity meter. There had previously been an agreement in place, and he had received a reimbursement from the landlord in relation to his additional energy usage to power the communal door but had not received a reimbursement since December 2016. He was informed that the door would be disconnected from his supply, but this had not been completed and he continued to pay for the electricity usage.
2. He summarised his historic reports of damp and mould and the actions taken by the landlord at various stages between July 2014 to date and detailed the issues identified within the inspection in November 2021. He maintained that damp had been found throughout the property during the inspection and had continued to be an ongoing issue.
3. He provided multiple photos of the property at various stages of his tenancy and noted that there was damp staining on his kitchen lino due to suspected damp coming up through the floor which had worsened over time and was present during previous repairs to plaster the walls in the kitchen.
4. He was dissatisfied with previous inspections and work undertaken by plasterers. He advised that the plastering works had not resolved the damp issues. He believed that the issue remained due to either a lack of professionalism or that the problem was more extensive than previously thought.
5. He asked that the landlord considered his claim for the damage caused due to the ongoing damp and mould issues, including costs involved in self-treating the mould, inconvenience, distress, loss of enjoyment, detriment to health and all other costs.
6. He expressed concern about the affect of damp and mould on his son’s health, who had been exposed to the conditions since birth. He asked that, to avoid disruption to him and his family, they be moved from the property. He added that a mutual exchange from the property was not an option due to its condition.
The landlord’s repair records suggest that an inspection of the plastering was completed on 10 February 2022 as the plastering had become hollow and was cracking. A further independent damp survey was requested on 28 February 2022. A visit to the property took place on 1 March 2022. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been formally raised on 2 March 2022. The landlord’s records show that a work order was raised on 14 March 2022 to:
1. Renew the window lintel.
2. Rake out and repoint settlement cracks.
3. Hack off the plaster on both sides of the kitchen and living room wall and chimney breast and install plasterboard.
4. Re-plaster/board the bathroom ceiling.
5. Replace the two extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
6. Replace the three failed glazing units.
7. Reseal the skirting boards in the kitchen and bathroom.
8. Check for water ingress under bath and repair as required.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. It advised that a communal electricity supply had been installed in June 2018 to feed the communal door entry system and lighting. It said that these items should no longer be connected to the resident’s electricity supply and apologised that this was not communicated at the time. It said that it had re-checked this on 10 March 2022. It acknowledged that the resident said he had not been refunded between 2016 and 2018 and agreed to reimburse the resident £44 following calculation of the energy usage during this period.
2. It advised that all relevant plastering had been raised with its contractor. It said that the brickwork would be inspected for damp during the works. Another work order had been raised to check for water ingress under the resident’s bath and repair any leaks if found.
3. It sent the resident the surveyor report from November 2021 and advised that works to renew the lintel and replace three double glazing units had been raised. It had also raised a work order to replace the existing bathroom and kitchen fans on 1 April 2022. A new shower would also be installed on 16 March 2022.
4. It confirmed that the resident’s claim for damage to his flooring formed part of a separate claim that was responded to on 12 January 2022 by its insurance team. As such, this aspect of his complaint had been resolved.
5. In response to the resident’s request to move, it provided details of the options available should he want to pursue this and advised that he may wish to apply directly to the area he wished to move to. It confirmed that the resident could apply for rehousing online and that it would assess his housing needs.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 21 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. The communal door entry system was still connected to his energy supply. He provided a video which showed that the door entry system did not work when the switch on his fuse box was turned off, but worked when it was turned on. He asked that he be refunded for his energy usage between 2016 and 2022. He asked for the landlord to offer £250.
2. He noted that the surveyors report from November 2021 advised that no records could be found to confirm that insulation was injected into the cavity walls. He asked that the landlord confirmed whether this was completed.
3. He acknowledged that work orders had been raised and highlighted a few comments made in the report following the visit in November 2021. He disputed that his sofa was positioned closely to the living room wall and advised that he experienced a draught through his living room window which provided adequate ventilation. He added that the surveyor had advised that the radiator in the lounge should be positioned on the front external facing wall which was not the case. He also noted that a further inspection of the void area below the floor adjacent to his lounge door was needed due to early signs of weakness in the timber joists, as detailed in the report.
4. He maintained that many signs of damp were found during the inspection, despite the property being well ventilated, and that black mould was present. He also expressed concern that plastering had blown after only six months despite walls being injected with a damp proof course prior to the inspection in November 2021.
5. He confirmed that he and his family required a move due to the established damp and mould issues. He confirmed that he would seek the support of the landlord’s tenancy officer with his housing application.
6. He said that the surveyor had advised that they would be in contact with the landlord to suggest that they returned to the property. He had also requested further information from the surveyor, including the full report, headcam footage and dictaphone recordings.
7. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had omitted the existence of damp within its stage one complaint response. He also advised of the growing water stain through the vinyl flooring in his kitchen and blown plaster and asked that the landlord carried out further investigation into the issues.
The landlord’s records show that operatives attended the resident’s property on 31 March 2022 to check for water ingress under the bath and raise repairs as well as resealing the skirting boards in the bathroom and kitchen. The job notes stated that the lino was staining, there was movement in the floorboards and the kitchen work surface had blown. The records suggested that a further inspection was required. The repair records show that the resident’s bathroom and kitchen fans were replaced on 1 April 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 April 2022 and advised that an appointment to disconnect the electricity supply powering the communal door entry system would be arranged by its contractor.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 19 April 2022 and explained the following:
1. The communal door entry system had been connected to the resident’s electricity supply and not connected to the communal supply as previously advised. It apologised for the error and said it would arrange for a contractor to disconnect this. It offered £250 as a reimbursement and said it would complete decoration work following the disconnection should there be any disturbance.
2. It confirmed that the property had cavity wall insulation and the survey referred to evidence that the surveyor had seen that insulation had been blown into the cavity wall. It also confirmed that its own records stated that the walls had been injected with insulation.
3. It advised that visits had been made to assess the damp and it could only reiterate what the surveyor had reported which was that there was no evidence of rising damp. The surveyor had stated that the high damp readings at a low level were due to efflorescence (contaminated salts) on the brickwork and the plaster around the property was dry to touch.
4. It confirmed that all relevant plastering had been raised and passed to its building contractor. It advised that the brickwork would be assessed for damp during the plastering work and an inspection had been scheduled. A job had also been raised for the resident’s reports of water ingress under his bath (and for the repair of any leaks) as well as to reseal the skirting board in the bathroom and kitchen. It noted that the resident had refused access for works on 31 March 2022 because he did not feel that the water ingress from his bathroom related to a bath leak. It asked the resident to rebook these works. It confirmed that contractors would be in touch regarding an appointment for the three glazed window units.
The resident continued to pursue his concerns following the landlord’s final response. He responded to the landlord on 22 April 2022 and explained the following:
1. The electricity supply to the communal door was disconnected on 8 April 2022 but the communal lighting covering the footpath leading to the door was still connected. He expressed concern that the landlord had previously advised that the electricity supply had been disconnected when this was found not to be the case and advised that this caused doubt in the landlord’s investigation processes. He asked that the landlord included interest of 8.75% in its calculations for reimbursement until this was rectified.
2. He maintained that the damp survey completed in November 2021 found many signs of damp, including high damp readings on lower parts of the walls. He maintained his concern about signs of weakness to the flooring timber joists and the need for an inspection of the void below the flooring.
3. He remained concerned about the landlord’s confirmation that cavity wall insulation had been injected despite no records being found on the Planning and Building control register. He asked the landlord to provide further information.
4. He expressed concern that structural issues were identified during the inspection in November 2021 but that no action had been taken to date regarding the floor or lintel. Similarly, no action had been taken in relation to the mould reported and health hazard. He asked the landlord to confirm the cause of the growing water stain in his kitchen which it had acknowledged was present. He noted that the inspection on 31 March 2022 only related to checking under his bath and floorboards.
5. He advised that workers had attended on 31 March 2022 and at no point had he refused entry. Workers had identified that a further inspection and surveyor was needed following confirmation of an issue with the floor joists. Another worker noted that the work surface around the sink had blown. No work was carried out as they advised that the work surface needed to be replaced. They did not provide a reason for the cause and left without taking further action.
6. He confirmed that a further inspection of the plastering was completed on 8 April 2022. He expressed concern that the cause of the blown plaster had not been identified or remedied and that he and his family were left to live in a damp environment.
7. He advised that four double glazed units were replaced on 12 April 2022, however the cause of the issue – the weak window lintel – had not been addressed. He expressed concern that a great amount of work was required to repair the reoccurring damage caused by damp without the acceptance of a damp problem.
8. He confirmed that he was not happy with the resolution or proposed actions detailed in the landlord’s complaint responses and welcomed additional help, advice and assistance.
The landlord’s repair records suggest that work to renew the lintel, window panels and a small amount of plastering were completed by 29 April 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2022, noting that the damp issues had been confirmed again during the works. He asked what the landlord’s intended course of action was and asked for intervention at its earliest opportunity due to the impact of damp and mould on his young son. The landlord’s records show that it instructed the damp surveyor who had attended previously to carry out a further inspection on 31 May 2022.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service via his MP in May 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He noted that the landlord had completed repair work to the property to fix the damage caused by the damp, but that his reports of ongoing damp had not been fully addressed and the cause of the issue had not been eliminated which meant that further repairs were required.
A further inspection was carried out by the independent damp surveyor on 20 June 2022. It found no evidence of rising damp or penetrating damp but a small amount of condensation present in the bathroom and rear bedroom. It indicated that there were areas of black mould present on the bathroom ceiling due to condensation, and within the rear bedroom as the result of stored items obstructing air circulation. Low damp meter readings were obtained at a low level in the lounge, front bedroom and rear bedroom, with one high damp reading taken from the kitchen mortar joint on the wall adjacent to the lounge but low readings were taken from the skirting board. The report noted that work to make good hollow plaster in the lounge was required.
The resident contacted the surveyor on the same day to reiterate comments made during the inspection. He noted that the surveyor had advised that if there was rising damp, they would expect to see tide marks about a metre up the wall. He noted that this would not been seen in the property due to previous plastering works but that this was present prior to the plastering being carried out. The damp surveyor wrote to the landlord on 31 August 2022 to confirm its position that there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp visible within the property. It confirmed that evidence of condensation was likely to reappear in winter months if ventilation, insulation and heating were not controlled.
Environmental Health (EH) contacted the landlord around December 2022 following an inspection in November. EH advised that plaster was cracked and becoming detached at a low level in the kitchen and lounge but that damp meter readings showed no dampness. The kitchen lino had a large area of damp staining; when this was tested, high damp meter readings were found in the wooden floor below. It advised that the worktop in the kitchen had dropped and needed to be resecured and sealed. There was some condensation in the bathroom and small areas of mould in rooms at a low level behind furniture. EH noted that it had spoken to the landlord who had advised of difficulty arranging access with the resident to complete works.
The resident has remained in communication with the Ombudsman since the case was accepted for investigation to confirm his current position:
1. He expressed concern that the initial report from the damp surveyor in November 2021 was flawed as it did not reflect what was said during the inspection or evidenced through the video recording taken on the day.
2. He remained dissatisfied that no action had been taken in response to his reports and he wanted the underlying issue of damp and mould to be resolved. The damp and mould in the bathroom were ongoing despite cleaning weekly.
3. He remained concerned about the impact of damp conditions on his and his family’s health and noted that the smell of damp was apparent throughout the property.
4. The plastering had again been affected by damp in multiple rooms of the property and the rising water stain on his kitchen lino had now affected most of the kitchen floor.
5. He had not been reimbursed by the landlord for his additional energy usage in powering the communal door system or received reimbursement for the kitchen flooring (damaged by operatives in September 2021) as agreed with the landlord’s insurance team.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure and exterior of the property, installations it had installed and internal walls, floors and ceilings (excluding internal decoration).
The policy provides several timescales for repairs. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. Programmed repairs, including plastering complete walls and other larger repairs, should be completed within 90 working days. In some cases, an inspection may be required to determine the work required. An inspection should be carried out within 20 working days, following which the repair would be raised. Inspections are usually required for issues of damp, condensation and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that communal facilities were connected to his electricity supply.

It is understood from the evidence provided that the communal security door and lighting at the property had been connected to the resident’s domestic electricity supply from the start of the tenancy in June 2014 and that he had previously been reimbursed by the landlord for the energy costs associated with this usage up 2016.
The landlord’s contact records show that the resident had pursued his request for reimbursement of costs on several occasions between August 2016 and July 2020, prior to his formal complaint in January 2022. However, there is no evidence to suggest that a suitable response was provided at any stage prior to the complaint being raised – this was likely to have cause inconvenience to the resident.
Within its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that a communal electricity supply had been installed in June 2018 and that the communal door entry system had been disconnected from the resident’s supply at this time. It also confirmed that it had checked this on 10 March 2022 and confirmed that the communal entry system had its own electricity supply. The landlord has not supplied evidence to show that an inspection was carried out and ultimately, its conclusion was incorrect. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated that it had effectively investigated the resident’s concerns, despite the resident raising the issue on several occasions.
The resident has advised this Service that the disconnection of the communal facilities from his electricity supply has now been fully completed. The landlord’s records suggest that this was fully completed on 23 April 2022. The resident has advised that he has not received the promised reimbursement payment of £250 for his energy usage.
While the landlord apologised to the resident for its failure to identify that the electricity supply had not been disconnected within its stage two complaint response, it failed to acknowledge the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing his concerns or the inconvenience caused in needing to do so.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted in recognition of this and its failure to resolve matters at an earlier date. Overall, the landlord’s offer of £250 as a reimbursement for the resident’s energy costs was reasonably calculated and should be paid directly to the resident if it has not already been. In view of the identified failings, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise and pay him an additional £150 compensation in view of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him in pursuing a resolution.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the property, including works to address damp, mould, water ingress and structural issues.

It should be noted that it is not the role of this Service to diagnose the damp issues reported by the resident, but to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, whether this was fair in all circumstances of the case and whether its response was in line with relevant policies and procedures.
In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has reported ongoing damp and mould in the property from 2014 to date. Historically, works to re-plaster areas of the property, retile the bathroom and apply anti-fungal paint had been completed. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the underlying cause of damp or mould had been diagnosed and the resident reported in October 2020 that the issues were ongoing.
Following the resident’s reports of damp, including damp tide marks, bubbling paint and mould along the lower edges of several walls in the property, bubbling paint on his kitchen ceiling and tiling coming away from his bathroom walls, an inspection took place in October 2020. The evidence shows that works to retile, apply an antifungal paint and replaster the bathroom were carried out on 18 January 2021, 26 January 2021 and 21 April 2021 respectively. However, no further work to address the plastering or damp and mould in various rooms was completed until September-October 2021, almost a year following its initial identification. It is unreasonable that there is no evidence to suggest that the reason for the delay was explained to the resident or that the landlord satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations on when action would be taken during this period.
Significant works to replaster the lower section of walls throughout the property were carried out in September and October 2021.The resident has suggested that work to inject the damp proof course layer to the property was also completed around this time although this is not apparent within the landlord’s records. While it is noted that the landlord had initially instructed the independent damp surveyor to act on its behalf in February 2021, it remains unclear as to why there was an unreasonable delay until November 2021 in carrying out a full damp inspection.
The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the cause of the damp had been effectively diagnosed prior to works being carried out. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest that it had diagnosed the cause of the issue or explained to the resident why it believed that the works it carried out to the plastering would be successful in resolving the issue. This was likely to be confusing for the resident who maintains that the underlying issue has not been addressed.
The evidence shows that works to replace the window lintel, blown glazing units, repair external cracks and replace the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were completed in April 2022, following recommendations by the independent damp surveyor in November 2021. This delay was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale for both routine and programmed repairs. It would have also been helpful for the landlord to have provided an estimated completion date for the works to the resident within its stage one complaint response to manage his expectations given the timescales involved between November 2021 and April 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the action that had been taken in response to his reports of ongoing damp and blown plastering. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that it was only able to reiterate the findings of the damp surveyor in that there was no evidence of rising damp and that the high damp readings found at a low level was the result of efflorescence (salt contamination) in the brickwork. While the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinion of the qualified damp surveyor, it is noted that the presence of contaminated salts only related to one high reading on the external facing front lounge wall at this stage and that high damp readings were also taken in other areas of the property which was likely to have caused concern for the resident.
The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to interrogate the findings of the report and proactively seek to resolve other issues that have been identified. While the landlord acted appropriately by carrying out works that had been recommended, it did not proactively review the report to consider whether any further action was necessary beyond the report findings to mitigate the impact on the resident. In particular, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position in relation to the surveyor’s comments that the radiator should usually be placed on the external facing lounge wall and that further investigation of the void below the flooring in the lounge was required due to evidence of weakness in the timber joists. There is no evidence that the landlord considered these matters further despite the resident’s concerns about the long-standing nature of the damp.
In his communication to this Service, the resident raised concern that the report from the damp surveyor did not accurately reflect what was said during the inspection in November 2021. A video was taken during the inspection by the surveyor which has been provided to this Service by the resident. The surveyor advised that a possible cause of dampness in the adjoining kitchen/living room wall could be poor ventilation below the floor level and condensation build-up which may require further investigation should the issues persist. They also advised of a small amount of dampness on an unspecified wall and that they would report hollow plaster in the report. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns, the landlord would be entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified surveyors when deciding on what work to undertake and there is no evidence to suggest that it had been provided with the video footage at an earlier date. As such, it did not have the opportunity to investigate any other comments made by the surveyor.
Following an inspection on 1 March 2022, the landlord proposed works to hack off the plaster on both sides of the kitchen and living room wall and chimney breast and install plasterboard, re-plaster/board the bathroom ceiling, reseal the skirting boards in the kitchen and bathroom, and check for water ingress under bath and repair as required along with other works recommended by the damp report. Within its communication to this Service, the landlord has advised that works to assess reported damp or water ingress from the resident’s bath and renew the blown plaster on the walls within the property were not completed due to the resident refusing the plastering works and refusing access for an inspection on 31 March 2022.
The resident has disputed refusing access for works to be carried out, and confirmed within his communication to the landlord on 22 April 2022 that operatives had attended on 31 March 2022 and said that further investigation was required. The visit was also reported as completed within the landlord’s repair records which noted that a further inspection was required. This indicates that the landlord did not offer an accurate stage two complaint response to the resident – this was unreasonable and was likely to have caused concern and uncertainty to the resident about the landlord’s record-keeping and investigation process.
The resident has explained that he initially expressed concern with the proposed works to replace the blown plaster in April 2022, as he did not believe that the underlying damp had been resolved and he had concerns about the impact of the works on his family due to the amount of dust that was created during the initial plastering works in September-October 2021. He had asked that his family was moved from the property during the works and added that he had not had a response from the landlord or received any appointment dates. Given the resident’s concerns that plastering over damp brickwork would be unsuccessful, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a further damp survey of the property.
The Ombudsman subsequently contacted the landlord to gain an understanding of any works that had been undertaken since its stage two complaint response, including any actions undertaken to address the resident’s reports of a growing water stain affecting his kitchen flooring and sections of blown plaster. In relation to its position that the resident had refused access for works, the landlord provided details of several no access appointments, none of which related to the plastering or damp works.
The onus would be on the landlord to provide evidence to demonstrate that it had sought to progress works and explain its position to the resident as to why the plastering would be successful and why it would, or would not, relocate the resident while works went ahead. The landlord has not provided satisfactory evidence to show that it had done so. In addition, following the further damp survey in June 2022, identified works to re-plaster areas of the property have not yet been completed. The landlord appears to have advised EH that it had experienced difficulty gaining access to the property, however, it has not provided evidence to suggest that it had attempted to communicate, or progress works, with the resident, or that the resident had refused the work or access to the property. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it acted appropriately in its handling of the matter or taken steps to progress works as advised within its stage two complaint response.
In its communication with this Service, the landlord advised that it had no records to show that the resident had reported issues with his kitchen flooring. This is of concern given that the landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported a growing water stain in January 2022, and an inspection was carried out on 31 January 2022 where operatives indicated that a further inspection was required. The staining on the lino was also mentioned in the operatives notes following a visit on 31 March 2022.
The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that the reason for water staining on the resident’s kitchen flooring has been adequately assessed or diagnosed since it was reported. There were several missed opportunities by the landlord to address the resident’s concerns. While the surveyor report from 20 June 2022 identified no defects in the kitchen flooring, it remains unclear as to whether the staining on the flooring was specifically investigated during the inspection. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to proactively question the report findings given its contractors’ reports of possible damp issues and the resident’s ongoing reports of a growing stain, particularly given the high damp reading taken from a wall in the same room in June 2022.
In addition, following the inspection by EH in November 2022, the wooden flooring below the lino was found to have a high moisture reading, indicating that the issue is ongoing, and that further investigation is required. The landlord’s failure to address this matter at an earlier date and its view that the resident had not reported any issues related to the kitchen flooring amounts to a failing and is contradictory to its records. This is likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty to the resident as to whether the landlord intended to address this issue. In addition, while the landlord confirmed that the property had been injected with insulation in the past, it did not explain why this was not apparent on the Building and Planning control register or provide the evidence it had relied upon when concluding that insulation was present.
In summary, while the landlord has taken steps to rectify the damage caused by damp to the lower part of various walls within the property and the bathroom, and liaised with an independent surveyor to gain an understanding of any ongoing issues, it delayed unreasonably in completing some of these works and failed to demonstrate how it satisfied itself that the work it carried out in September-October 2021 would be successful in resolving the underlying issues. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s ongoing concerns related to damp staining on his kitchen lino which he initially reported in January 2022 and did not evidence that it had sought to progress works required to the plastering in the property satisfactorily following its stage two complaint response and the additional damp survey in June 2022. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the timeframes involved and the inconvenience caused by the need for multiple visits to the property in this case.
In view of the above failings, the landlord is to pay the resident financial compensation in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused. It should also complete a further inspection of the property, paying particular attention to the underlying cause of the growing water stain on the resident’s kitchen lino, whether there are any ongoing signs of damp within the walls at a low level throughout the property, whether any additional measures to improve ventilation within the property are required, particularly in the resident’s bathroom, and write to the resident to confirm a schedule of works following the inspection.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that communal facilities were connected to his electricity supply.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs needed in the property, including works to address damp, mould, water ingress and structural issues.

Reasons

While the issue of the resident’s electricity supply powering the communal door entry and lighting system has now been resolved and the landlord acted reasonably by offering to reimburse the resident for the costs associated with the additional energy usage, the landlord has not acknowledged the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing his concerns and the delay in rectifying the issue.
The landlord took reasonable steps to carry out repairs to damage caused by damp in the property and act in response to recommendations made by an independent damp surveyor. However, it failed to evidence that it had adequately diagnosed the cause of the damp from the outset or satisfied itself that the remedial works would be successful at resolving the issues. There were unexplained delays in its handling of the issues and the landlord failed to consider several concerns, including water staining on the resident’s kitchen lino. It also advised that works required to plaster the property had been delayed as the resident had refused works or not allowed access, but failed to provide evidence to suggest that this was the case.

Orders

Within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £1000 comprised of:
  1. £250 as previously offered to reimburse the resident for his additional energy usage if this has not yet been paid.
  2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing his concerns about the communal door entry system being connected to his electricity supply.
  3. £600 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its handling of repairs needed in the property, including works to address damp, mould, water ingress and structural issues.
2. The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a further surveyor’s inspection and write to him to apologise for the service failures identified. It should confirm the date for the survey and assess the underlying cause of the growing water stain on the resident’s kitchen lino, whether there are any ongoing signs of damp within the walls at a low level throughout the property and whether any additional measures to improve ventilation within the property are required, particularly in the resident’s bathroom.
The landlord should contact this Service to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescale specified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Reviews its record keeping processes to ensure that accurate records of repairs and communication with residents are kept and are available to staff members when required.
2. Contacts the resident to confirm the outcome of its insurers investigation and pay the resident any reimbursement which had previously been agreed.
3. Contacts the resident to explain why evidence of insulation in the property is not on the Building and Planning control register and provide the evidence it had relied upon when concluding that the property had insulation injected into the walls in the past.
4. Arranges a further damp inspection six months after any works identified as part of the orders above have been completed, to monitor any ongoing damp issues.
5. Considers implementing an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould which would cover each area where the landlord may be required to act. This would include any proactive interventions, its approach to diagnosis, actions it considers appropriate in different circumstances, effective communication and aftercare. It should review its current approach alongside the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports on damp and mould (October 2021 and February 2023) to ensure that its current approach is in line with best practice.
The landlord should contact this Service to confirm its intentions regarding the recommendations above within four weeks of the date of this report.