Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202214600)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214600

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

20 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. damp and mould.
2. outstanding repairs.
3. complaint handling.
This investigation will also consider the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The residents are joint secure tenants of a 3 bedroomed end of terrace house. The tenancy started in 2012. The residents’ have 6 children. For readability, the residents will be referred to in the singular or as ‘he’ as he had the most contact throughout the complaint.
The property has an attached building which has been described as an extension, coal house, hall, outer storage cupboard and lobby in the evidence provided. For the purpose of this report, it has been referred to as an extension.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states:
1. The resident must keep the property and contents clean, tidy and in good condition.
2. The resident must allow the landlord’s officers, agents, or workforce to enter the property to inspect the condition, state of repairs, and to carry out repairs, maintenance, services, or improvements at any reasonable time of the day. Access must be given when an appointment has been made at a reasonable time.
The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages:
1. stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days
2. any request for an escalation must be requested within 28 working days of the stage 1 decision
3. if the request qualifies as a stage 2 complaint it will be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises works as:
1. planned work (large non urgent works such as privacy fencing etc)
2. low priority – within 25 working days (such as air vents/bricks etc)
3. medium priority – within 3 working days (leaking roof, pipes, extractor fan etc)
4. high Priority – within 24 hours (fire, flood, loss of lighting etc).
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under this legislation. They are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Typically, improvement works are the starting point where a potential hazard proves persistent.

Summary of events

On 3 June 2021, numerous repairs were noted on the landlord’s repair system, following contact from the resident. The resident confirmed that an inspection was carried out by the landlord (but no date has been confirmed). The repairs were recorded as:
1. “front and back door replacements. Both doors should have been changed under a scheme that we missed out on even though the rest of the street was”
2. “window replacements were missed as part of the works like the doors and that the windows were full of water in the mornings and full of mould”
3. “the bathroom extractor fan was not absorbing condensation”
4. “kitchen ceiling has a large bend in it located directly under the bathroom”
5. “cracks in the brick work that leads to the garden.”
On 7 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as he had received 8 text messages with repair references, but without details of the corresponding works. He requested a call back. The landlord’s notes show he called several times due to the lack of response and messages were taken. The notes imply that the resident was spoken to on 20 July 2021.
Further works for the property were raised on the landlord’s repairs schedule on 17 June 2021. These included renewal of the fencing at the side of the property and a rear gate.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord raised an order to replace the damaged vertical tiles, which would appear to be the fascia and rear wall tiles.
The resident called the landlord on 7 July 2021, chasing a response regarding the outstanding repairs, as he had not heard back following his query on 7 June 2021.
The resident chased the repairs again on 20 July and 13 August 2021. The landlord advised that there were no dates set for the investment programme works for the front, rear and extension door, and a replacement kitchen, which were delayed due to Covid. However, the landlord’s contractor would arrange appointments directly with the resident for the paving slabs, electrical fan, and a further inspection as requested by the resident.
The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2021. He said the landlord visited in June 2021 and made a list of all the outstanding repairs, took photos but nothing had been done. The works that should have been raised according to the complaint were:
1. seals on the windows
2. kitchen cupboards
3. roof repairs
4. damp in property
5. extension door replaced.
On 16 September 2021, a repair order was raised to address moisture between the windowpanes. The landlord’s repair schedule indicates this was done on 24 September 2021. The windows were replaced on 5 May 2022, according to the landlord’s records.
On 1 October 2021, the resident called the landlord regarding his complaint. A message was sent to the relevant team to respond. The resident also asked about the kitchen ceiling and extension door as he wanted to know when this was going to be completed. The landlord’s notes state that the ceiling looked finished in the photos it held on record.
On 5 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs. He specifically reported the windows as “the frames have been riddled with water residue, mould and damp.” The landlord responded that a job had been raised but was suspended on 24 September 2022 (no reason was given) and offered to have the repair order re-instated.
The resident called a further 3 times in October 2021, and emailed the landlord chasing a response to the outstanding repairs and his complaint.
The stage 1 response was issued on 19 October 2021. The landlord apologised for not getting things right the first time and confirmed that following its recent visit to the property, numerous repairs had been raised:
1. slabs to be laid to the rear of property
2. renew bathroom fan
3. renew kitchen units
4. renew doors to the living room and kitchen (the resident later agreed to do this himself according to the landlord’s notes)
5. repair floor and renew flooring in the extension
6. remove old door frames and plaster in the extension
7. repoint brickwork in various places
8. repair roof tiles
9. renew side gate and privacy fence
10. repair/renew vertical tiles
11. windows to be replaced when the investment team are in the area.
During November 2021, the resident called the landlord on 9 occasions requesting an update on the repairs.
On 9 November 2021, the kitchen cupboards were ordered, with an appointment date of 10 February 2022. These works have been completed according to the landlord’s repair records and confirmed by the resident.
On 17 November 2021, repointing around the brickwork under the damp proof course was raised. Repair records show the works were completed on 6 December 2021.
On 24 November 2021, an order was raised to assess the tiles on the roof and erect scaffolding if necessary. On 15 December 2021, the roof was inspected. Further works were raised to refit 3 rows of the front roof tiles, and to replace the ridge tiles. The landlord completed the works it could and cleaned out the gutters on 12 May 2022. According to the landlord’s records no evidence of a leak was found. The landlord confirmed in an email to this service on 28 July 2023, that it did not have a surveyor’s report suggesting that the entire roof needed to be replaced.
The resident told the contractor on 15 December 2021, that he did not want the hanging tiles to be fitted at the rear until other works had been completed. This was noted on an email from the landlord dated 14 July 2023. The replacement of these tiles was delayed further as the scaffolding was in the way. The resident confirmed in June 2023 that this work had been completed.
Repairs were ordered to redecorate all 3 bedrooms, the kitchen, and the living room on 15 December 2021.
On 19 January and 8 February 2022, the resident reported that the bathroom fan was not working. On 20 April 2022, the landlord’s records show that it attended, fitted a new fan, and demonstrated how it worked. This was confirmed in an email from the landlord on 3 March 2023.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord’s notes show that an internal email was sent to request a stage 2 complaint be raised. These notes follow on from a call from the resident, but the call notes provide no reference to a request for the escalation.
On 10 March 2022, the resident called chasing a stage 2 response. The landlord’s notes state that the request from 16 February 2022 could not be found. It had not been forwarded to the correct team and so a request was made for the internal email to be resent so that the stage 2 complaint could be processed. The escalation request was not within 28 days of the stage 1 response, in accordance with the landlord’s policy. The landlord accepted the escalation request.
On 21 March 2022, the resident called the landlord to cancel the decorating work as there was still no date for the repairs to the roof of the property, and this needed to be completed first. The resident refused to have these works completed according to the landlord, as he was “going to the Ombudsman.” The redecoration was offered again on 11 and 24 October 2022, but the resident refused.
On 24 March 2022, the resident called the landlord to request a structural survey on the extension and advised that he would not allow the repairs to be completed without one. This structural survey took place on 25 April 2022.
On 28 March 2022, damp on the walls in the extension (referred to as hall/hallway in the reports) and kitchen was listed on the landlord’s repairs schedule. There is no information as to how these repairs were reported, or by whom. It is relevant to note that the mould in the bedrooms was not listed on either the repairs schedule or in the subsequent inspection report.
On 1 April 2022, the resident called and asked for the complaint to be escalated. This was on the basis that:
1. to date, no repair works had been done
2. he had been chasing the repairs and no one was getting back to him
3. one of the children had breathing issues.
The landlord’s notes of 4 April 2022 entitled stage 2, state that the original complaint was raised by one of the joint tenants but registered under the other resident’s name. The resident wanted to move the complaint to stage 2 as they had been advised by 2 employees of the landlord that the repair issues would be resolved but that it had “gotten nowhere.”
On 14 April 2022, an order to cut out the brick work and clear the cavity area was raised with an appointment date of 10 May 2022 and was marked complete.
On 20 April 2022, a responsive repair survey was carried out at the property regarding the damp in the extension (the report refers to it as a hall). No damp was identified on the ceiling. Condensation/mould was evident on the rear extension walls, but the damp meter reading indicated that the wall was dry. A fungi wash was offered by the landlord, but the resident declined as they would do it themselves. The report did not mention condensation or mould in any other part of the property.
The stage 2 response was issued on 21 April 2022. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused and confirmed that it had raised the following outstanding repairs:
1. bathroom fan was to be overhauled or replaced
2. remove door frames and replaster walls (extension) – this was arranged for 30 March 2022 but cancelled due to an outstanding structural assessment
3. repair crack in floor in the extension
4. repair roof tiles and renew hanging tiles (scaffolding ordered)
5. renew side gate and privacy fence
6. privacy wall – bricklayers attended on 21 March 2022 but as it was a joint boundary wall, neighbours had to be consulted
7. decorate rooms affected by condensation and mould – order raised but to be arranged once all other work was completed
8. cavity walls to be checked.
A structural inspection was completed at the property on 25 April 2022. It reported:
1. the 1.8m boundary wall between the 2 properties was unsafe as there was moderate loss of vertical and horizontal alignment. It needed to be demolished and replaced with either a new wall or fencing
2. there had been minor movement in the rear single storey extension, caused by uncompacted ground beneath, however significant further movement was not expected. The cracks were to be filled and walls re-decorated.
3. the crack in the floor of the extension was to be “raked” and repaired with a suitable filler.
On 10 May 2022, the side elevation cavity walls were cut out, inspected, and cleared. According to the landlord’s records this was to ensure that there was no bridging that could transmit damp through the walls.
The front fence was to be replaced on 12 May 2022 as the resident requested the boundary line to be moved. This was initially planned, and the materials were delivered, however the landlord was later told that the land in front of the resident’s property was considered communal and therefore the boundary could not be changed.
The roof retiling was completed on 12 May 2022. It was recorded on the landlord’s records that the hanging (vertical) tiles to the rear were to be completed at a later date at the resident’s request.
On 6 June 2022, a repair was raised to replaster above the windows of 2 bedrooms with thermal boards. An appointment was listed for 5 September 2022. The landlord confirmed that the thermal plastering was completed on 5 and 20 September 2022, and that this was to assist “with the cold face on the external walls that the warm inside air hits and condenses into water droplets which can then form mould.”
On 8 June 2022, a repair to the crack in the floor of the extension was raised with an appointment made for 1 September 2022. However, according to the landlord’s notes, the resident declined having the works completed as he requested that the movement in the property be investigated and monitored further first.
On 21 June 2022, a further inspection was carried out with regards to the cracks in the extension wall and floor. The landlord’s email of 28 July 2023 stated that the tenant advised no work was required as everything had been dealt with at the previous inspection.
On 7 July 2022, an order was raised to lay the patio slabs, which was completed on 19 July 2022. However, ‘pooling’ re-occurred resulting in the slabs being laid again. A further order was raised on 12 October 2022, with works completed in May 2023 as confirmed by the landlord.
On 24 August 2022, a further repair was raised on the landlord’s repair schedule for the decoration of the bedrooms, kitchen and living room. A note was made that “the tenant to call when works required” and that plaster works were booked for 5 September 2022.
On 12 October 2022, the resident contacted this service to raise his dissatisfaction with regards to the stage 2 decision provided by the landlord. He said that it was trying to fill the cracks in the extension and not follow the structural report. The resident advised that he was going to tell the landlord not to complete repairs until the Ombudsman had looked at the complaint.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 21 October 2022 and advised that:
1. he had been informed that a new roof would be needed, but then the landlord cancelled the contractor
2. the landlord advised that measuring equipment should be used to monitor the movement/cracks in the extension prior to any works being done, but this had not happened
3. the privacy wall was to be taken down and replaced with mesh. The resident refused this as he wanted “like for like”
4. the fan in the bathroom was replaced and set to ‘trickle” 24 hours a day. He would like one that turns on automatically with increased humidity
5. repairs to the extension flooring had been halted by the resident as he was waiting for structural works to be completed first
6. the landlord initially agreed to bring the front fence forward but then changed its mind after delivery of all the necessary materials
7. conversion of the extension to a toilet was initially agreed but now the landlord was asking for an occupational therapist report
8. decoration of all rooms affected by damp/mould/condensation had been agreed and was to be completed once all the repair works had finished
9. privacy wall – this was part of the structural investigation, but remedial works were ceased as there had been no further movement and a ‘monitoring’ status was in place.
On 21 October 2022, the resident sent this service numerous photos identifying severe mould in the bedrooms, other rooms, and of outstanding repairs.
On 3 March 2023, the landlord confirmed in an email that there had been a delay in replacing the privacy wall, as the neighbour was an owner occupier, which meant shared costs. It had consulted with the neighbour but to no avail, and so agreed to cover the whole cost. However, according to the landlord, the resident refused the work on the basis that “there was no structural report (despite it being shown)” and the fact that he was taking the matter to the Ombudsman.
The same email confirmed that the side gate was replaced on 5 September 2022. It stated that the removal of the old door frames and replastering in the extension was requested by the resident as he had removed the doors. According to the landlord, the resident was also refusing these works to be carried out due to wanting structural works done first but was also refusing these due to the Ombudsman’s involvement.
On 18 July 2023, this service contacted the resident regarding his statement that the damp had been ongoing since 2017, as the landlord only had details from June 2021. The resident advised that he would send copies of emails from 2019 that mentioned “the fight with mould”. On 21 July 2023, the resident provided copies of emails dated 1 and 14 February 2019, but neither mentioned mould or any of the repairs raised in this complaint.
On 20 July 2023, the Ombudsman spoke with the resident. Initially the resident advised that no works had been completed by the landlord. However, when specific works were identified, he confirmed that some had been completed. The resident advised that he had stopped any further works from being carried out whilst the Ombudsman investigated his complaint. The resident advised that an Ombudsman staff member had told him to stop the works. He was advised this service typically encourages the landlord and resident to resolve issues throughout its process.
On 8 August 2023, the resident advised that the following works raised in the complaint were outstanding:
1. a new roof had not been fitted as directed by the roof assessor
2. door frames in the extension had not been removed and the wall had not been plastered
3. flooring in the extension had not been assessed, including cracks in the wall, which had significantly widened since the last inspection
4. side gate and privacy fence to the front had not been completed
5. privacy wall had not been made safe
6. damp and mould had not been addressed
7. redecoration to bedrooms, kitchen and living room were still outstanding.
The landlord sent an email to this service on 11 August 2023 to confirm details regarding the mould and outstanding works. It advised:
1. redecoration would be completed if allowed, once repairs following a recent leak on 8 August 2023 were completed
2. cracks to the floor and walls in the extension remain outstanding as the resident refused to have the works completed
3. the work to the boundary wall was refused by the resident
4. the mould was due to condensation, and the mould patches would be repaired with the redecoration.
The landlord confirmed in emails on 25 and 29 August 2023, that the redecorating would have included a fungi wash, which would have resolved the damp issues throughout the property. No fungicidal wash was offered outside of the decorating repairs. Despite numerous attempts over the past year, the resident had refused these works.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this service’s opinion fair in all the circumstances of the case.
It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and his family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. He has consistently referred to a lack of communication and action by the landlord. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

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

This assessment is focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited by the availability of evidence. The resident has said he raised mould and damp concerns from 2017 onwards. However, insufficient evidence has been provided to enable a fair assessment of these historic issues.
Repairs were raised on 3 June 2021. The only report of mould noted in the property was on the windows UPVC window frames which were “full of water in the morning and full of mould.” The resident confirmed that the property was inspected by the landlord in June 2023, but no report was provided. This was not appropriate as it would have enabled this service to correlate the information with the works requested and then form a more accurate timeline for the outstanding repairs.
Damp was mentioned in the resident’s complaint dated 13 September 2021. No evidence has been provided to indicate that this issue was queried by the landlord at this time. This was not appropriate. The property should have been inspected to establish the extent of the mould, its causation and any related repair works raised, to treat and mitigate the problem The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner. It found that a lack of response increases the frustration and discomfort of the resident and can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve. Mould growth was also mentioned by the resident in a call to the landlord on 12 November 2021, but no response from the landlord was evidenced.
Redecoration was first raised on 15 December 2021 for the bedrooms, living room and kitchen. The landlord’s record does not identify why this repair was raised, however in all further correspondence it says that the redecoration was agreed due to the damp/mould in the property. Severe mould was evidenced on the ceilings in the bedroom above the windows in undated photographs provided and without inspections or reports, this service has not been able to establish when it manifested. As the landlord is not responsible for decorating a property internally in most circumstances, it is reasonable to assume that these works were ordered to eradicate the mould as later statements suggest.
The mould reported in the resident’s complaint on 13 September 2021, did not identify any specific location/s. The decorating works were raised on 15 December 2021. No fungicidal wash was offered outside of the decorating repair. This was not appropriate. The fungi wash and redecoration to eliminate the mould (excluding the UPVC window frames) was raised 68 days after the landlord was made aware of this issue. It missed an opportunity to improve the living and property conditions by failing to complete the mitigating works at the earliest opportunity.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould says landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents, so their expectations can be managed. In addition, landlords should ensure that any follow up appointments are booked for as soon as possible.
The redecoration task on 15 December 2021 was showing as ‘suspended’ on the repairs schedule but the landlord did offer to re-instate it. The resident called the landlord on 21 March 2022, to cancel the decorating works as there was no date for the roof to be repaired. He advised that he would not permit completion of the works as he had raised a complaint with the Ombudsman. This hindered the landlord from attempting to eradicate the mould as the redecoration was to include a fungi wash.
On 28 March 2022, the landlord’s repair schedule refers to damp in the extension/kitchen at the property. A responsive repair inspection was carried out on 20 April 2022. This was an appropriate course of action, but not in an appropriate timeframe. The inspection took place 153 working days after damp was reported in the property as part of the complaint dated 21 September 2021, and 16 working days after the report in March 2022. Whilst condensation and damp are not detailed in its repair response timeframes, this is outside its repair response time, as low priority repairs are to be completed within 25 working days, and medium priority repairs in 3 working days.
During the survey on 20 April 2022 mould/condensation was found on the extension walls. A damp ‘reader/ monitor’ was used, and the walls were dry. A fungi wash was offered by the landlord, which was appropriate as it would have eradicated the mould. However, this was declined by the resident as they offered to complete the works themselves.
The report on 20 April 2022, does not indicate that the landlord inspected any other areas of the house. This was not appropriate as mould had been found on the windows according to the repairs schedule in June 2021, and mould was reported as part of the complaint in September 2021, without the specific area being noted. This could have identified the further issues or changes to the mould already recorded and potentially established the cause. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right at an early opportunity. A specialist Surveyor should have been instructed to establish the cause of the mould, and advise on appropriate remedies to mitigate and resolve the issue.
Redecorating works were raised again on 24 August 2022, with a note stating “tenant to call when works required and that the thermal plastering was booked. The plastering was completed on 20 September 2022. Redecoration works were offered again on 11 and 24 October 2022 according to the landlord, but the resident refused these again pending the Ombudsman’s investigation.
It is noted that the resident has refused to have the redecorating completed since March 2022. This is in breach of his tenancy agreement that states that the resident must keep the property in good condition and allow the landlord or its workforce access to the property for repairs.
The landlord failed to act in a resolution focused manner with regards to the mould repair work that it is responsible for. It remains outstanding and the issues have not progressed with regards to the decorating and fungi wash. It is understandable that at times it is difficult to progress matters when relationships have broken down and, in this case, legal action would likely further impact the landlord’s relationship with the resident (despite this being a route it was entitled to follow). However, the landlord should have continued to engage with the resident in attempts to progress matters in line with its ongoing obligations regarding the mould, but this appears to have stopped in October 2022.
It is recognised that the landlord carried out some works to establish the cause of the damp. It had a structural survey completed on the roof and replaced/refitted tiles as advised in the report, but no leak was found. It replaced the windows and used thermal plaster on the walls in the bedroom. Repointing was completed around the brickwork under the damp proofing and brickwork was cut out to clear the cavity area. The landlord offered a fungi wash and redecoration to the affected areas. The landlord also cleaned out the gutters. Whilst this was appropriate, none of these works established the causation of the mould. A specialist surveyor’s inspection would have been able to report on this.
Redecoration was agreed by the landlord due to the mould at the property. This included the bathroom. The fan in the bathroom was reported broken in the initial reports on 3 June 2021 and remedial repair works were carried out. A replacement fan was fitted on 20 April 2022. This was 255 working days after the repair was reported. This was not appropriate. This is an extended period for a bathroom not having a fully functional fan to mitigate condensation and mould. It also breaches the landlord’s repair policy. The resident confirmed that the bathroom had mould and damp on 21 October 2022.
An inspection was carried out by the landlord’s responsive repairs team on 20 April 2022, and damp ‘readings’ were taken in the extension and recorded as dry. However, it is not clear if the inspection was carried out by a suitably qualified surveyor. Due to the previous concerns raised with mould and damp in the property, it would have been reasonable and beneficial to have had a full damp survey of the property completed by a specialist.
No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord gave appropriate advice or support to the resident regarding managing the mould issue. It could have signposted the resident to its own condensation, damp, and mould booklet or its condensation video on its webpage. No evidence has been provided to indicate that a humidifier was offered. This would have been prudent bearing in mind the condensation and mould on the windows reported in June 2021. It failed to arrange follow up appointments to monitor the situation or complete a risk assessment in line with the HHRS guidelines. This was not appropriate. Landlords should respond sensitively and assess the issue with urgency to identify the severity of the damp and mould and potential risks to tenants. It should always tackle the underlying issue promptly, and act with urgency when concerns have been raised about residents’ health.
A specialist should have been instructed to inspect the property when the landlord was reminded of the mould/damp problem on 13 September 2021, having missed the repair raised on 3 June 2021, when mould was reported on the windows. A fungi wash was not offered until the redecoration was ordered on 15 December 2021, which was 67 days later. From 21 March 2022, the resident refused to have the fungi wash and decorating completed. In failing to meet its legal obligations and resolve the mould issue, the landlord has left the resident living in poor housing conditions, creating further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to adhere to the guidelines of the HHRS and recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould amounts to maladministration.
Given the above, the Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order will include a rent reduction element based on a refund of around 20% for the delay period in eradicating the mould. This will be from the date when redecoration and other works to resolve and mitigate the damp and mould was most likely to have been required at the property, 13 September 2021, to the date the resident refused completion of the works on 21 March 2022. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. The timeline points to inappropriate delays of around 27 weeks in total. Therefore:
27 weeks x £97.82 weekly rent = £2641.14 – 20% = £528 compensation

The landlord’s handling of ongoing repairs

The roof repair was reported on 13 September 2021. The responsive repair survey was completed on 15 December 2021, this was 67 days after the repair was raised, with works completed on 12 May 2022, which was 241 working days after the resident reported concerns. This was not appropriate. Whilst it is recognised that scaffolding had to be organised and that no leak was found, this was an unnecessary delay that caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience as he believed the roof was leaking, which he thought was causing the damp issue. It resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates on completion of the outstanding repairs which added to his distress and inconvenience.
The resident reported that a surveyor had advised him that a full roof replacement was necessary and was insistent that this should be completed prior to other repairs works being completed. However, the surveyor’s report dated 15 December 2021, stated that the qualifying works necessary were to uplift/refit 3 rows of roof tiles to the front and rear, repoint ridge tiles and renew missing loose hanging tiles to the front and rear of the property. The landlord was entitled to rely on this appropriately qualified report as no evidence was provided to suggest that a full replacement roof was required.
Following receipt of the inspection report the landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations, re-iterated the surveyor’s findings, and provided the resident with a copy of the report. Its failure to do so was not appropriate. It caused friction between the landlord and resident and had a negative impact on their relationship. It has also delayed other repair works from being completed as the resident has withheld permission whilst waiting for a new roof.
The cracks in the extension were initially reported by the landlord following its inspection on 3 June 2021, with repairs raised accordingly. A structural surveyor’s inspection was requested by the resident on 24 March 2022, which was carried out a month later, on 25 April 2022. However, this report should have been requested at the time the cracks were reported in June 2021. This was not appropriate. The report was issued 228 working days after the repair was raised. This caused distress and frustration to the resident as he wanted to know the cause of the cracks in the extension and boundary wall. The structural report stated that further movement was unlikely and that the cracks could be filled – this could have reassured the resident.
The resident advised that a previous surveyor had recommended that measuring equipment should be used to monitor the movement in the building. He refused to have the cracks filled until the movement monitoring had been completed. The landlord advised this service that no such report had been instructed and so the cracks remain untreated. This is not appropriate. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations. It should have written to the resident to confirm what works it would be completing, attached a copy of the report and referred to it. This has delayed the repairs being completed as the resident has withheld permission whilst waiting for the cracks to be monitored/measured and created a further loss in confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve repair issues.
The landlord has advised that the resident also refused to have the boundary wall between the neighbour’s property replaced as this was part of the structural monitoring along with the extension, as noted in the above paragraph. The landlord’s notes also stated that the resident refused a replacement wire mesh fence and wanted ‘like for like.’ Whilst the resident’s tenancy conditions do not refer to boundary enclosures, it would be a reasonable expectation to have the ‘privacy panel’ replaced with a similar solid structure of a 1.8m brick wall or 1.8m board timber fence, as suggested in the surveyor’s report sourced by the landlord. This was appropriate as it would appear from the photographs that the wall was erected at the same time as the extension a number of years ago. An order has been made with regards to this.
The landlord’s records confirm that there was a delay on its part initially in resolving the privacy wall issue, as the boundary wall is shared with a private property and shared costs for any works must be agreed by both parties. The landlord attempted to negotiate with the neighbour but to no avail, and so agreed to cover the full cost of a new boundary structure. This was appropriate and proportionate as the works needed to be completed to make the boundary enclosure safe.
The surveyor’s report of 25 April 2022 described the boundary wall as unsafe, beyond repair and needing replacing. The evidence provided by the landlord says that the resident was refusing the works due to the landlord’s lack of monitoring of the cracks in the extension. If the resident continues to refuse the completion of replacing the ‘privacy panel,’ it would be prudent for the landlord to review its legal options due to its responsibilities with regards to health and safety and the associated legislation.
The landlord offered to move the front boundary fence in good faith to provide the resident with more private garden space. However, it was later advised that the land was communal and therefore the boundary line could not be changed. This decision was therefore not one that the landlord could make and was beyond its control. The landlord should have clarified this in writing to the resident, but provided no evidence to establish that it did. This was not appropriate, as the resident still believes that the works are still outstanding resulting in a loss of confidence in the landlord.
The kitchen and outside door replacements were considered planned investment works by the landlord and its repairs policy provides no timeline for this category. There is no information held on file to suggest that there would be an immediate risk to the resident if the replacement doors were installed at later stage. The timeline for completion of these works is therefore not deemed to be a service failure.
The windows were reported as full of water and mould following the inspection on 3 June 2021. The resident reported the window seals in his complaint in September 2021. Whilst remedial repairs were applied in the same month as the complaint, it should have been completed when first reported following the inspection in June 2021, not 73 working days later. This was not appropriate. The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the issue at an earlier opportunity and put things right.
The stage 1 response in October 2021 stated the windows were “to be replaced when the programme was in the area”. The new windows were installed as part of investment works in May 2022, at the same time as the roof repairs. It is unclear if the scaffolding caused a delay in these works, but this could be a consideration as could covid delays as mentioned by the landlord. As remedial repair works were completed to the seals of the existing windows, and other works were being carried out to resolve the mould issue in the property, the timeline for the window installation does not suggest a service failure.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repairs amounts to maladministration because:
1. the roof repairs were not completed for 241 days after concerns of damp and mould were reported in September 2021
2. the landlord did not request a structural report for the cracks in the extension until requested by the resident, which was then issued 258 days after the initial repair was raised
3. the landlord failed to communicate to the resident and manage his expectations by clearly stating that ‘movement monitoring’ of the cracks in the extension, and a full roof replacement was not necessary as suggested by the resident
4. the landlord did not communicate with the resident that the front boundary fence could not be moved as first thought due to legal implications regarding boundaries.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2021. The resident called the landlord on 1 October 2021, chasing a response as he had not had an acknowledgement and the deadline was 24 September 2021. A message was passed onto the relevant team. The resident called a further 4 times prior to the stage 1 response being issued on 19 October 2021. This was not appropriate. It caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as he had to chase the repairs and for a response from the landlord. It was also in breach of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The stage 1 response was issued 21 working days later on 19 October 2021, which was 11 working days late and therefore not in compliance with the landlord’s complaints policy, or the Ombudsman’s CHC. Whilst the landlord apologised for its errors, it offered no redress other than to raise repairs, that should have already been actioned.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed what outstanding repairs had been re-issued. There was no mention of damp in the response, despite it being raised in the complaint. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC) states that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions made.
The landlord’s notes state that an escalation to stage 2 was requested on 16 February 2022, this was more than 28 days after the stage 1 decision as set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident chased a response on 10 March 2022. A further escalation request was made on 1 April 2022, which was acknowledged on 4 April 2022. A stage 2 response was not issued until 21 April 2022. This was not appropriate because it was 46 working days after the escalation request, and 26 working days later than stated in the landlord’s complaints policy. This caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident as he had to chase the landlord for an update and a response to his queries.
The landlord was late in providing its stage 1 response by 11 days and failed to address all issues raised in the initial complaint. The stage 2 response was 26 working days late. The landlord was noncompliant with regards to its own complaint handling procedure and the Ombudsman’s CHC. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.

Record keeping

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
A property inspection was carried out in June 2021, and although repairs were raised on the repairs schedule, there was no record of an inspection report provided. This was not appropriate. Inspection reports allow 3rd parties to assess what concerns were initially identified at the property and co-ordinate the repairs required. This would have been particularly relevant with regards to the tracking of the mould and damp at the property to clarify the timeline of the problem. The stage 1 response in October 2021, also mentions a ‘recent inspection’, but no evidence or notes were provided in connection with this.
On 15 December 2021, redecoration of the bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen and living room was raised. However, there are no records on the repairs schedule to clarify where the instruction for these works came from, nor why it was needed at this time. This was not appropriate. Records for repairs should be clear enough to allow the landlord to easily refer back to. This ensures good monitoring and recording for future reference, providing clear timelines for concerns like mould or damp. This would have assisted both the landlord in monitoring its repairs, and the Ombudsman in its investigation.
According to the stage 2 response of 22 April 2022, a joint visit to the property was carried out by the landlord on 13 April 2022. Again, there are no identified notes of this visit nor details of what was established or agreed. This was not appropriate. This information is essential when attempting to establish when the mould first grew and what action would have been most applicable, within the relevant timeframe.
The escalation for the stage 2 complaint via email was ‘lost’ with no copy provided to the Ombudsman. This was not appropriate. It could have resulted in vital information being missed, and timelines being incorrect.
The landlord’s records provided clear photos of the property but were undated. This meant that this service was unable to identify when they were taken. This was not appropriate. Basic information such as dates are important to complaints such as these, where photographic evidence can assist 3rd parties in identifying the extent or seriousness of an issue raised at a later stage along with correlated changes.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair responses. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors or managing agents working on behalf of the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust. The report encourages landlords to go further and consider whether their record keeping systems and processes support a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
The landlord failed to provide detailed notes of inspections at the property, and information relevant to why specific repairs were being raised. Evidence was undated, and the stage 2 escalation request was lost. This amounts to maladministration with regards to the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its record keeping.

Reasons

A specialist inspection was not arranged when the mould and damp was initially reported. A mould wash was not ordered until 68 days after mould was identified at the property. It is recognised that the resident refused access to the property, which did hamper the landlord’s attempt to resolve these issues. However, limited action was taken by the landlord with regards to obtaining agreement with the resident to complete the wash to eradicate the mould. This left the family living in an unhealthy environment. The landlord failed to meet its legal obligations under the HHSRS and tenancy agreement, nor did it comply with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
The roof repair was not completed for 241 days. The landlord did not request a structural report for the cracks until 258 days after the initial repair was raised. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and manage his expectations. This created further delays in resolving the repairs as works were then declined by the resident. The cracks in the wall and floor in the extension, the privacy wall and the mould repairs remain outstanding.
The landlord was late in providing its stage 1 response by 11 days and failed to address all issues raised in the initial complaint. The stage 2 response was 26 working days late. The landlord was noncompliant with regards to its own complaint handling procedure and the Ombudsman’s CHC.
The landlord failed to provide detailed notes of inspections at the property, and information relevant to why repairs were being raised. Evidence was undated, and relevant information lost, creating further delays.

Orders

A senior officer is to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s inappropriate delays and failure to engage with the resident with regards to timelines and expectations. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,528 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears if accrued. The compensation comprises:
1. £528 for the increased compensation due to the delay in eradicating the mould.
2. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. £400 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused due to the outstanding repairs to the property.
4. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the way it handled the repairs in this case to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. The review should include consideration of the landlord’s processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that:
1. it maintains oversight of damp and mould cases
2. it considers the risk of harm to residents and takes appropriate action to mitigate those risks
3. it considers providing dehumidifiers to speed up removal of excess moisture
4. repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale, especially when damp and mould are evidenced.
5. the repairs it carries out are effective and lasting repairs which resolve the issue and completed within appropriate timescales
6. that complaints are acknowledged and responded to in line with its complaints policy
7. appropriate record keeping is adhered to.
8. there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store surveyor and other specialist reports. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to this Service’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, and repairs.
The landlord is to cascade its review findings to relevant staff for improvement purposes and include reference to the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight Report on damp and mould, the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight report on repair complaints and its May 2023 Spotlight report on KIM within 4 weeks months.
The landlord is to arrange a full inspection of the property with a specialised surveyor, regarding the mould, damp, and condensation. This must be within 4 weeks. It will then write to the resident within 2 weeks of receipt of the surveyor’s report setting out:
1. what it has identified as the cause of the mould, and cracks in the extension wall and floor
2. what works have been carried out so far
3. what further works are required
4. a timeline for when those further works will be carried out and completed
5. what arrangements it will be making to repair the bedroom ceilings, flooring and walls in the extension and leave the affected areas in good decorative order.
The landlord is to make arrangements for the ‘privacy’ wall to be taken down and replaced with a similar 1.8 meter high brick wall or a high closed board timber fence as recommended by the surveyor in his report dated 25 April 2022. This work is to commence within 4 weeks. Should the landlord choose not to follow its surveyors recommendations, it will need to provide to this service the rationale behind its decision.
The landlord is to arrange for the redecoration including a fungi wash for the bedrooms, living room, bathroom and kitchen as previously agreed. The decoration works are to commence within 4 weeks.
The landlord is to reply to this service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above