Ipswich Borough Council (202301620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301620

Ipswich Borough Council

24 April 2024

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 landlords handling of reports of damp and mould in the residents property.
2. This service has also considered whether the landlord took into account its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
3. The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of a 2- bedroom ground floor flat, with the landlord since 17 July 2017.
The resident declared to the landlord in correspondence dated 15 April 2019, that she was a “disabled tenant”, and asked what the landlord was able to do in this respect. The landlord has “no vulnerabilities” recorded for the tenant.
The resident has declared to this Service, that she has been diagnosed as dyslexic, she has problems with the right retinol vein and cataracts starting in both eyes. She has Osteo-arthritis in her right shoulder and lower spine as well as spondylolisthesis and a ligament tear in her right ankle.
The resident had previously reported what she thought was rising damp in the spare bedroom in January 2019. An inspection was completed 16 January 2019. Works were ordered to service the positive input ventilation (PIV) system which helps alleviate condensation by providing airflow, repointing of the damp proof course (DPC) externally near the gulley and the rainwater shoe to be rotated 90 ͦ . The resident was advised on condensation management practise, such as moving furniture away from the walls for airflow, opening trickle vents and obtaining adequate floor coverings when possible.
In December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise a camera inspection had been ordered for the drains, other inspections had found no significant evidence of blocked gutters and drain runs, the only find was residue to a rear centre gulley, but not deemed to be the cause of damp in the residents bedroom. The most likely cause was suspected to be condensation exacerbated by the bedroom being adjacent to an exposed northerly facing wall. The resident was provided with a leaflet on condensation.
The residents heating system was fully replaced by the landlord in 2022 and included a new ‘A’ rated boiler and radiators.

Summary of events

On 15 December 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the damp problems she was experiencing. She said it had been a problem since she moved into the flat 5 years ago. In summary she said:
1. she was experiencing a second major mould breakout in her property, with white mould spores on her carpet, although she said there was a constant smell of it in the main bedroom which got worse in wet weather conditions.
2. She had tried to report it to the repairs service, but the staff manning the phones did not seem to know what they were doing, they booked appointments for staff when they were absent, cancelled them and then tried to re-arrange for a bank holiday and told her to wash off the mould.
3. She maintained she had been constantly ill with throat and chest infections as a result of the damp conditions in the property and now required a blue inhaler, nasal spray and antihistamines.
4. She wanted the matter resolved by insulating the bay wall as the landlord previously stated, mould cleaned off by professionals, the damp proof course to be treated properly. A proper inspection of the damp and mould to consider causes such as downpipes, windows, insulation. As well as an investigation into the staffs handling of her call to report the problem.
On 22 December 2022, a member of staff from the caretaking service attended the residents property to treat and clean off the mould.
The landlord investigated the residents complaint, and provided its response on 17 January 2022. In summary it said:
1. It understood the residents’ concerns were about damp and mould in her property, it confirmed it took these issues seriously and now had a team of surveyors investigating reports around the borough. Following a call with the resident it had been confirmed that a surveyor was attending shortly.
2. It noted the caretaking service had already attended and treated the mould.
3. It apologised for the problems she had experienced with her initial report to the landlord, the member of staff was not available, so an appointment should not have been made. This had been raised with the call centre manager to address.
On 19 January 2023, a surveyor attended to inspect damp and mould. He completed the landlords ‘occupancy pattern questionnaire’ with the resident. It noted, the resident confirmed heating was on constantly at 16 ͦ C, she did not open the kitchen and living room windows in the winter, she did open bathroom window most of the time and bedroom window when drying washing, but doors kept closed. Condensation did occur sometimes on bedroom window, but resident does not wipe off. Damp meter readings at skirting board levels were normal. An explanation of how condensation accumulates was given and suggestions for managing it. The surveyor wrote a follow up email to the resident, it said that the resident had kept the mould and condensation under control, it had not returned since the treatment in December 2022. It said she now had a positive input ventilator system which was working well, if the mould returns contact them.
On 23 January 2023, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlords response, she felt the issue had not been dealt with adequately, before or after the visit from the surveyor. She stated she had to complain about the surveyor due to his inappropriate behaviour and did not feel confident about his abilities to do his job. The outcome followed her previous experience of not being believed by the landlord and wanted this thoroughly investigated at the next stage by a “competent, honest and open person”.
On 30 January the landlords Housing Officer wrote to the resident following the surveyors visit of 19 January 2023, and advised the surveyor would be arranging for works to be carried out. In the meantime, the resident had been provided with actions that she needed to be mindful of, these included:
1. Continual use of heating throughout the property in the daytime to an internal temperature of 18-20 ͦ C
2. Adequate ventilation by extractor fans, opening windows slightly for a required period, open trickle vents and shut kitchen door at times of high moisture generation.
3. Remove condensation and mould as it arises.
4. Redecorate areas where mould staining cannot be removed, and use Zinsser Stain Blocker and an emulsion with fungicidal additive.
On 31 January 2023, a further two of the landlords surveyors attended the property to carry out another mould survey, a second occupancy pattern survey was completed with the resident. The report outcome stated:
1. Penetrating, rising dampness or plumbing leaks: A damp meter was used above the skirting to the external wall throughout the flat. All readings were in the green zone. No evidence of any DPC or rising damp or penetrating moisture defects. Resident confirmed all rainwater goods recently overhauled to eradicate leaks.
2. No plumbing defects noted. Note, the gully to the rear into which the kitchen waste discharges from both 1st floor and ground floor flats was blocked with slime, fat etc and needs clearing and cleaning. Photo provided, tenancy services to communicate with both flats about what is put down the sink (no fats/oils).The tenant advised that this did overflow but does not cause problems internally. The surveyor noted to report the blocked gully to the repairs team.
3. No damp readings to external walls at low level using a damp meter. Noted external paving slabs were stacked against the rear wall and should be removed as preventing airflow.
4. Generally, the flat has bare concrete floors to the Living Room, hallway and bed 2, which is a cold surface. Washing was hung on 2 racks in bedroom 2.
5. The carpet to bed 1 is carpet tiles, which are relatively thin with no underlay on the concrete floor. It is very likely that the mould on this carpet is a direct result of condensation of moisture in the flat condensing on this carpet next to the concrete floor.
6. The trickle vents were closed throughout and just the shower room window was open. The heating level was low at 16°C, which can hold less water vapour than warmer air. Moist air migrates through the flat and condenses on cooler surfaces (windows, carpet, bathroom ceiling, clothes in a confined space). This can be remedied by improving the heat throughout the flat, improving ventilation & providing a good quality underlay to the carpet as well as wiping off any condensation on windows as it arises.
7. Air circulation, to avoid stagnant spots, can be further improved by de-cluttering bedroom 2 and generally throughout the flat. Photos were available to show significant belongings piled up in the rooms.
8. Washing is dried in bedroom 2. De-cluttering would also allow the window to be reached to open it when the washing is drying there. Difficult to get to the windows to check them.
9. The process of condensation and mould growth was explained to the tenant. Leaflets had already been given to the tenant by the surveyor at previous visit. It was explained to the tenant that, in cold weather, as the surface of windows will be colder than the adjacent wall, condensation is likely and needs to be wiped away as it arises. The condensation problems were not considered significant, but probes left to take readings over the next couple of weeks would provide more information.
10. There was a minor amount of mould to the bathroom ceiling, which could be treated with a stain blocker and decorated as detailed below. The internal environment can be improved by keeping all trickle vents open, opening windows as necessary to get fresh air into the flat, balanced with keeping the flat warmer as detailed below. Keeping the bathroom window ajar is excellent. It would be advisable to open the spare bedroom window and keep the door shut when drying washing in this room. As would decluttering this room so that the moisture from the drying washing does not land on the items stored there and adversely affect them (especially material items). It is important to keep the door closed so that the moisture arising from the drying washing does not migrate to other parts of the flat. These measures will improve the internal environment. Spores in the air will start to grow in condensation after around 8 hours if the condensation is not removed. It is important, therefore, to wipe off condensation from windows and any other surfaces, as per the Tenants’ Handbook. Managing this was very likely to improve the tenant’s health issues.
The landlord completed its stage 2 investigation of the residents complaint and provided its response on 23 February 2023. In summary:
1. It set out the findings of the report from the damp inspection of 31 January 2023 (as per paragraph 13 above).
2. It said it had taken the matter of the damp and mould seriously and felt if the resident took the advice given to her following the damp inspection and ensured a complete air change in the property every 2-3 days, it would alleviate most of the problems she was experiencing.
3. It said as part of its ongoing monitoring, it would be proactively looking at areas within certain property archetypes that are vulnerable to the build-up of condensation and mould and take the appropriate action, this could include looking at the insulation of the properties.
4. To assist with this it said it would be grateful if the resident could contact the manager directly to report any more complications moving forward.
The resident was not happy with the outcome of the complaint investigation and requested escalation to stage 3 of the landlords complaints process. In summary she said:
1. She challenged some of the observations about the trickle vents and window ventilation. She said the trainee officer had apologised because he had suggested they were closed when they were open, and her bathroom and spare bedroom were open all of the time.
2. As stated in a separate complaint, she felt the officer attending did not listen or communicate well. She had tried to explain that her heating used to be set at 18 ͦ c for 2-3 months of the year, but she was advised by 2 other members of the surveying team that 16 ͦ c was sufficient and not as expensive. So she had taken their advice.
3. She said that it was not a “sin” to dry washing indoors in the winter, and having told her the door must be closed to prevent moisture transfer, she pointed out the landlord felt it sufficient to leave her with a 4-inch gap under the wet-room door where moisture could be transferred, had she not requested a threshold be fitted, moisture would still be transferring now.
4. She said other properties in the block experience damp and mould and if the properties were not damp, why were positive input ventilation (PIV) systems installed?
5. The report alluded to mould on the ceiling, she was unable to climb because of her injuries and disabilities to clean it and needed the landlords assistance.
6. She had advised the landlord in the past the problem had been worse in rainfall, and it transpired gutters were blocked and broken, inspections of blocked drains had found faults with cracked underground pipework.
7. The furniture and items in boxes in her spare bedroom were because she had never fully moved in or unpacked, the decorating of the flat had been delayed for so many reasons: initially it was because of the amount of repairs outstanding. She had to fight to get suitable flooring, as no carpet fitter would fit carpet on what was there, as a result her furniture had to be moved about. Then following a fall decorating , and work-related injuries she has been left disabled which delayed her progression in the flat and her ability to earn enough money to move forward.
The residents complaint was escalated to stage 3 of the landlords complaints procedure, at which stage it was reviewed by the Chief Executive. In summary its investigation response said:
1. It understood the complaint to be about what the resident believed has been inconsistent advice and poor communication from the various Surveyors and Managers that have been involved in her case.
2. The response listed some of the actions it had taken in response to the residents damp and mould, which included a full damp survey and the unblocking of the gully. As well as highlighting the comprehensive advice given and actions that had been recommended to the resident, to alleviate the problem.
3. The landlord accepted there were occasions where it was necessary to dry washing inside, but it had to be noted that this increased moisture content in the air.
4. It noted the residents observations about communication, and pointed out that complaints about its surveying team were not common. It had agreed to review the process and approach taken in completing damp surveys.
5. It was sorry she was disappointed with the service, but it felt it had worked hard to resolve matters and could not uphold her complaint.
6. It was willing in order to reassure the resident that it had done all it could, to arrange a damp and mould survey from an independent external company.

Post Internal Complaint Process (ICP)

The landlord attended the residents property on 29 June 2023, with an external independent specialist damp contractor. This was to complete an inspection to determine the extent and causes of damp and mould in the property. The outcome of this inspection was that any damp and mould was the result of condensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident had two complaints running alongside one another with the landlord, in regard to the damp and mould in her property. One was about the conduct of the surveying staff who attended to assess the damp and mould in the property. Although there are some references to this in the documentation, the staff conduct is a completely separate complaint, and will not form part of this

Landlords legal and policy context

The landlords tenancy agreement sets out its repairing obligations under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, these include maintaining and repairing the structure, the exterior and the communal areas associated with a residents property.
The tenancy agreement also sets out the residents repairing responsibilities which included amongst other things:
1. Internal redecorating.
2. Repairing damage caused by condensation where it occurs as the result of residents not correctly using the permanent means of heating and/or ventilation provided by the landlord.
3. Keeping grates, grids, drains and gullies clean and clear if blocked by waste caused by you.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause occupants harm, and includes damp and mould.
The landlord has a 3 stage complaints process:
1. Stage 1 complaints will be investigated by the relevant service area, they will be acknowledged in 3 working days and then responded to in 10 working days from acknowledgment.
2. If a resident is not satisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 response, they have 20 days in which to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The policy does not specify who will investigate at stage 2, but these complaints will be acknowledged in 3 working days and responded to in 20 working days from the acknowledgement.
3. If a resident is unhappy with the outcome at stage 2, they can escalate within 20 working days to stage 3 which will be investigated by the Chief Executive. This stage will also be acknowledged in 3 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord has had a Damp Mould and Condensation (DMC) Policy since 2023. It is in place to ensure that damp, mould, and condensation within its properties are “treated seriously and dealt with swiftly and effectively”. Some of its key aims are to take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, provide residents with dry, warm, and healthy homes and ensure the fabric of its properties are protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp and mould.
The DMC policy accepts damp and mould can affect both physical and mental health of those households living with it, and promises to mitigate the risk of tenants having to suffer distress caused by living in a damp and mouldy property. It also commits to support its residents, wherever possible, which may include assistance with fuel poverty or tackling cluttered homes, both of which may contribute to poor housing conditions, leading to damp and mould.
The Equality Act 2010 (EA), came into force on 1 October 2010, providing a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all, and applies to all organisations. Section 20 of the Equality Act imposes a duty on landlords to make reasonable adjustments. There are three ways landlords may make adjustments:
1. Take reasonable steps to avoid any disadvantages presented by a provision, criterion, or practice.
2. Take steps to avoid a disadvantage presented by a physical feature.
3. Provide extra aids or services (auxiliary aids and services). See also Schedule 4 of the Act. 48.
The EA in section 6 defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term negative affect on a person’s ability to carry out normal daily activities.
The landlord has a Reasonable Adjustments Policy, which commits to making sure that disabled people are not disadvantaged when getting access to or using its services, and states it will make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled people. What is reasonable can depend on a number of factors including:
1. The disadvantage caused.
2. What difference the adjustment would make.
3. If the adjustment is what is needed to make the difference or if it is more than is necessary.
4. What would put the resident in the same position as others using the service, and
5. The cost of the adjustment.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.

The landlord had a duty to respond to the residents reports of damp and mould in the property, in accordance with its tenancy agreement and its repairing obligations under s11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Although not part of this investigation it was noted that a previous report of damp and mould in the residents property was reported in 2019, there were underlying causes identified, which went on to be resolved by the landlord. There had been no further mould outbreaks until this issue in 2022.
The resident however, had trouble reporting the problem to the landlord. The landlords call handlers made a number of errors in taking the report at the beginning of December 2022, which resulted in her having to make a complaint in order to get the damp and mould addressed, which was not reasonable. While the landlord acknowledged this failing in its complaint response and apologised, it caused un-necessary delays in getting the problem inspected and assessed, which does not align with the “swift and effective” approach set out in the landlords damp and mould policy.
Once the resident had made her formal complaint on 15 December 2022, the landlord responded appropriately to the issue. The mould spores were cleaned and treated by the landlords trained caretaking staff within the week, which was timely and reasonable. An order for a technical inspection was raised and a surveyor attended 19 January 2023, to make an assessment of the damp and mould and any underlying causes.
The landlords surveyor determined that this was a condensation problem, based on his findings that the mould growth had not returned in the month since it was treated, and damp meter readings at skirting board level provided normal readings. It was noted some of the windows in the flat were kept closed in the winter and washing was drying inside. As a result, the landlord provided the resident specific advice on managing condensation, which was not unreasonable if all other potential causes had been eliminated. While the resident was not satisfied with this explanation the landlord is entitled to rely on the views of its qualified staff.
In response to a separate complaint from the resident about the conduct of the surveyor who attended, which is not part of this investigation, a further timely damp and mould survey was ordered for 31 January 2023. The report from this site visit demonstrated a thorough and detailed inspection of the property. Although the resident challenged some observations about the position of the trickle vents, it gave due consideration to all possible causes, (rainwater goods, gulleys, plumbing, rising damp, water penetration and condensation) with a clear evidence-based explanation if and why any cause was disregarded, which was reasonable.
The landlords second determination was that the damp and mould was caused by condensation. It did however require that a gulley be unblocked to remove any doubt this might be the cause, which was appropriate. The landlord fully explained to the resident, that the temperature was at a lower level than required 16 ͦ c, this affected water vapour, which travels through the property and condenses on cooler surfaces, such as the concrete floors and windows. The lack of covering on the concrete floor, which was a cold surface and lack of underlay on the floor that had thin carpet tiles was in the surveyors view, exacerbating the problem. Concrete slabs stacked externally against the wall which prevented airflow to the property and an excess of belongings stacked up in the bedrooms, were all considered contributory factors to increased condensation in the property. While the resident was unhappy with the outcome, as stated earlier, the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff. The surveyors took damp readings and left damp probes in the residents property for a period of time, the response was therefore supported with strong fact led and evidence-based findings, compared to the previous inspection, which should have provided some reassurance.
The resident said she was advised to run her new heating system at 16 ͦ c by both the landlord’s surveyor and senior surveyor. If this was the case, it was understandable that she was frustrated by the implication that she was causing the problem, when she was taking their advice. In order to maintain good landlord tenant relations it might have been advisable for the landlord to acknowledge her comments on this matter, as it was clear the resident felt under attack. It could have explained some properties may be able to maintain a lower temperature with no detrimental effects, but the archetype of her property, it is now known, needs to be higher to keep the condensation at bay.
When the resident signed the tenancy agreement with the landlord, the resident committed to maintain the property and take reasonable steps to attend to any condensation and mould, through a clause in the agreement. Although the resident disagreed with the landlords determination of the cause, when the landlord had considered and ruled out all other options, the resident was obliged to take the landlords advice on managing the condensation. If she had done so, the damp and mould might have been eliminated. If it had not been, the resident would have been better placed to argue with the landlord, that the root cause lie elsewhere.
The resident was of the view that as the property had a lower than usual level DPC, a PIV had to be installed and that she was able to dry washing in doors in other homes without damp and mould appearing, this was indicative of underlying more serious damp problems in the property.
There was evidence the landlord had carried out all historical repairs that could have contributed to damp and mould, and had since demonstrated it had considered and eliminated every other possibility. It also commissioned an independent damp specialist, who confirmed the DPC was lower than it should be, but that it was not causing any damp problems. There are however some properties either from their original design, the building material used or the direction they face (e.g. northerly) that are more susceptible to the build-up of condensation. The landlord has committed, as part of its strategy to tackle damp and mould, to proactively look at areas within certain “property archetypes” that are vulnerable to the build-up of condensation and mould and take the appropriate action. All of these activities undertaken by the landlord were appropriate, and align with recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
Furthermore it asked the resident to assist with this and gave the direct contact details of the manager responsible to report any further problems with damp and mould in her property.

The landlords consideration of its duties under the Equality Act 2010

It was noted by this service that the resident had declared that she had a disability to the landlord several times since 2019. Under s20 of the Equality Act 2010, landlords have a responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to residents who do not have a disability. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a resident has a disability, it is our role to look at whether the landlord had considered whether they had, and if so whether it had responsibilities under the Act.
The landlords reasonable adjustments policy commits to making reasonable adjustments for disabled people to ensure they are not disadvantaged. On receipt of this information it would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord visit and carry out some sort of assessment of her needs, and whether she needed any support. However, it appears from the evidence that her declarations of having a disability were just disregarded by the landlord which was not appropriate.
The resident had advised the landlord that she was unable to climb and clean mould off of the ceiling because of her disabilities. It might have been the case that the issues contributing to condensation, such as the slabs leaning against the house and rooms cluttered and unpacked, was because she was no longer able to deal with these issues herself, because of her disability.
In some instances where residents are unable to continue to meet their repair and maintaining obligations because of a disability, the landlord can assist or take over those repairs as part of a reasonable adjustment. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will support residents wherever possible, which included assistance with fuel poverty and tackling cluttered homes. The lack of carpeting and minimal use of heating can be an indicator of fuel poverty in a household and the landlord described the residents property as “cluttered”. There was however no evidence that the landlord discussed any of these issues with the resident, despite her telling them she had a disability.
It was of concern and not clear why the resident did not have carpets in her property, which with concrete floors had been identified as a contributing factor to the build-up of condensation in the property. The resident had said in her stage 3 communication, that her disabilities and the restrictions they had placed on her, such as her ability to do things in the home, work and earn money had prevented her from moving forward with the flat. This and the fact she had been without carpets for so long should have been a trigger for the landlord to consider whether the resident might benefit from its tenancy sustainability service. Assisting in maximising the residents income and signposting her to organisations for support and help with things like carpets, could have had a positive impact on reducing damp and mould problem in the property and keeping it warm.
In response to what the resident thought were accusatory claims about her living conditions, the resident gave a detailed account of the limitations she experienced as a result of injuries and ill health in her stage 3 complaint. This included why boxes remained unpacked, why she could not clean mould from the ceiling and the detrimental financial impact this had, had on her ability to finish making her flat a home. This went completely unacknowledged in the landlords stage 3 response, and a further opportunity for the landlord to consider any responsibilities it may have under the equality act, or its reasonable adjustment policy was missed.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published its new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self–assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
The Code has always recommended a 2-stage complaint handling process. This is to ensure that complaint resolution is achieved as quickly as possible and the ability for resident to access our Service is not delayed. The landlords policy has 3 stages in its process which adds unnecessary delays to resolution and is not compliant with the Code. It is worth noting that the revised Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, and states that a complaint process with more than two stages is not acceptable under any circumstances, as this makes the complaint process unduly long and delays access to the Ombudsman. All landlords will need to be compliant by June 2024
The landlords complaint handling policy, commits to responding to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days from acknowledgement. The resident submitted her complaint on 15 December 2022 and the landlords response was not sent out until 17 January 2023; no request for an extension of time was evident which meant the landlord exceeded the time to respond as set out in its policy.
Although the delay in responding was only days and detriment to the resident was minimal, the landlord should have acknowledged the delay in its response time in its stage 1 reply and apologised. Its compensation policy allows it to offer discretionary compensation payments for poor complaint handling, it is not a given that this failing would qualify for compensation, but it was not evident the landlord considered this part of its policy as it should have done.
The landlords stage 2 investigation and response was timely and thorough. It provided a detailed explanation of the actions it had taken, the reasons for its findings and a commitment to continue to monitor the issue with the resident.
The landlords stage 3 investigation did not uphold the residents complaint but to provide the resident with further reassurance if offered to commission a damp and mould survey from a private independent specialist. This was a fair and reasonable offer and not something the landlord was obliged to do. The concluding report from the external independent damp specialist also determined that it was a condensation problem in the property, and no structural cause was present.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords consideration of its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

Overall the landlords response to the residents reports of damp and mould have been timely and have met the requirements of its damp and mould policy. All repairs historically that could lead to damp and mould, such as gulleys, pointing and rainwater goods have been addressed. Two damp and mould surveys were completed in quick succession, the second more thorough than the first, but only 10 days between them. A determination of condensation was identified having checked and tested for all other possible causes. An independent survey was commissioned which concluded the same as the landlord. Minor failings in its front-line repairs service were apparent, but this was rectified quite quickly, and an apology was given.
The landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had considered whether it had responsibilities towards the resident under the Equalities Act 2010, when she had declared her disabilities on a number of occasions. A detailed account was included in the stage 3 complaint and even with the most senior oversight the opportunity to consider whether reasonable adjustments might be required was missed again.
The landlord had not stringently adhered to its complaint handling policy at stage 1 of its complaints process, and failed to acknowledge this failing in its stage 1 response. The landlords complaint handling policy was also not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which un-necessarily delayed the residents ability to escalate to this Service.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks, the landlord apologises to the resident for not acting on her declaration that she had a disability.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident compensation to the sum of £450, broken down as follows:
1. £350 for the landlords failure to consider whether it had any responsibilities under the Equality Act.
2. £100 for the failures identified in the landlords complaint handling.
The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks, if the landlord has not already done so, it assesses itself against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, effective 1 April 2024 and provides a copy to this service.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her disabilities, and determine whether it needs to make any reasonable adjustments in accordance with the Equality Act and provides a copy of the outcome to this service.
The Ombudsman orders that the landlord considers and lets the resident know, whether she meets the criteria for support with fuel poverty and de-cluttering under its damp mould and condensation policy (copy to be provided to this service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord offer the resident tenancy sustainment / financial inclusion services and see whether it can signpost to an organisation that might be able to assist with carpeting.