Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Lambeth Council (202225436)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225436

Lambeth Council

25 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

a)     Reports of damp and mould in the property.

b)     Request to be moved to another property.

c)     The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Under Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it states “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  3. One aspect of the resident’s complaint is her request to be moved to a more suitable property. This falls outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman and would fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may be able to refer her complaint about this issue to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue it further. Due to this, it would not be appropriate for this service to consider this aspect of the complaint.

 

 

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the property. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
  2. Following this service’s Spotlight Report on Damp & Mould, the landlord created a project group in November 2021 in response to this with the focus on discussing strategy around damp and mould.
  3. The resident had reported historic issues of damp and mould in her property. The landlord attended the property to carry out a mould wash on 10 July 2021.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 March 2022 due to ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. The resident advised that she had emailed in January and February 2022 to request a surveyor to attend her property to inspect the damp and mould and to identify how this could be resolved. She had not received any contact from the landlord which led to her raising the formal complaint. The resident advised in her complaint that the landlord had told her decoration would take place following her mould wash to affected areas in her property from the previous year, but she had received no contact from the landlord so arranged these works herself. The landlord noted in its stage 2 complaint response to the resident that these works should have been booked in following the damp and mould wash, but this was not done. The resident further advised that the damp and mould had returned to her property following the mould wash and redecoration. The resident requested to be reimbursed for the costs of items that he been disposed of due to damage caused by damp and mould.
  5. The landlord responded to this on 16 June 2022 advising that a heat loss survey was to be completed on 30 June 2022 and that further investigations into the cause of damp and mould were completed on 19 April 2022, although the landlord had not specified what repairs had been carried out. The landlord advised the resident should contact the repairs team if there were any further issues. The landlord had not advised if the complaint had been upheld, nor was there any offer of compensation at this stage.
  6. The resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint’s procedure on 9 February 2023 as the issue of damp and mould was still present in the property, and the resident had concerns over the impact this was having on her daughter’s health. The resident again requested to be compensated by the landlord for the cost of decorating her property and for personal items damaged by damp and mould.
  7. The landlord arranged for a damp and mould surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 21 February 2023 to further investigate the causes.
  8. The damp and mould survey identified a number of repairs that should be carried out to address the issues within the property. These were:
  1. Windows to be overhauled throughout the property.
  2. Fungicidal wash to take place where mould was present.
  3. All trickle vents to be inspected and replaced if necessary.
  4. Larger radiators to be installed in both bedrooms.
  5. Ensure all fans are working correctly.
  6. Consider damp works for bedroom 2.
  1. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 March 2023 where it acknowledged all aspects of the resident’s complaint and apologised for the issues arising again. The landlord reiterated the repair works identified by the survey to address the issues of damp and mould and confirmed jobs were raised to address these matters. The landlord offered the resident £700 for damage to the resident’s possessions caused by the damp and mould.
  2. The landlord’s operatives attended the resident’s property repeatedly between 16 March 2023 to 11 August 2023 to carry out necessary repair works to attempt to address the issue of damp as recommended in from the damp and mould survey.
  3. The resident is seeking additional compensation from the landlord for the impact this has had on her and her household and the delays in this matter being progressed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The Ombudsman can understand that the damp and mould issues over a prolonged period would have been distressing for the resident. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould had on the health and wellbeing of her and her household. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is outside the role of the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction of the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s health. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because of any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about their health.

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

  1.  The landlord’s repair policy sets out four categories for day-to-day repairs:
    1. Priority 1 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 24hrs and/or by emergency callout of the repair being reported.
    2. Priority 2 – undertaken within 2 working days after the repair is reported.
    3. Priority 3 – undertaken within 5 working days of the repair being reported.
    4. Priority 4 –undertaken within 30 working days of the repair being reported.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021 made several recommendations to landlords in how issues with damp and mould should be addressed to prevent the ongoing risks connected with this. The resident’s formal complaint was raised after this report was published, so it is relevant to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  3. The Spotlight report published by this Service regarding Damp and Mould stated:
    1. “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.”

And

  1. “Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.”
  1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to reasonably acknowledge aspects of the resident’s complaint. It referred to a heat loss survey being carried out, and repair works. The repair log does not give any indication of what the works completed were and what actions were taken. The landlord also advised the resident that further issues should be raised to the repairs team. This was an unreasonable response from the landlord. It does not demonstrate that it was proactively considering the issue of damp and mould in the property, with the emphasis being put back on the resident to report issues of damp and mould. The landlord should have ensured it was actively monitoring the issue of damp and mould within the property, until the matter was resolved. This would have given the resident greater confidence that the landlord was taking her report seriously. Not doing so was unreasonable and delayed the landlord identifying any potential cause of these issues which were later identified in the damp and mould survey on 21 February 2023.
  2. While it is positive that the landlord had arranged the damp and mould survey, it had failed to progress this within a reasonable timeframe. The survey took place 11 months after the resident’s initial request and was only progressed once she had escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This does not demonstrate that the landlord was acting with urgency in relation to the resident’s concerns for the welfare of herself and her child, who remained affected by damp and mould in the property. This was unreasonable and would have indicated to the resident that her concerns were not being dealt with appropriately and with the urgency that was required in this instance. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for a damp and mould survey to be carried out at the property, no longer than 30 days after the resident had raised her formal complaint in line with the landlord’s published timescales for routine repairs.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould survey were carried out on 21 February 2023 and established a range of works to be carried out in the resident’s property to address these issues, including:
    1. Fungicidal wash to be carried out to affected areas.
    2. Installation of larger radiators to both bedrooms.
    3. Repair works to all extractor fans.
  4. It is clear from the repair logs provided by the landlord that it had arranged the recommended works throughout the property to attempt to address the issue of damp and mould. By taking these actions the landlord showed it was making reasonable efforts to investigate the issue and try to find a solution for the resident. This was a reasonable response from the landlord at this stage, and it demonstrated it was taking the resident’s report seriously through maintaining regular communication with the resident and completing works within timescales set out in its own repairs policy. It is clear that while there had bene previous issues of poor communication and the landlord not reasonably progressing works, from February 2023, the landlord clearly demonstrated that it was actively attempting to resolve this issue and maintained regular communication with the resident throughout this period.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer £700 compensation to the resident for loss of items and costs incurred due to the damp and mould. However, there is no indication that the landlord had reasonably considered compensation for the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident and her household. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be payable where there have been unjustified delays, and it would consider the impact these delays had on the resident. The landlord should have offered compensation to the resident due to the impact the delays had on her and her household, and their wellbeing.
  6. The resident had also referenced the carpet in her property being damaged as a result of the issues of damp and mould. It is not clear from the landlord’s response whether this was factored into the offer of £700 compensation to the resident for loss of items and costs incurred. The landlord should have included the cost of the carpet in its offer for the resident’s possessions as it had accepted liability for damage to other items and it does not appear to be disputed that the carpet was also damaged by the damp and mould. It would be reasonable for the landlord to consider this going forward if it has not been included in the earlier compensation offer.
  7. This service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that awards of up to £600 are appropriate in cases where there has been maladministration by the landlord which caused significant distress and/or inconvenience to the resident. In line with the remedies guidance, the landlord should compensate the resident £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in resolving the damp and mould at her property. This Service will award amounts in this range where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempts to put things right but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Stage 1 ‘local resolution’ indicates a full complaint response will be issued within 20 working days. If the complaint cannot be responded to within 20 working days, an interim response should be sent advising the resident when they can expect a full response. The landlord’s stage 2 ‘final review’ response will be sent within 25 working days. If the complaint cannot be resolved within 25 working days an interim response should be sent advising the resident when they can expect a full response. Both complaint responses should:
  1. Address all of the issues raised in the complaint.
  2. Clearly state whether the complaint was upheld or not.
  3. Apply a suitable remedy.
  4. Advise the resident of their right to escalate the complaint.
  1. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 9 March 2022. The landlord provided its response on 16 June 2022, 67 working days after the resident raised a formal complaint. There is no indication that the landlord had advised the resident there would be any delay in issuing her stage 1 complaint response. This falls outside the landlord’s own complaint handling policy and what this service would see as a reasonable timeframe for responding to a stage 1 complaint, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. While the landlord made reference to some repair work in the property, it did not provide any specifics regarding these works to the resident. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This was unreasonable from the landlord as it should have responded to all the points raised by the resident. This lack of clarity would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  2. The resident requested her complaint was escalated to stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process on 8 February 2023. The landlord provided a full response on 7 March 2023. This was 19 working days after the resident had requested her complaint was escalated. This was in line with the landlord’s own complaint handling timescales, and what this service would see as reasonable in line with the code.
  3. While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint fully acknowledged concerns raised by the resident and responded to these points, there were clear failures in complaint handling at stage 1, with unreasonable delays in providing the response and the stage 1 response not fully acknowledging all aspects of the complaint. Due to this, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should compensate the resident £200, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance (as referenced above), which awards amounts in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which it has not acknowledged or done enough to put right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation, in addition to the compensation already paid. This is broken down as the following:
    1. £500 for the landlord’s failure in handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property.

b.£200 for the landlord’s failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the delays in progressing the necessary works within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The landlord is to confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure it continues to monitor the issue of damp and mould within this property until this matter is fully resolved.
  2. The landlord may wish to consider replacing windows in the resident’s property as per the damp and mould survey should the damp issue arise again.