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

Adur District Council (202302149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302149

Adur District Council

25 November 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:
    1. Handling of reports of black mould in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor bedsit. The landlord is a local authority and has said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. Throughout the resident’s complaint the landlord was made aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 27 February 2023. He told the landlord that he had a mould problem at the property for more than 10 years and it had only just resolved the issue. He said he had been diagnosed with a lung disease and severe pneumonia. He told it how he felt mould was an aggravating factor for his conditions.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and said:
    1. Historic mould issues were reported to it in 2020 and it installed new fans in the property at that time.
    2. Further report of mould was made in March 2022, it inspected the property and arranged for a mould wash in July 2022. It installed a new fan and in December/January 2023 further mould treatment, including paint, was completed.
    3. It received no further reports of mould. It was satisfied it responded in a reasonable time, carried out mould treatments and redecoration to assist the resident. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
    4. Claims about health were investigated by its insurer and it would pass the resident’s details to its insurer to consider and the insure would be in touch.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 August 2023 and again on 4 September 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 September 2023. It repeated how it had acted on reports of mould and completed relevant work to help manage mould at the property. It explained how the resident should report new repairs to it.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service. He explained that in resolution of his complaint he wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Over the course of the resident’s complaint and in communication with the Ombudsman, he has said that his living conditions may have impacted his health. While the Ombudsman sympathises with the resident’s health conditions, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. As part of the resident’s complaint he has said the mould issue at the property had been ongoing for around 10 years. In such circumstances the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised such issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been considered within this report. In relation to the complaint about black mould in the property, it has been decided that the complaint will be considered from 2022 onwards.
  3. Despite requests for surveys and inspections conducted by the landlord, it has not provided this information. The evidence provided shows gaps in the chronology of events and at times it is unclear when the landlord conducted inspections and what was recommended at that time, if anything. While the landlord’s failure to provide the requested information will be addressed later within this report, for the purposes of the complaint about its handling of reports of black mould in the property, inferences have been drawn where it is fair and reasonable to do so.

Handling of reports of black mould in the property

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of its damp and mould policy or procedure. Its website and its damp and mould information document provides details on how a resident can manage damp and mould within a home. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have obligations to consider the condition of properties. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and carry out monitoring of a property where a potential hazard is identified (including damp and mould). The landlord has wider obligations to deal with mould if it is caused by a problem with the property and/or making the property not fit to live in.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident reported black mould in the bathroom and kitchen in March 2022. The landlord’s repairs log shows it appropriately completed mould wash and an inspection in April 2022. However, it is unclear if it conducted a damp and mould inspection and what was recommended following its inspection. While the landlord completed some work in July 2022, it is also unclear whether this was in response to what its inspection found or recommended. The landlord took until December 2022 to complete work which included the installation of a new fan, further treatment of mould and redecoration. Here the landlord took 9 months (since March 2022) to complete work relating to mould, this timeframe was not appropriate.
  3. Overall, with the evidence available, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s handling of reports of black mould at the property was not appropriate. Despite the resident’s concerns about the impact of his living condition on his health, the landlord failed to act in line with its wider obligations and its actions fell short of the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021. This is because the landlord did not adopt a zero tolerance approach to mould and did not share the outcome of inspections with the resident to help him understand its findings and be clear on next steps.
  4. However, it is noted that the landlord did complete a mould wash appropriately after the resident’s report of mould, in April 2022, this would have helped to improve the resident’s living conditions while it completed work. It is also noted that the landlord’s work in December 2022 resolved the issues with mould at the property. When considering this, the landlord’s handling of reports of black mould at the property amounts to maladministration. Had the landlord not completed a mould wash or resolved the issue, the failings here would have been more serious.
  5. This Service’s remedies guidance has been considered to decide an appropriate remedy in such circumstances. While it is difficult to determine the full extent of the condition of the property, when considering the resident’s concerns about the impact of his living conditions, it is reasonable to conclude that the timeframe taken to resolve the mould issues at the property would have caused him some detriment. As such the Ombudsman considers a payment to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident to be appropriate in these circumstances. A payment of £400, within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance, has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has an interim feedback and complaints policy and procedure which says it will aim to respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 15 working days. It explains that if this is not possible it will let the resident know and will extend its response timeframe by a further 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 27 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 March 2023 and said it would be in contact within 10 working days. However, it did not do this and the resident contacted it again about his complaint on 31 March 2023. The landlord failed to respond at this time. This was not appropriate.
  3. In July 2023 this Service contacted the landlord, on the resident’s behalf, asking it to respond to his complaint by 25 July 2023. While the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 July 2023, the timeframe of almost 5 months significantly exceeded the 15 working days mentioned in its complaints policy. This was not appropriate.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 August 2023 and 4 September 2023. The landlord took until 15 September 2023 to issue its stage 2 response. This timeframe of 31 days also exceeded the timeframe set within its policy. This was also not appropriate.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. Its complaint handling delays meant it took around 7 months to conclude its internal complaints process. It significantly exceeded the timeframes mentioned within its policy for its stage 1 response and while it apologised for the delay, it failed to acknowledge the impact of its delay as part of its internal complaints handling process. It then issued its stage 2 response outside the timeframe mentioned within its policy and failed to acknowledge its further complaint handling failing and made no attempts to put things right. The landlord’s complaint handling failings amounts to maladministration.
  6. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, and in light of the landlord’s complaint handling delays, an amount of £200 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Record keeping

  1. Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme confirms the Ombudsman’s expectation in relation to the provision of information, it says:
    1. The landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman, that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. This may include the following records and documents:
      1. Any internal files, documents correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings in hard copy or electronic form.
  2. As part of our investigation the landlord was asked to provide copies of surveys and inspection it conducted at the property as well as evidence to show the work it did. While the landlord has provided some information, it has not provided all the information requested. It is unclear what its surveyor found, what work was recommended at that time and whether it completed what was recommended following its inspections or surveys.
  3. It is also noted that on 19 November 2024 the landlord told this Service that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. This was despite what the resident told it in his complaint from February 2023, and it acknowledging his health conditions within its response.
  4. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain records of its surveys, the recommendations made and the work it completes. This should also include appropriate systems in place to record resident’s vulnerabilities. Good record keeping is important to evidence the actions a landlord and its contractor have taken. A failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s repair processes are not operating effectively.
  5. Overall, the landlord has not provided this Service with the information mentioned above. It has failed to provide details of its surveys or inspection in response to reports mould at the property. It has failed to explain why it has been unable to provide this information and has also told this Service it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident despite what it was repeatedly told. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of black mould in the property.
    2. Complaint handling.
    3. Record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £600 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of black mould at the property.
      2. £200 for its complaint handling failings.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should be within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include (but is not limited to):
    1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, with consideration to the vulnerabilities of the resident.
    2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
      1. The findings and learning from its review.
      2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
      3. A self-assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 and the spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management from May 2023.
    3. The landlord should provide a copy of its report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints for scrutiny, if appointed. It should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementations of any recommendation made following the review.
    4. The landlord should provide a copy of its report to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should liaise with the resident to ensure that his health conditions are recorded in order for these to be appropriately taken into account.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with an update on its referral to the landlord’s insurer, if it has not already done so.