Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (202220604)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220604

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

28 March 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Noise nuisance at the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 1–bedroom ground floor flat in a block of similar properties.
The resident informed the landlord of his physical and mental health issues. He also informed the landlord that his daughter has asthma.
The resident appointed a representative to act on his behalf. For ease of reference, we will refer to contact from the resident’s representative as ‘the resident’ throughout the report.
The resident reported an issue with the bathroom fan. The landlord replaced this fan on 14 April 2022. There is a gap in records until the resident reported concerns of damp and mould in January 2023. Its surveyor inspected the property on 19 January 2023 and noted the following:
1. There were a lot of items and clothes drying on lines within the property.
2. The heating was not turned on.
3. The kitchen fan was damaged.
4. The bathroom fan was not sufficient and required replacement to one with a humidistat sensor.
5. The wall vent in the living room was damaged and taped over.
6. Minor damp was present particularly in the wardrobe.
7. The landlord requested the resident reduce the amount of items at the property, stop drying clothes on lines and use the heating as these were all areas that could attribute to the damp and mould growth.
The resident contacted the landlord between June 2023 to August 2023. In July 2023 the resident told the landlord some personal possessions had been destroyed by the mould. He also told the landlord he was concerned about excessive noise from neighbours. He did not elaborate on the type of noise, however, he explained it was having a detrimental impact on him and his family. He gave times of the noise between the hours of 7am to 12 pm and 9pm to 2am.
In later communications of 17 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. He said the bedroom was mainly affected by the mould and this was having a detrimental impact on his daughter who had developed asthma. He also wanted the noise issue resolving.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its procedure on 21 August 2023 and told him it would respond by 1 September 2023. It said the issue with noise was a separate matter that had already been investigated. It did, however, agree to update him on its position by the end of the week. We do not have the record of the landlord’s update about the noise.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 1 September 2023. It gave the resident the following information:
1. It had received a report that the bathroom fan was not working in February 2020 and its operative attended on 25 February 2020. The fan was overhauled and tested. It was left in full working order.
2. In March 2022 it received a report that the bathroom fan was not working properly. Its operative attended on 31 March 2022. It found the fan was not suitable for a bathroom without windows and an alternative fan was fitted on 14 April 2022.
3. The next report of concerns with damp and mould was in January 2023. Its surveyor inspected the property on 19 January 2023.
4. It apologised that it had delayed in carrying out work identified by the surveyor namely replacing the bathroom fan and the fitting of a wall vent in the living room. It arranged for the work to be completed. It also asked the resident to remove items to enable it to treat the affected areas of mould growth.
5. It told the resident how he could claim for damaged items through its liability insurance.
6. It upheld the complaint and offered the resident £250 for its delayed repair action in relation to the bathroom fan and living room air vent.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and asked for his complaint to be escalated on 18 September 2023. He was concerned with the landlord’s response to:
1. Drying clothes inside the property. He said that he had nowhere to dry clothes and he always ensured that windows were open for ventilation.
2. Usage of the heating system. The resident said he used a portable oil heater rather than using the heating system.
3. Damp and mould diagnosis. He said this was due to “serious structural inadequacies”.
4. The proposed new fan due to running costs and concerns that the property would be colder in the winter months.
5. The resident said the windows at the property exacerbated the damp and mould as they were single glazed sash windows that did not retain heat and did not close properly.
6. The resident did not agree that compensation of £250 was an adequate amount to cover the costs of damaged items.
7. The resident requested a temporary or permanent move for the full course of damp treatment to be carried out. He remained concerned about the noise from neighbours due to the physical and mental effect on him and his daughter. He said he believed some of the noise was deliberate by his neighbours.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 12 October 2023 as follows:
1. Damp and mould – It told the resident that it believed the best solution was to upgrade the ventilation as the first course of action. It did not feel it was reasonable to arrange temporary accommodation until it had reviewed the effectiveness of the ventilation upgrade. It urged the resident to reconsider its proposals and allow its contractor to carry out a mould wash of the affected areas. It said that a permanent move had been considered separately by the council through a complaint. The landlord offered to carry out a “one off deep clean” of the property. It considered its compensation offer of £250 was reasonable and told the resident he could make a claim for damaged goods through its liability insurance.
2. Noise – The landlord told the resident it was aiming to reduce the noise transference within the building via future major works. It said it was difficult to deal with individual cases in isolation. It had been liaising with the residents association and local councillors about noise insulation works with a view to undertaking wider consultation with residents. It said it was looking at undertaking surveys and work was due to take place late 2024. It told the resident that when a property became empty it had been installing acoustic flooring.

Summary of events after the landlord’s complaints process

There were some difficulties between the resident and landlord in arranging the mould treatment work. The resident wanted the landlord to arrange a temporary move for him and his daughter, however, the landlord maintained it was not necessary as the work was short term – approximately 5 days to complete. The resident has recently told this Service that additional work was completed to fit insulated plasterboard at the property within the same timeframe.
It appears the landlord arranged for the resident’s items to be stored around 20 December 2023. The resident recently informed this Service that his representative’s organisation paid for hotel accommodation for the resident around 15 January 2024. The landlord reimbursed food costs for the duration of the stay of £52.50.
There were some issues when the resident returned to his home in relation to dust, snagging work and a damaged pair of curtains. The landlord agreed to pay the resident £300 as follows:
1. £50 to cover the cost of a new pair of curtains.
2. £10 to replace a door stopper.
3. £200 to replace the bedroom wardrobe.
4. £40 to cover electrical costs while work was carried out at the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident mentions the health conditions of the household have been affected as a result of the property condition and noise issues. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The resident made a previous complaint to this Service about noise nuisance. This complaint was determined on 16 November 2022. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance. The landlord recognised the poor sound proofing within the building and had already started to consider sound proofing work.
In the interest of fairness, this investigation focuses on the following timeframes:
1. Damp and mould events from 2022.
2. Noise issues from July 2023.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property

It appears the resident’s concerns of damp and mould were raised sporadically with the landlord between 2022 to June 2023. The resident reported his concerns more frequently from June 2023 onwards when he referred to concerns about his daughter’s health. He was also concerned that his possessions had become damaged due to the mould.
The landlord inspected the property in January 2023 and identified items that may be contributing to the damp and mould growth in relation to lack of heat, a lot of items and clothes were drying on lines in the property. It asked the resident to reduce the amount of items at the property, stop drying clothes on lines inside and to use the heating. It identified work to fans and a vent in the living room.
The landlord registered a stage 1 complaint for the resident in August 2023 and responded at the beginning of September 2023.The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of its delays in completing work to the bathroom fan and living room vent.
The resident remained dissatisfied and requested the landlord escalate the complaint on 18 September 2023. He believed there were structural issues at the property and requested a decant. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 12 October 2023. It reiterated its decision to upgrade the ventilation and arrange a mould treatment. It rejected a move, offered the resident a deep clean of the property and told him he could make a claim for damaged possessions through its liability insurance.
The landlord completed mould treatment at the property 3 months after its complaints process had ended. There were some difficulties in arranging the mould treatment between the resident and landlord due to the resident’s request to be decanted. The resident did eventually move to hotel accommodation in mid January 2024 for the duration of 5 days and items were put in storage. However, this accommodation appears to have been funded by the resident’s representative organisation.
The landlord arranged an additional payment of £352.50 for the resident that attributed to damaged items during the mould treatment work and costs of food during the resident’s stay in a hotel.
The landlord was under a duty to remedy damp and mould at the property within a reasonable time of being given notice that there was an issue. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend repairs within the following timescales:
1. 4 hours for critical work where there is a serious safety hazard.
2. 24 hours for emergency repairs. For example, burst pipes, no power.
3. 5 days for urgent work. For example, minor leaks, faulty extractor fan in the kitchen or bathroom (where there is no window).
4. 20 days for routine repairs. For example, renewing tiles, plaster work.
5. 90 days for planned work. For example, replacement kitchen units.
Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Local authorities have powers to act under the HHSRS and will typically work with landlords to address identified hazards in a home. There are 29 hazards that include but are not exclusive to damp and mould.
The landlord acted on the resident’s report of damp and mould by arranging an inspection of the property in January 2023. There is evidence it conducted a thorough assessment of the property condition and identified issues with ventilation. There were actions both the landlord and resident needed to take to reduce the damp and mould at the property. While we consider this to be an appropriate approach, it was unrealistic of the landlord to expect the resident to fully comply with its request given he had a lack of clothes drying facilities both internally and externally at the property.
From June 2023 onwards, the resident made the landlord aware of his concerns relating to his daughter’s asthma. It is of concern that the landlord did not conduct a risk assessment of the resident and household individual needs in line with HHSRS. It maintained its position that the resident could remain at the property while it completed work. This was inappropriate as without a risk assessment the landlord could not fully assess any associated risks on the resident and his family remaining at the property. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate.
The resident moved to hotel accommodation that appeared to be funded by the resident’s representative organisation. The landlord compensated the resident a total of £602.50, £300 of which was for damaged items from when work was completed at the property.
In conclusion, there is evidence the landlord attempted to resolve the damp and mould at the property. It acknowledged damage to the resident’s personal possessions and appropriately directed him to make a claim through its liability insurance route. It also partly recognised its failure to complete ventilation work on time and offered £250 compensation to the resident.
There is no evidence the landlord tailored its service to the individual needs of the resident. This is because despite the resident’s reports of health concerns, it did not risk assess the property or the household’s individual needs in accordance with HHSRS. It was unreasonable that the landlord delayed in completing damp and mould work for a prolonged period of 12 months. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate and amount to maladministration.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord should therefore compensate the resident £500 to recognise the full extent of its failures and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures that have had significant impact on the resident. The landlord should take the opportunity to learn from this complaint, review our Spotlight report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) and its future handling of damp and mould issues.

The landlord’s handling of noise at the property

Towards the end of July 2023, the landlord made the resident aware that noise nuisance from neighbours was affecting his mental health. We do not have evidence that the landlord responded to the resident. The resident had to contact the landlord again in mid–August 2023 when he raised a complaint with the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint a few days later. It told the resident the noise had already been investigated, however, it would update him by the end of the week on its position. We do not have the evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response at the beginning of September 2023. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about noise. The resident escalated the complaint to the landlord in mid–September 2023. The resident expressed his concerns about the noise and the impact it was having on his health and that of his daughter.
In mid–October 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It told the resident it was planning to reduce noise transference in the building through major works. It planned to start work on soundproofing towards the end of 2024 and it was planning wider consultation with residents. The landlord also explained that it was carrying out work to individual properties to install acoustic flooring when a property became empty.
The landlords ASB policy incorporates noise nuisance complaints. It states it will grade reports of ASB and apply appropriate response times. Its grades are between 1 to 4. For example, grade 1 reports relate to incidents such as hate crime where there is a risk of harm to the complainant. It identifies noise nuisance as an example of a grade 3 or 4 priority where landlord contact should be made within 1 working day and an agreed action plan provided within 5 working days.
The landlord commits to:
1. Assess each case individually and write a personalised support and action plan.
2. Carry out a risk assessment during the initial report and repeat at regular intervals as and when incidents occur or escalate.
There is no legal requirement for the landlord to upgrade or install sound proofing at a property of its age. However, it had taken proactive measures to understand the design and noise transference issues and identified the need to consider soundproofing works.
The landlord’s lack of records mean that we cannot be confident it had thoroughly investigated the ongoing noise nuisance from July 2023 onwards. We expect landlords to keep robust records of its interactions with residents to ensure it has a clear audit to effectively manage a case. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information (May 2023) and our Spotlight report on Noise (October 2022) for information on how it can effectively manage its record keeping.
While there is some evidence the landlord updated the resident on its plans to install soundproofing at the property, it is of concern that there is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s noise complaint and risk assessed the impact it was having on the resident and his household. The resident’s previous complaint of November 2022 had been determined by this Service, however, that does not mean that the landlord’s responsibilities to investigate ongoing noise issues ended at that point. The resident was clearly distressed by his description of the ongoing noise nuisance and the affect on his health. The landlord’s inactions were therefore inappropriate and do not comply with the landlord’s ASB policy.
To conclude, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of noise nuisance at the property for the following reasons:
1. There is no evidence the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in July 2023.
2. The landlord’s record keeping was poor.
3. There is no evidence the landlord risk assessed the impact of the noise nuisance on the resident.
4. The landlord did not recognise its failures when it responded to the resident’s complaint and therefore did not put things right for him.
The landlord should therefore compensate the resident £300 for its failures in handling the resident’s noise nuisance reports. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance at the property.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £550 made up of:
  1. £250 for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property.
  2. £300 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance.
  3. Ensure it has paid the resident the sum of £602.50 which it had previously offered.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the resident with an update on soundproofing work, the estimated timeframe involved to start and complete work at the property. This should include how the landlord plans to consider the resident’s individual needs in its risk assessment of whether temporary rehousing will be required for the duration of work.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Complete an action plan on how it intends to improve its damp and mould service. The landlord should refer to our Spotlight on Damp and Mould (October 2021) to ensure it fully complies with best practice.
2. Complete an action plan in relation to how it intends to deal with the reports of noise nuisance in line with its ASB policy.