London Borough of Lambeth (202331127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331127

Lambeth Council

30 January 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. Damp and mould in her property.
  2. A sewage smell entering the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After careful consideration, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing application.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The resident would like a permanent move to another of the landlord’s properties. The resident has raised in her complaint that she does not consider that the landlord has awarded her the correct banding or priority for rehousing because of the condition of her property and as she considers that the property is overcrowded. She has been on the housing register since February 2014, when the landlord awarded her Band C medium priority.
Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 includes transfer housing request requested by local authority residents. It sets out the circumstances where it must give reasonable preference to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that operate outside of Part VI of the Housing Act 1996.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can investigate complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part VI. Should the resident look to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should contact the LGSCO to ask that they investigate her complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom property in a block of flats. Her tenancy started on 2012. The flat is on the first floor of the block. She lives in the property with her two children aged 14 and 9 at the time of the complaint. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s youngest child has asthma.
Between 2014 and 2022 the resident had reported issues with inadequate heating, damp and mould and sewage smells in the property. The landlord raised works to complete heat loss surveys and arranged to overhaul extractor fans and complete mould treatments. Some of these appointments did not go ahead as there was no access to the property.
In January 2023 the resident reported mould in the property. The landlord attended on 25 January 2023 and arranged a mould wash. On 20 April 2023, it raised works to carry out a CCTV survey to the drainage systems in the block.
On 2 May 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that:
1. There was mould throughout the property, and it would return after the landlord completed a mould wash.
2. There was a strong sewage smell at night which was unpleasant.
3. Her daughter has asthma and the conditions in the property were aggravating her condition.
The landlord issued its complaint response on 2 June 2023. It said that:
1. The resident had only reported mould to the landlord on one occasion during the previous 12 months. It arranged a surveyor’s inspection for 26 January 2023, but this did not go ahead as there was no access to the property on that day.
2. The resident had not reported the sewage smell to the landlord. Other residents had, however, and it had raised jobs to investigate and repair blockages to the stack/soil pipe and a leak from the communal water tank.
The resident contacted this Service, and we asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord issued its complaint response on 19 June 2024. It said that:
1. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend the property to investigate the mould, but the resident was not in on the date of the appointment to allow access. There were other jobs raised to complete mould washes; one went ahead but the resident declined the second one. It made further attempts to arrange a surveyor’s inspection in June 2024, but it received no response from the resident. It had plastering works scheduled in July 2024.
2. It asked the resident to make contact to arrange for a further mould wash and for an appointment for a surveyor to attend for another damp and mould inspection.
3. There had been a CCTV survey of the stack pipe, following which it jetted and descaled the pipe which it hoped would resolve the issue.
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of her complaint and referred it to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said that the condition in her home has had an impact on the health of her daughter who has asthma. It is beyond the remit of this Service to decide whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any impact on the health of any household members. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this.
The resident has raised concerns about damp and mould in the property periodically since her tenancy started in 2012. This investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2022 onwards that were considered in the landlord’s complaint responses of June 2023 and June 2024. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlord promptly so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord must maintain the structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for keeping in proper working order any fittings for supplying water, gas or electricity, toilet facilities and water heating inside the property.
The landlord must also carry out repairs and maintenance to parts of the external fabric of estates, this will include communal equipment and areas shared with neighbours.
The landlord’s repairs manual says that it aims to respond to urgent or emergency repairs within 1 day, and routine repairs within 7 to 28 days. It aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days. It defines emergency repairs as those where the problem could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage if not fixed or made safe quickly.
The repairs manual says that the resident or another adult must be present to allow access to the home to carry out the repair. If the resident is out when they visit, they will leave a card and send a text message to let them know. It is the resident’s responsibility to contact the landlord and rebook the repair.
The landlord published its Damp Charter in 2022. In it, the landlord committed to arranging damp inspections within 28 days of a resident reporting the issue. It also committed to preparing an action plan with the resident to resolve the damp, including timeframes. Where a home has persistent damp, the landlord will appoint a surveyor to be the resident’s point of contact and to arrange necessary work. The landlord also outlined that it was investing in technology to help resolve damp issues. It can also deploy its rapid-response mould removal and treatment service to treat mould ahead of any preventative or remedial work or action.
The landlord’s damp charter incorporates several of the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021. These recommendations include responding promptly to reports of damp and ensuring that staff have the right expertise to properly diagnose and respond to reports of damp and mould.
The Housing Health and Safety Ratings System is a regulatory system that helps landlords identify hazards that could affect residents health and safety. Cold, damp and mould are some of the hazards it assesses. Landlords should respond quickly to residents reports of damp and mould. They should conduct property inspections to detect early signs of moisture, leaks or condensation and provide adequate ventilation and heating to prevent the build-up of moisture.
The landlord’s records show that when the resident reported mould growth in the property, the landlord arranged to undertake mould washes within its target repair response timescales. It also took reasonable steps to improve airflow in the property by overhauling extractor fans in the bathroom.
Prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend to complete an inspection of the property, but this inspection did not go ahead as there was no access on the day of the appointment. The landlord’s repairs policy stipulates that where the resident is not at home to allow access to their home for a scheduled appointment, it is the resident’s responsibility to rebook the appointment with the landlord. The records provided to this Service do not show that the resident rearranged the inspection.
Between the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, she reported damp and mould on 3 occasions and the landlord arranged for a mould wash on each occasion and offered a surveyor’s appointment. In doing so, it followed its damp charter. In its complaints responses, the landlord asked that the resident make contact to arrange a new surveyor’s appointment when she was available and contact details of the relevant officer was provided. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, which showed that it was committed to working with the resident to investigating the cause of the mould and to consider what it could do to improve the conditions in the resident’s home.
It is clear from the resident’s correspondence with the landlord and this Service that she felt frustrated that mould treatments were not addressing the mould in the property. However, without access for a surveyor to attend to inspect the property, the landlord could not properly assess what it could do to reduce mould growth. While the Ombudsman does not question why the resident did not provide access, any delays which occurred because of ‘no access’ appointments are beyond the control of the landlord.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps, in line with its policies, to respond to the resident’s reports of mould in her property. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response. A recommendation has been included that the landlord contact the resident to arrange another surveyor’s appointment so that this may be revisited.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a sewage smell entering the property.

The landlord must maintain drains, stack pipes, gutters and outside pipes serving both the resident’s flat and the entire block. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that the resident had not reported this issue to the landlord prior to her complaint. This Service has reviewed the landlord’s repairs logs and communications and cannot see that it was recorded that the resident had reported this to the landlord prior to her complaint. It would be reasonable, therefore for the landlord to have treated this report as a service request, rather than a complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says that “A service request is a request from a resident to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests are not complaints, but must be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint must be raised when the resident expresses dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.” This wording is now reflected in the landlord’s updated corporate complaints policy dated April 2024.
Notwithstanding the above, the landlord did address this aspect of the resident’s complaint in its responses. It said that while the resident had not reported this issue herself to the landlord, other resident had reported a sewage smell in the building. It had arranged within its target response deadlines for drainage specialists to inspect the drains and soil stack using CCTV and to raise any recommended works including descaling and jet washing the drains to remove any blockages.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s repairs logs and is satisfied that it has responded within its target response timescales and raised timely works to repair the drainage problem. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it will responds to Stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. Where it was not able to meet these timescales, the policy said that it will send an interim response to the resident explaining the reason for delay. Where a resident is unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, they can ask for their complaint to go to the second stage, the review stage. They must make this request within 12 months of the stage 1 response. They will respond to the stage 2 complaint within 25 working days.
The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy effective at the time of the complaint, did not follow the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (“The Code”) which requires landlords to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has since updated its corporate complaints policy in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s statutory complaints handling code.
There are no records to show that the resident asked to escalate her complaint, however she asked this Service to intervene, and we contacted the landlord on 29 May 2024 to ask that it responds to the resident’s complaint. The landlord replied on 3 June 2024 that it would respond to the complaint as a stage 2 review and reply by 19 June 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion to consider a stage 2 complaint outside of the published timescales in its complaints policy.
Although not a requirement in the landlord’s complaint’s policy, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident by telephone at either stage to discuss the complaint in more detail and to find out what outcome she sought. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have done so, as this would have provided the resident with reassurance that it was committed to addressing and resolving her complaint and could have managed some of her expectations.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord complied with its complaints procedure in its response to the resident’s complaint and therefore makes a finding of no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a sewage smell.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to arrange a new damp and mould survey of the property as soon as this is possible, this should include an assessment of ventilation and heating in the property. In the event of no access, the landlord should make at least 3 attempts to contact the resident to reschedule the appointment.