Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202341757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341757

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

25 July 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household however the resident has advised the Ombudsman that she and her daughter have mental health conditions. Her daughter also suffers from asthma.
The resident first made a report of damp and mould on 24 May 2023. The landlord sent her report to its damp and mould team and an attempt was made to contact the resident by phone, without success. There were no further reports made until 25 October 2023, when the resident said that there was significant mould in her daughter’s bedroom, on the external facing wall. On 30 October 2023, the landlord completed an inspection and arranged for a mould wash.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 29 November 2023. She said that the mould had spread from where it had been treated and water continued to enter from the external brickwork. She said she had no response from her housing officer and had concerns about the impact on the health of her daughter. In response, the landlord raised a works order for a further mould wash and inspection of the external walls. It also arranged for the bathroom fan to be replaced.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said her concerns had been sent to its damp and mould surveyor, but acknowledged it had not updated her of this. It apologised for the lack of communication and delays she had experienced. It offered her £250 in compensation and explained she could make a liability claim for the impact on health. The compensation was broken down as:
1. £50 for only attempting to contact the resident once in May 2023.
2. £50 for not removing all the mould during the initial treatment.
3. £50 for not acknowledging an email the resident had sent on 25 November 2023.
4. £50 for the delays the resident had experienced.
5. £50 for the inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 18 December 2023 and said it had not updated her on the timescale for any works to be completed. She said her daughter was sleeping on a blow up bed in the living room to avoid the damp. She contacted the landlord on several further occasions and said:
1. she was frustrated at the lack of contact and was not clear who she could approach for updates.
2. she had been contacted about repairs to an internal door, but nothing with regards to the damp which was the basis of her complaint.
3. she was disappointed in the landlord’s complaint service. It had breached data protection by sending her the outcome of another resident’s complaint, which had caused her additional frustration.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for an escalation to her complaint and the Ombudsman had to intervene. On 17 April 2024 the landlord provided the resident with a final response. It said:
1. it apologised for the time it had taken to complete the repairs and any negative impact the situation had on her.
2. there had been poor performance of a previous contractor who had since been replaced. It was sorry it had not updated her of this.
3. it had taken the data breach seriously and had escalated the matter to its data management team. It understood the gravity of the situation and apologised that it had occurred.
4. it had completed all remedial works to the bedroom and the outside wall, and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged that it should have communicated with her better and kept her informed of progress.
5. it had learnt several lessons from her complaint and made service improvements. This included meeting weekly with contractors to review work schedules.
6. it wanted to increase its compensation offer to £700. The additional amount included:
  1. £150 for the negative impact and distress caused by delays related to the damp.
  2. £100 for the delay in replying to her complaint at stage 2.
  3. £50 for the data breach error.
  4. £150 for poor communication.
A post-inspection of the property took place on 19 April 2024. During the visit, the landlord noted that the decoration works had been completed but damp meter readings suggested that there was still a leak present. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said that the landlord reinstated the boxing in the bathroom and did a further mould wash, which resolved the issue. She explained the landlord offered to redecorate her daughter’s bedroom again but she declined these works due to the upheaval it would cause. She reports that the last contractors to attend left the property in a poor state of cleanliness, and as a resolution to her complaint she would like a deep clean of the property and an increase in compensation.

Assessment and findings

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

The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has reported damp and mould in the property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact on the health of her and her daughter. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. It is clear that the landlord did not go far enough to investigate the resident’s reports of damp when she first made contact in May 2023. It later apologised and compensated the resident within its stage 1 response which was appropriate.
The landlord has a damp and mould process which explains that on receipt of a report of damp, its specialised team will triage the call to establish the likely cause using a specific script through a conversation with the resident. In this case, the landlord arranged for a visit to the property within 4 working days to inspect which was reasonable. However it is unclear what steps were taken during the visit to identify the cause of the damp. For example, no evidence was seen of any damp meter readings or other interventions which led the landlord to conclude that only a mould wash was needed.
The failure to complete a full damp inspection was a missed opportunity to establish what the root cause was and communicate this to the resident. As a result, it is clear that the decision to complete a mould wash alone was insufficient to remedy the issue as it returned shortly afterwards.
In making her complaint, the resident expressed her concern about the impact the situation was having on her daughter, who was suffering from asthma. She provided the landlord photographs of the outside wall and raised concerns that she was getting no response from her housing officer. There is no evidence that the landlord addressed these specific concerns until it responded to her complaint, and it took no steps to prioritise its investigations to take into consideration her household vulnerabilities. The delay was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of urgency and empathy towards the resident.
Internal notes from the landlord’s records observed that the surveyor was seen in the office on 1 December 2023 but was “behind on raising repair jobs because he was really busy”. Whilst it is not disputed that this was the case, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord was proactive in raising the required works on the surveyor’s behalf. This led to significant delays in inspecting and remedying the outside wall, and scaffolding was not erected until approximately 3 months later in March 2024.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023 that its communication had been poor, which was appropriate. It made an offer of compensation which was reasonable to its failings, however it did not set out to the resident what it had identified the cause of the damp to be. In the absence of an in depth assessment, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had a detailed understanding of what remedial actions needed to take place to prevent the mould from returning.
Internal records from the landlord noted that between December 2023 and January 2024, members of its staff were trying to understand the status of the repairs but the status “could not be seen”. Landlords should have appropriate mechanisms in place to track and monitor outstanding repairs. In this case, the inability for its staff to see the status caused considerable distress to the resident, who was not provided with an update of the actions the landlord had taken until it responded to her at stage 2 on 17 April 2024.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case, the landlord’s final response offered the resident an apology for the service she had received and provided her with a detailed update of the remedial works that had taken place which was appropriate. It was reasonable for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to the resident, however did not go far enough to compensate for the inconvenience caused to the resident’s daughter, after it was reported she was unable to use her bedroom from 18 December 2023.
The landlord’s compensation policy has a specific clause with regards to room loss allowance. It says that a surveyor assessment is required to establish whether a room is unusable, which will be made at the point when the repair request is made. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the specific concerns about the resident’s daughter in a timely manner. However internal records from the landlord’s complaints team on 19 December 2023 recognised that it “needed to look at room loss payment as daughter is unable to use bedroom”.
Whilst it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord acknowledged the reported loss of bedroom, there is no evidence that it carried out a surveyor assessment of the usability of the room in accordance with its process. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have investigated the impact caused to the household. In the absence of a surveyor’s assessment which confirmed the usability of the room, further compensation has been awarded by the Ombudsman in line with our remedies guidance. The additional amount is to recognise the inconvenience the situation caused the resident and her daughter.
The landlord detailed significant learning from the resident’s case, including that it was meeting weekly with contractors to manage work schedules and monitor delays. Learning is key to resolving resident complaints, and it is clear that the landlord made solution–focussed efforts to make improvements to its repair service as a result of her experience.
However it did not go far enough to recognise that there was learning it needed to consider in relation to its damp and mould practice. There was no acknowledgement that a more comprehensive damp assessment could have identified the cause at an earlier opportunity, which caused her prolonged distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord recorded damp as still being present during the post-inspection which took place 2 days after the conclusion of the complaint. The remedial works were not completed until 30 May 2024, causing the resident further inconvenience.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although the landlord acknowledged its delays and made some attempt to put things right, it did not fully address the detriment caused to the resident. She continued to experience damp and mould following the conclusion of her complaint and the issue was not resolved until the end of May 2024.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within a reasonable timeframe. Its response was detailed and set out the specific service failures it had recognised during its investigation which was appropriate.
5 days after its response, the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction about the same issues which should have prompted the landlord to escalate her concerns to the next stage of its complaint process. Records show that she contacted it on several further occasions and became frustrated when she was sent a final complaint response for another resident. The landlord acknowledged the error promptly on 24 January 2024 and asked her to delete the correspondence immediately. The matter was referred to management which was appropriate.
Despite acknowledging its data error the landlord failed to escalate her complaint, and as a result the Ombudsman had to intervene. It should not have taken intervention from the Ombudsman for the landlord to have responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. However once the landlord was notified of its error, it made an attempt to contact her the same day to discuss her concerns which was appropriate.
The landlord’s final response was an opportunity to put matters right and learn from outcomes. Its response was comprehensive and offered a genuine and personalised apology for its poor communication which was appropriate. The £100 compensation it offered for the delay in responding to her complaint and £50 in relation to the inconvenience caused by the data breach were fair and proportionate to its failures.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
In this case, the landlord made an apology for its complaint handling failures and compensated the resident appropriately in accordance with its policy. Furthermore it took specific learning from the complaint, ensuring that it had introduced a reminder system and a better process to file documents to avoid further reports of a data breach. The steps it took were appropriate and sufficient to put matters right, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to apologise for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation reflective of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to explain how it will ensure its recording systems are accurate and accessible to all staff to monitor its damp and mould interventions. An update to be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks.
The landlord is ordered to review how it will respond and monitor reports about the loss of use of a room. An update to be provided to the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to gain an understanding of the vulnerabilities of her household and update its records accordingly.
The landlord is recommended to contact the resident about her concerns of uncleanliness following a recent visit by its contractors.