Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202334065)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334065

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

19 February 2025

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. record keeping.
2. damp and mould at the resident’s property.
3. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident had a 5-year fixed tenancy with the landlord that began on 22 April 2019. The resident has since moved, however, the property where she was residing was a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. At the time of the complaint, the resident had 2 children and was pregnant. The resident told the landlord during the complaints process that she has borderline personality disorder and anxiety. The resident’s mother acted as her representative. As such this report references ‘the resident’ but refers to the actions of the resident herself and her mother.
The resident says that she first reported damp and mould at her property during 2019 around the time she moved in. She said she felt pressured to accept the property despite the conditions because she was homeless at the time. The landlord’s records do not set out when any reports by the resident were received. However, the landlord’s operative inspected the property on 11 October 2023. They found rising damp to the external walls and recommended a damp survey. The landlord raised a job to apply mould wash and stain blocker to the bedroom and lounge.
The resident raised a complaint on 23 November 2023. She said:
1. damp and mould had been present at the property from the beginning of the tenancy and the landlord had not taken any action to rectify this.
2. her belongings including clothing, shoes, toys, and furniture had been damaged because of the mould.
3. she had incurred considerable costs by frequently cleaning the mould. She had also bought and a dehumidifier and was keeping this running to manage the humidity levels at the property.
4. on 26 October 2023 there was an inspection by a specialist damp and mould company, but the landlord had not actioned its recommendations. These were:
  1. the installation of more ventilation due to the high humidity.
  2. the replacement of the damp proof course.
  3. the completion of a full damp survey.
5. in November 2023 the walls were treated and repainted, but this did not last. She said she re-reported concerns to the landlord on 21 November 2023 and waited a “considerable” amount of time on the phone. The landlord told her there was nothing it could so as it had already passed her case to its damp and mould team.
6. she was concerned the property conditions were impacting the health of her children. They were having frequent respiratory illnesses.
7. a full damp survey was due to be completed on 15 November 2023. Although she chased the contractor the same day and was told the appointment would go ahead, it did not. She felt the contractor had lied as it said it had knocked on the door, but she said they had not.
8. she asked the landlord to place her into alternative permanent accommodation because she felt temporary accommodation would impact her mental health and cause her “considerable expense”.
On 12 January 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it apologised for the length of time it had taken to address the concerns in the complaint.
2. it had scheduled damp and mould “rectification works for 22 January 2023” and would conduct a series of post-inspections to ensure their effectiveness.
3. the complaint would remain open until the work was completed.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 January 2024. She said:
1. the landlord delayed in responding to her complaint.
2. the work had not started and the conditions at the property were getting worse. She wanted the work to be completed and to a “good standard”. However, an operative had told her it could take 12-18 months for the walls to dry out so the landlord should consider alternative accommodation.
3. the landlord had not considered compensating her for her damaged belongings.
4. she re-iterated her concerns about the impact of the property conditions on the health conditions of the household.
The resident chased the landlord for a response to her complaint during February, April, and July 2024. She added that her housing application for the council’s waiting list ought to be re-assessed given the property’s conditions and her growing family. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. It said:
1. it acknowledged the delays in starting the work, the damage to her belongings, and the need to relocate the household while it completed the work.
2. it would monitor the conditions at the property given it had already carried out the recommendations of its specialist surveyor. It would also complete a further damp survey and rebook any work required.
3. it signposted the resident to its website to make an insurance claim for her damaged items.
4. it offered temporary accommodation because the resident was concerned about the health and wellbeing of the household, but this was declined.
5. it would support the resident to have her housing application re-assessed and asked her to provide documents to the relevant team to progress this.
6. it wished to offer £200 as a “gesture of apology” for the delay in addressing the complaint.

Post complaint procedure

On 16 August 2024, the council gave the resident a higher banding on the waiting list because of the conditions of the property. The landlord tried to complete a further damp survey on 2 September 2024, but the resident declined access to the property. She told the contractor she was due to move and did not want the appointment to go ahead. The landlord told the Ombudsman that the resident moved in October 2024 after being allocated another property by the council.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation on 9 September 2024. She said that the landlord’s handling of this matter had caused her “suffering” over a prolonged period.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told us that she was concerned with the conditions at the property at the time she accepted it. She also said that as the move was through a homeless application she had relied on the advice of the council’s officer that she would not get another property if she declined it. She explained she thought the council ought to have reassessed her housing application at an earlier stage because of this. It is important to note that the Ombudsman is unable to investigate how the local council handled the resident’s homelessness or housing application because this is not within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) may investigate this type of complaint. The resident can refer any complaint made to the local council to the LGSCO if she is unhappy with the outcome. As part of our investigation, we have considered how the landlord handled the resident’s request to be rehoused and if it acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The resident said her children’s physical health had been exacerbated by the conditions at the property. The Ombudsman is not able to determine the cause of any illness. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of the injury. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises. However, this investigation has considered if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about this matter.
The resident said she first reported damp and mould in 2019 when she moved in. She also explained she made formal complaints to the landlord during this time. We acknowledge the resident made historical complaints to the landlord. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from November 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Record keeping

The landlord did not provide us with evidence that it recorded the resident’s reports of damp and mould between November 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) and August 2024. This was a significant failure. The landlord ought to have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information”. It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately result in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This is highlighted at various points throughout this report. As such we have made a finding of maladministration for this complaint.
The landlord must conduct a review of its working practices when it records repairs. This is to help it identify any wider learning by ensuring it captures all relevant information relating to repairs, including reports made by residents and any delays it is experiencing. As well as identifying any gaps in the availability of information stored by its third party contractors when they carry out repairs on its behalf.

Damp and mould

The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, this includes the external walls. This is set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflected this.
Where there is damp and mould and this is caused by a repair issue, the landlord will be responsible for ensuring that it offers a full and effective remedy to prevent the damp from returning. Where damp and mould are condensation related, the landlord’s obligation will be to ensure the property is free from hazards (under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) and that it is fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Our Spotlight report on ‘Damp and mould. It’s not a lifestyle’ published in October 2021 states that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. They should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems and communicate to residents about any action it will take. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on them in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.
The landlord should ensure that repairs it is responsible for are completed within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as the volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord’s repair policy provides specific timescales for completing certain categories of work. It states it will respond to repairs as follows:
1. emergency repairs within 5 working days.
2. routine repairs within 25 working days.
The landlord inspected the property on 11 October 2023. It is unclear what prompted this visit. As such, we cannot establish whether this was carried out in a timely manner from when the associated report was received.
The inspection found there was rising damp from the external walls and recommended a damp survey. The landlord completed the damp survey 33 working days later, on 27 November 2023. It is unclear why the survey could not take place sooner as this was an unreasonable delay. Further, there is no evidence the landlord explained its delay to the resident or kept her informed about its progress. Given the resident was chasing the landlord for updates during this time, the landlord missed an opportunity to communicate with her and allay her concerns. The resident said this caused her time and trouble, as well as distress because she felt the landlord was not taking her reports seriously.
The survey found penetrating damp caused by rainwater splashing above the damp proof course and permeating through the external wall. It also noted there was not enough ventilation in the property and there was a high level of humidity. It recommended:
1. controlling condensation with extractor fans to the lounge as well as maintaining the heating levels or adding thermal insulation to the loft space.
2. applying affected walls with fungicidal wash and chemical paint
3. installing a damp proof course to 1.2 metres above the ground level.
During December 2023 the resident chased the landlord for updates on the work. She said she was concerned because she had found mould growing on her child’s cot and provided pictures of this. She also said nobody was providing her with any answers and that one of her main concerns was that she had been told by an operative that any further work to the property would take 18 months to be resolved. While the resident’s comments in relation to this are noted, we have not seen any other evidence confirming this was the case. Nevertheless, the landlord responded by saying it would add the resident’s communications to the complaint file to be reviewed by the complaint team.
This was a missed opportunity to meaningfully engage with the resident about what action it would take, her concerns about the length of time the work may take and, importantly, assess the property conditions. Had the landlord done this it could have clarified its position and tried to mitigate the effects of the damp and mould on the household while it sought to take further remedial action. This was disappointing to note because this compounded the resident’s concerns that it was not acting on the recommendations of its surveyor as well as undermining the landlord and tenant relationship.
The resident said as part of her communications to the complaint team that the specialist damp and mould surveyor cancelled the initial appointment for the work due to take place on 22 January 2024. She said this was re-arranged for 27 January 2024, but she was unavailable on Saturdays. She asked for this to be noted on the landlord’s systems. However, a further appointment was made for 5 February 2024 which was also a Saturday. She explained to the contractor this was not an appropriate appointment. The resident said she thought this was incompetent and caused her time and inconvenience trying to progress the survey.
We have not been provided with records for this series of appointments. It is unclear whether the records do not exist, or if the landlord has failed to provide them to us. Given the issues already highlighted with the landlord’s record keeping, this is of concern. The landlord ought to reasonably hold the information or be able to request the relevant data that relates to any of its contractors when they act on behalf of it to carry out inspections and repairs. Further, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about this issue or investigated the matter further. While the landlord had contracted this work out, it remained overall responsible for the repair. As such, it should have taken steps to look into this matter and respond to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to engage with the resident about her concerns.
The repair logs noted the landlord completed the recommendations of its surveyor on 15 February 2024. This was 4 months after it was put on notice of rising damp during its visit in October 2023. The evidence we have been provided with does not demonstrate that this delay was unavoidable. Our Spotlight Report calls for landlords to act on recommendations of surveyors in a timely manner. The resident chased the landlord during this time for updates. It is unclear why the landlord delayed and did not appropriately account for its delays. This caused the resident distress because she felt the landlord was not progressing with the repairs. Further, it caused her time and trouble chasing the landlord. Overall, the Ombudsman is not satisfied the landlord acted reasonably to progress the recommendations of its survey in November 2023 in a timely manner or that the delay was unavoidable.
As part of the complaint correspondence, the resident told the landlord on 12 February 2024, that she was still concerned about the conditions at the property. She asked the landlord to move her by helping her with her housing application. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this. The resident asked her local councillor to help her communicate with the landlord in April 2024 because she had not received any responses to her concerns. There is no evidence the landlord tried to contact her until 25 July 2024. This was a failure because the landlord delayed in responding to her. It also missed 2 opportunities to contact the resident to understand her concerns and re-assess the conditions of the property.
When the landlord called the resident on 25 July 2024, the resident said most of the rooms were affected by mould. She reiterated her concerns about the impact of this on her children and her belongings. She also explained the impact on her mental health and how this linked in with her reluctance about moving into temporary and not permanent accommodation.
The landlord provided a link to the resident so that she could make a claim for her damaged belongings. Although this was reasonable, the resident had reported this during her complaint in November 2023. Therefore, it unreasonably delayed in responding to this concern. It also showed it considered the vulnerabilities of the household by offering temporary accommodation while it took further action. Again, although this was reasonable in the circumstances, it ought to have considered this at an earlier stage because the evidence showed the resident was contacting the landlord requesting temporary accommodation as early as February 2023.
The landlord did not evidence it had assessed these matters at an earlier stage. These were missed opportunities to address the resident’s concerns and mitigate the property conditions on household. This was concerning to note given the landlord was aware the resident was pregnant and had young children as well as the health and safety risks associated with the damp and mould. The landlord remained responsible for ensuring the property was free from hazards and mitigating the impact of this on the resident while she lived at the property.
The landlord’s records show the landlord tried to raise a further damp inspection to re-assess the conditions at the property and further action it should take. This was a reasonable action, but the survey was not progressed until 2 September 2024. The landlord did not provide evidence about the reasons for the delay or that it had accounted for this to the resident.
We consider, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this was an unreasonable delay. This was because the landlord did not act in a timely manner to the resident’s further reports of ongoing damp and mould. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reasonably been aware from both the communications with the resident since February 2024 and the resident’s original complaint (November 2023) that her property was at risk of being damaged by mould and her costs had increased because of using a dehumidifier. Despite this, there was no evidence the landlord considered visiting the property and assessing how it could mitigate the conditions for the resident while it took further action. That it did not was a failure to take meaningful action in response to the resident’s concerns.
It is noted that the council awarded the resident higher priority on its waiting list in August 2024. As a result, when the landlord attended to survey the property in September 2024, the resident declined access. The resident is required, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to provide the landlord with access (subject to reasonable notice) so that it may inspect the property or carry out repairs. As the landlord was unable to inspect the property, it could not ensure that any necessary repairs were raised.
The resident moved to another property in October 2024 which was allocated by the council. There is contemporaneous evidence which suggests the landlord supported the resident with this by liaising with the relevant team within the council responsible for maintaining the housing register. This included explaining to her the types of documents she needed to provide to help the council to re-assess her banding. It also provided a supporting statement to the council’s team regarding the conditions at the property which helped the progression of the housing application. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Conclusion

The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould appropriately. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the conditions at the property and the recommendations of its surveyors. There was also a theme of poor communication which was a failure to demonstrate it considered the resident’s concerns in a meaningful way. The evidence shows that the landlord’s approach missed opportunities to mitigate the risks associated with the conditions at the property and repair the landlord-tenant relationship. This caused the resident a loss of enjoyment of her property for a period of 1 year and 10 months. This is from when the evidence shows its contractor put it on notice of penetrating damp (October 2022) to its final attempted survey (September 2024). Although the landlord carried out repairs in February 2024, the repairs were delayed, and the resident continued to report ongoing damp and mould. This left the resident feeling ignored and frustrated. It also caused her considerable time in trying to progress the surveys and associated remedial work.
The landlord signposted the resident to its insurer to claim for her damaged belongings. This was during its stage 2 response (August 2024). This was appropriate action, however, given the landlord was aware of this concern in November 2023, it is unclear why it did not apologise for its delay in doing so. Further, it did not offer an apology or compensation for its failures relating to the substantive repair issues. The landlord ought to have been reasonably aware of its delay in completing damp surveys and acting on the recommendations of its surveyors. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord’s complaint procedure did not acknowledge or apologise for this or assess the related detriment.
Given the failures noted above, we do not consider this a proportionate response to address the loss of enjoyment of the resident or the distress and inconvenience caused over a protracted period. We have considered our ‘Remedies Guidance’ and it would be appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failures by apologising and paying the resident £750 compensation. This is in line with our guidance when trying to put things right for a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident made a complaint on 23 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 January 2024. This was 33 working days later. There is no evidence the landlord explained its delay or agreed a new timeframe to respond. This was a failing. There is evidence that the resident chased the landlord for a response on several occasions. The landlord could reasonably have responded to these update requests to provide the resident with an explanation as to when it would issue a formal response. It failed to do so.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 August 2024. This was 144 working days later. Again, there is no evidence the landlord explained its delay or agreed a new timeframe with the resident. This was a further departure from the Code. From the evidence, it is unclear whether this delay was avoidable. However, the time taken by the landlord to issue its stage 2 response was inappropriate.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that when something has gone wrong it will set out the actions it has already taken or intend to take to put things right. This may include providing a financial remedy. We note the landlord apologised and offered the resident £200 for the delay in addressing the complaint. This was a proportionate remedy in the circumstances.
The Code obligates landlords to include in their stage 2 responses the details of how to escalate their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. The landlord provided the details of the LGSCO, in error. The landlord should ensure that relevant staff are reminded of where residents may refer their complaints at the end of the complaint procedure. The landlord should also review its letter templates to ensure the detail contained within them is correct.
The Code also requires landlords to answer all elements of a resident’s complaint. In her original complaint, the resident explained that she was incurring additional energy costs associated with managing the damp and mould with the use of a dehumidifier. There is no evidence the landlord addressed this in its complaint responses. This was a failing. As a result, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s concerns further or engage with her about this matter.
On provision of relevant evidence from the resident, the landlord must assess whether the resident incurred additional energy costs between November 2023 and September 2024 as a result of running the dehumidifier. To enable the landlord to assess this, the resident should provide her energy statements covering the period of 3 months before November 2023 to September 2024. This will enable the landlord to compare energy usage and determine whether there was an increase, and if so, what this was.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. pay the resident £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the damp and mould.
3. upon submission of energy statements by the resident, assess any additional compensation that may be due to the resident for increased energy bills between November 2023 and September 2024. It must write to the resident and the Ombudsman with its decision.
4. complete a review of its record keeping practices for the way it captures information about repairs. This must include:
  1. the process relating to how it captures:

(1) reports made by residents.

(2) appointments it makes with them.

(3) any delays in completing repairs that it experiences.

whether it needs to take any steps to ensure it is able to access the information captured by its third party contractors on its behalf when conducting repairs.

The landlord may find it helpful to review the following recommendations in our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ to help it do this:

(1) recommendation 7.

(2) recommendation 8.

(3) recommendation 11.

(4) recommendation 12.

(5) recommendation 13.

It must write to the Ombudsman to share any wider learning it has identified with associated timescales.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. reminds staff of the appropriate bodies that residents can escalate complaints to, and that it reviews its complaint response templates to ensure the details are correct and up to date.
2. arrange for complaint handling training to address any underlying confusion of its staff about the remit of the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO concerning the handling of complaints. This is to ensure it signposts residents to the correct alternative dispute resolution service in future.