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

Islington Council (202234306)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234306

Islington Council

10 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, and the tenancy began in 2011. The property is a 3 bedroom flat on the first floor of a converted house. There are vulnerable children in the household and the resident’s son has severe asthma.

Summary of Events

  1. In early January 2023 the resident raised concerns to the landlord about mould appearing in 2 bedrooms. He was concerned for his son who has chronic asthma, and it had damaged the blinds and window frames which had become rotten. He told the landlord that he had previously reported a potential repair issue to external guttering, which could be causing the damp and mould, from March to April 2022. He received a letter in May 2022 about scaffolding but no steps were taken to address his reports.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the delayed repairs to the resident on 2 February 2023. It raised a mould wash and directed him to the relevant team to ask about compensation. The resident subsequently raised a formal complaint on 9 February 2023 reiterating his concerns, and saying that the repair had remained unresolved for 9 months. He explained that the issue was caused by the guttering and water running down the wall and pouring onto the window seal. His son has severe asthma and it was dangerous for him to be exposed to mould.
  3. On 22 February 2023 the landlord raised a job for a surveyor to carry out a damp inspection. Some works were referenced in March 2023. On 24 April 2023 there was a damp inspection which identified mould on the exterior walls and cold readings, but no damp. The surveyor’s report identified the need for a mould treatment and wash. It also indicates that they assessed the brickwork, the sealant around the windows and other external elements for water ingress. The mould treatment was then carried out from 13 to 22 May 2023.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 23 February 2023 partially upheld the complaint. It said that works were raised in April 2022 but there was no access granted to the contractor, and messages had been left for the resident. The landlord stated that scaffolders had tried to contact the resident in June 2022 but the number was invalid and there was once again no access, so ultimately the contractors cancelled the work. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and confirmed it was now arranging a damp assessment. The landlord directed the resident to claim for the damaged belongings on his content insurance, or alternatively via its public liability insurance.
  5. The parties exchanged further correspondence in March 2023. On 6 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He disputed the report that he was unavailable to provide access or make arrangements. The landlord noted the resident’s request to bring forward another mould wash to missed areas due to his son’s asthma and said that his son was unable to use the room due to breathing difficulties. The resident explained that following the mould wash and works there remained outstanding decoration to the walls, which he provided images of to the landlord.
  6. On 9 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It considered the complaint about incomplete works, significant delays and no communication. It apologised for the delays and acknowledged that it was not the resident’s job to chase the works. It acknowledged the disputed events and explained that it was not clear what had happened. It arranged for the works to be completed and set out the schedule from 13 to 20 May 2023 for mould wash, window repairs, and painting work. It asked the resident to report any incomplete work. It offered £225 compensation (£25 for its delayed complaint response and £200 for time and trouble).
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation as he had waited a year for works, and there had been no mention of redecorating the bedrooms following the remedial works or the damage to 3 blinds. He said he had contacted the public liability team but had not heard back.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and advised that the painting/redecorating would be permitted for 1 meter past the effected area after the mould wash and possibly the whole wall, depending on the circumstances on the day. It apologised for the resident not hearing back about the insurance and increased its compensation to £425 (incorporating an additional £200 for the damaged blinds).
  9. The resident said there was remaining work behind the radiator which was not complete on 13 May 2023. The landlord raised a job on 19 May 2023 and, between 20 and 22 May 2023, the radiator was removed, work was carried out, and the radiator was put back once this was dry. The resident also said that the entire area needed to be repainted or it would look odd, or the landlord should provide paint vouchers. On 18 May 2022 the landlord explained that it would check if this was available, and it clarified its position in respect of damage to the blinds. It said that this would normally need to be claimed under the resident’s insurance, but it provided details of its public insurance and said it’s offer of £200 was a contribution towards this.
  10. Following further communication from the resident, reiterating his dissatisfaction with the service and compensation offer, the landlord provided a further response on 25 May 2023. It explained its breakdown of increased compensation totalling £975 as follows: £25 for the service failure in the complaint handling, £300 for time and trouble, £450 for damaged blinds, and £200 for distress (paid on 26 June 2023). It confirmed that the matter had exhausted its complaint process and signposted the resident to this Service. In its submission to this Service the landlord said no claim had been made on its public liability insurance.
  11. In July 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman his outstanding concerns. The compensation was below what he felt was suitable. He expected £1,725 for the time and trouble (£300), distress (£200), delayed complaint response (£25), cost of decorating each room (£300 per room) and replacement blinds (£600). He felt the level of redress awarded was too low considering the distress caused and the delay of over a year.
  12. Following the conclusion of the complaint process in May 2023, the evidence shows that there were continued reports of damp and mould and repairs in January 2024. The work to the guttering and loft inspection (referenced in recent correspondence) has not clearly been established, the landlord said that there was a Section 20 consultation with leaseholder homeowners underway at the end of January 2024 regarding scaffolding. The resident said that there are cracks in the brickwork and he has experienced delays in the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The fact that repairs were required to the property throughout 2022 and 2023, and that there were delays in those repairs being completed, is not in dispute. The outstanding issue is the level of financial redress awarded for the landlord’s failings during that period and that is, therefore, the focus of this investigation.
  2. While there have been reports of similar issues arising more recently, the landlord has not yet had a chance to fully investigate and resolve these matters through the operation of its complaints process. As a result the Ombudsman has not assessed those events in this investigation. However, in the interests of bringing matters to a satisfactory resolution, a recommendation is made to prompt landlord and tenant engagement in respect of the reported issues.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The tenancy agreement and the Repair and Maintenance Policy set out the landlord’s responsibly for repairs to the external parts of the property, including the roof and guttering, the internal structure of the property, and the external decoration. This is within 20 working days for routine works. The landlord did not dispute its repairing responsibilities.
  2. The Damp and Mould Procedure states that the landlord should check for water ingress or repairs before it can eliminate water penetration as the source of a problem and then consider condensation as a factor causing damp and mould. The landlord did not identify any repairs causing the damp and mould as per its inspection of April 2023. It carried out the mould treatment works as set out in the inspection report. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the diagnosis made by the damp inspection at the time and to proceed with the recommended works and the repairs reported to it by the resident.
  3. The landlord’s stage one resonse did not dispute that the issue had been ongoing since March 2022, but stated that this was partly due to the resident not providing access. When the resident disputed this account of events, the landlord’s stage two response acknowledged that the delay was unacceptable and took steps to arrange further appointments. The tone of the landlord’s stage one response was unnecessarily paternalistic. The landlord appears to have automatically blamed the resident for the delays without obtaining his version of events. This type of complaint response can lead to the relationship between the resident and the landlord deteriorating and result in missed opportunities to address the problem. The landlord eventually took responsibility for the delays and apologised. However, the blame it apportioned to the resident in its stage one complaint response before fully discussing the matter with them was a shortfall in its handling of this matter.
  4. The landlord carried out a damp inspection and the recommended works were completed shortly after. The resident has highlighted that any inspection of the sealant and brickwork in April 2023 was only completed internally as there was no scaffolding erected at that time.
  5. It was then for the landlord to review its service since early 2022, including: the delay in repairs being carried out; its failure to meet the repair timescales set out in its policies; the impact of its failings on the resident and his family; and damaged caused during the repairs process. With this information it settled upon a final compensation offer to the resident of £975.
  6. Part of the resident’s request for higher compensation was for the outstanding decoration in the bedrooms. He explained that the different coloured wall would look odd if left undecorated and asked for vouchers or allowance for the paint or for the landlord to do this. The landlord explained the guidance for redecorating that its contractor would be following and that there may be flexibility but this was not guaranteed.
  7. The landlord ultimately had discretion over the resident’s request to redecorate the area, as per its Repair and Maintenance Policy. This states that the landlord must make good the surface ready for decoration, which the evidence shows it did. The Repair and Maintenance Policy states that it may offer an allowance for decoration or do this itself, but this is not an obligation, so there was no failure in its decision not to increase compensation for the decoration. As the resident has indicated that damp and mould issues are ongoing, it is recommended that the landlord arranges an inspection to assess if the property requires a further mould wash and anti-mould paintwork. If these works are identified as necessary, they are considered a repair obligation for the landlord and are not classed as decoration.
  8. The landlord should also take steps to consider if there are any additional steps it can take to prevent damp and mould in the property. Improving ventilation around the home can help to prevent condensation because it allows moisture-filled air to escape to the outside. It is therefore recommended that the landlord considers this as part of its further inspection.
  9. The resident has previously complained that the property can be cold and draughty. Adequate and consistent heating in the home can help to reduce condensation and damp. There is no evidence to show that the landlord has assessed the insultation or heating in the property. An energy performance certificate (EPC) is intended to provide prospective buyers and tenants of a property with correct information about the energy performance of the property and practical advice on improving such performance. I have checked the government website for EPCs and there is not one listed for the property. Landlords must make sure rental properties meet minimum energy efficiency standards. This means by law the property must have an EPC rating of “E” or above. It is therefore recommended that the landlord arranges a property assessment to obtain an EPC. As part of this assessment, the assessor will look at the heating system and insulation and provide advice on improvements that will help improve the property’s energy performance.
  10. The Decent Homes Standard sets a minimum standard for the condition of social homes. Criterion D of this standard requires the home to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. This means the property must have both effective insulation and efficient heating. It is recommended that the landlord completes an assessment to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.
  11. The resident’s request for higher compensation was also based on the damage to his 3 blinds, which he explained would cost around £200 each. The landlord’s initial response directed the resident to claim on his own contents insurance, which aligned with the terms of its Repair and Maintenance Policy. This states that the landlord advises residents to take out home insurance to cover furniture and fittings and personal belongings.
  12. However, in this case, there was an accepted delay in the landlord’s service which warranted some form of redress. The landlord’s final position which offered a contribution towards the damaged items and directed the resident to claim on its public liability insurance was fair, given the acknowledged failure. The landlord demonstrated that it recognised the impact of the damage caused by the delay in its remedial work.
  13. While the landlord has said that it has not seen evidence that the resident made a claim on its insurance, it is important to note that the outcome of such a claim would not be within this Service’s jurisdiction in any event. If the resident has made a claim and is dissatisfied with the outcome, he may wish to contact the Financial Ombudsman for further information in that regard.
  14. The landlord’s offer of £500 compensation for time and trouble and distress was in line with its Compensation Guidance and Housing Procedure: Compensation Refunds and Remedies, which states that it may offer such discretionary compensation if a complaint is upheld. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer redress under these heads as they were established and undisputed in the complaint correspondence.
  15. The remaining element of the landlord’s compensation offer was £25 for its complaints handling. The resident experienced a delay between his complaint escalation on 6 March 2023 and the final response on 9 May 2023. The landlord did not act in line with its Corporate Complaint Policy timescale which states that it should respond within 10 and 20 working days for stage 1 and 2 complaints respectively.
  16. However, despite this formal delay, the evidence shows that the landlord did remain engaged with the resident’s communication during and after the complaint process, so the practical impact of this failing was minimal. As the landlord established a failure in its communication and offered £25 redress to acknowledge this, its offer on this point was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b), the landlord offered redress to the resident for its handling of  the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord engaged in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of putting things right following established failures by offering a considered award of compensation. It acknowledged the impact of its service failure on the resident and increased its compensation in line with its obligations and policy terms, as set out above. Therefore, the landlord took reasonable steps to put things right following the established failures.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss any outstanding remedial work in the property. The landlord should then agree an action plan for any outstanding work and communicate this to the resident.
    2. Arrange an additional damp and mould inspection to assess if the property requires a further mould wash and anti-mould paintwork or whether the property requires additional/improved ventilation.
    3. Arrange a property assessment to obtain an EPC.
    4. Complete an assessment to check the property’s heating and insulation against Criterion D of the Decent Homes Standard.