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

Bristol City Council (202340989)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340989

Bristol City Council

16 October 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. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy at the property which is a 3 bedroom terraced house. She has lived there since 2009. She lives with her 2 children aged 7 and 16. She advised the landlord, who is a local authority that she has asthma and ectopic eczema. Her son has a respiratory illness and uses an inhaler.
  2. In December 2020 the landlord raised a job for an inspection of the roof as the there was a leak entering the bedroom and mould. No further records of this work was provided. There was a gap in correspondence until around 28 December 2022. The landlord raised a job to clean and reseal around windows and apply anti-mould paint to walls and ceilings.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 6 February 2023 and stated that she had advised the landlord in November 2022 that mould had reappeared. A surveyor had attended in December 2022 and advised that part of the attic was not insulated correctly and the mould needed to be cleaned and repainted. A contractor had attended in mid-December 2022 but did not have enough time to complete the works. Since then, this had not been completed. She requested that works be completed and to be compensated for the inconvenience, “stress” and damage to clothes.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 31 March 2023 and stated as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its complaint response.
    2. Loft insulation – this was with its planned maintenance team. The property would be added to a list for this work to be done in the future. The insulation should have been laid back down correctly following previous work to replace the boiler.
    3. Mould and its contractors – a surveyor had inspected the property in December 2022. This identified part of the cause of the mould to be the incorrectly fitted loft insulation. A contractor had attended but had not been able to treat the mould as further work was identified, namely an external bedroom wall needed to be re-plastered. Following this, there had been a delay in the contractor returning due to staff absence. It apologised for this. The resident had confirmed that these works and redecoration had been completed.
    4. It upheld both aspects of complaint. It apologised for the length of time the works had taken to be completed and the level of disruption caused to the household. It awarded a “disturbance payment” of £160. This was calculated at £40 for 4 days for the 2 occupants on the tenancy agreement. If the resident amended her tenancy to include her second child, an additional £40 for the additional occupant could be offered. It advised her how to amend her tenancy agreement.
  5. There was a gap in correspondence until 17 October 2023 when the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She stated that there had been ongoing mould “for years”. A contractor had not attended to correct the loft insulation. A vent had been fitted in the bathroom which “serves no purpose”. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 March 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and advised this was due to a manager leaving and it not being aware of their caseload. It had issued works to its contractor. Following this the landlord enquired internally on 11 March 2024 if a contractor could attend to treat the mould and redecorate.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the internal complaints procedure on 11 March 2024 and stated as follows:
    1. The mould had been ongoing for several years. There was black mould on the bedroom ceilings and part of the wall in her son’s bedroom. There was also mould in the bathroom.
    2. She had to decorate regularly and buy expensive mould sprays to clean the mould. This was not good for her asthma or ectopic eczema.
    3. Her daughter had been unwell with coughs, feeling light headed and migraines. Her daughter had also sprained her ankle when standing on a chair to clean the mould.
    4. It had been over a month since the surveyor had visited and no works had begun. She had not been contacted about the works in the attic. She had been calling the landlord weekly for updates and had spent over 20 hours on the phone. This had impacted her mood and caused anxiety.
  7. On 13 March 2024 the resident advised the landlord that the window ledge in her son’s room was rotten and the window was broken. Around 20 March 2024 the landlord raised jobs to carry out works to the ceilings, the loft insulation, renew the windowsill, renew guttering and overhaul the bathroom extractor fan.
  8. This Service contacted the landlord on 17 April 2024 and asked it to respond at stage 2 by 16 May 2024. The landlord responded on 21 May 2024 and stated as follows:
    1. Complaint handling – it apologised for the delay in dealing with the complaint. It acknowledged that the stage 1 response had been 4 months late due a member of staff who had left its employment. It should have contacted the resident when she escalated her complaint to stage 2 to update her about what was happening. To acknowledge the inconvenience, frustration and uncertainty caused, it offered £200 compensation.
    2. Mould – it apologised that the mould had not been resolved when it should have been and for the impact of the mould on the household. The contractor would contact the resident to arrange the works. It signposted her to its insurer in respect of making a claim for injury, damage or loss. It offered £400 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience and level of service the resident had received.
  9. On 18 June 2024 the resident advised the landlord that contractors had attended that day but had not known about all of the works required. They had informed her that rooms needed to be completely cleared which she stated was “close to impossible” as a single mother. She stated that the loft insulation could not be completed and there were rats. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 18 June 2024.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

  1. On 21 August 2024 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had not dealt with the rats despite telling her that this needed to be resolved before the loft insulation could be competed. She stated she had replaced the radiator in the bathroom herself as it had begun to rust.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left the organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. In this case, the resident raised a complaint in February 2023 and another in October 2023, the latter of which she pursued to stage 2. The later complaint related to the landlord not having followed through on the assurances made within the February 2023 complaint response. As such, this Service had considered the events leading up to the February 2023 complaint onwards. Reference to events that occurred prior to this are made in this report to provide context.
  2. It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact on her health and that of her children. She also advised that her daughter had sustained an injury whilst cleaning mould. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
  3. Following her complaint, the resident raised matters of a rotten window sill (13 March 2024) and rodents in the property (18 June 2024). As these issue did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, they are not matters that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these concerns via its internal complaints procedure. Once these matters have completed the internal complaints procedure, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould and a lack of heating are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
  3. It is clear that the landlord had been aware of the mould since around December 2022 when its surveyor attended and raised jobs for anti-mould paint to be applied to walls and ceilings. This Service has not seen a copy of the surveyor’s report. The landlord, however, did not dispute the resident’s account that the surveyor had identified an issue with the loft insulation as a possible cause of the mould. It therefore can be concluded that the landlord was aware that the loft insulation issue needed to be actioned since around December 2022 as a potential measure to prevent the mould. Although a contractor attended in December 2022 it is not clear what works, if any, had been completed. However, it is not in dispute that works to the loft insulation were not completed.
  4. The resident submitted a complaint on 6 February 2023 in respect of the mould and the loft insulation not having been completed. It took the landlord until around 23 March 2023 (33 working days) to raise jobs to renew plasterboard, skim the ceiling and apply anti-mould paint. The landlord did not provide a repairs policy to this Service, nor was one available on its pubic facing website. Its website however, does state that it will respond to non-emergency repairs within 4 weeks. Its timeframe of 33 working days to raise the works was not in line with this published timeframe.
  5. When the landlord responded at stage 1 on 31 March 2023, it advised that loft insulation would be completed by its planned maintenance team. It could not give a timeframe for this work to be completed, however, it hoped it would be before the winter of 2023. This response was vague and unhelpful for the resident. It failed to demonstrate an understanding of the impact of the mould and the associated health risks to the household. The landlord was aware that there were children in the property, one of which had a respiratory illness. It could not show that it had considered the risk to the household or that it had taken steps to minimize this risk in accordance with its obligations under the HHSRS.
  6. The landlord had been made aware by its surveyor that the mould was likely being caused by an issue with the loft insulation, which had not been fitted correctly following boiler works. It is unreasonable, that knowing this information, the landlord did not prioritise this work and put right the failure of its contractors who left the loft insulation in an unacceptable condition. The landlord’s reliance on the work being resolved as part of its planned maintenance programme, at an unknown time, was not appropriate in light of the health concerns raised.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response also acknowledged that there had been a delay in completing replastering works. It advised this was due to staff absence. Whilst it is appreciated that staff absence can impact the completion of repairs, the landlord should have systems in place to ensure that this does not cause unreasonable delays in works being carried out. It is not clear when the replastering was carried out, however, from the correspondence seen this was completed during March 2023.
  8. The resident raised a new complaint at stage 1 on 17 October 2023 as the landlord had not fixed the loft insulation. She also advised that the bathroom vent did not provide ventilation. Following this, and before the landlord responded to the complaint, the landlord introduced a new damp and mould policy, effective from 7 November 2023. This was based on the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. It committed to taking a zero-tolerance approach to managing damp and mould. The policy states as follows:
    1. From an initial report of damp and mould, it aims to respond within 7 days. The length of time needed to rectify the damp and mould depends on the causes and solutions.
    2. Where it cannot meet its timescales, it may arrange for an operative to treat the mould to remove the immediate hazard. It will keep the resident advised of proposed remedies and the timescales of works until the issue has been resolved.
    3. Complex cases involve major programmes of work may require intrusive, structural or large scale works. Any proposed solution would consider the timescale of this work. It may be necessary to change the scheduling of planned works.
  9. Despite this new policy being introduced, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s complaint until 26 February 2024 (91 working days later). It noted that the mould was worsening and impacting the resident’s health. It can be concluded from the residents correspondence (from 11 March 2024) that a surveyor had attended in February 2024. Details of this were not provided to this Service by the landlord, nor was a copy of the surveyor’s findings. However, the response timeframe of 91 working days was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
  10. The landlord’s subsequent response at stage 1 on 6 March 2024 was inadequate. It advised that it had chased works but provided no further details or assurances to the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously. Despite noting the resident’s health concerns, it did not address this within the complaint response. It also could not demonstrate that it had adopted a zero tolerance approach as outlined within its policy.
  11. The resident reiterated her concerns and frustration at the insulation works not having been carried out within her escalation request of 11 March 2024. She reiterated the impact the mould was having on her and her children’s health. The landlord raised a job for a mould wash the following day along with works to the roof, insulation, guttering and the dry lining. Whilst a mould wash would not treat the cause of the mould, the landlord’s actions in arranging this were in line with its damp and mould policy. However, it did not carry this out until 16 April 2024. This was over a month later. Given the health impact described, this was not appropriate.
  12. An appointment had been arranged for a mould wash on 16 April 2024. The resident stated she had been told the appointment had been cancelled, but then subsequently, that it would be going ahead (which it did). This had led to her moving furniture and possessions unnecessary. The landlord apologised and acknowledged the inconvenience caused by this within its stage 2 response from 21 May 2024. It also acknowledged that it had not resolved the substantive issue of the mould. Despite this acknowledgement that the root cause of the mould issue remained unresolved, it did not indicate how it would put this right for the resident going forward. Nor did it provide a timeframe for the required works. Given the delays in carrying out the works and its acknowledged failures, this is something it should have been proactive at clarifying, especially in light of its new commitment to a zero tolerance approach. As part of its ongoing strategy, the landlord also failed to offer to continue to keep in regular contact with the reset until the completion of the works. As such, it missed an opportunity to support her and rebuild confidence in its service provision.
  13. When the resident told the landlord about the impact of the mould, she had advised that a number of her possessions had been damaged and the health of the household had been impacted. The Ombudsman issues regular guidance to landlords on best practice. In January 2020 we published guidance on complaints involving insurance issues. This highlighted to landlords that they should ensure that they treat residents’ fairly by assisting residents with insurance claims and considering whether it was at fault. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurer within its stage 2 response in respect of these concerns. However, it missed an opportunity to direct the resident to its insurer earlier following her report from 11 March 2024 of her daughter being injured whist cleaning mould.
  14. The landlord offered a total of £560 compensation to acknowledge the impact of its failures to carry out works in respect of the mould. (£160 was offered at stage 1 and an additional £400 at stage 2).
  15. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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.
  16. It is clear from the evidence seen in this case, that the issue with the loft insulation, and it causing or contributing to mould, had been identified by the landlord around December 2022. By the completion of the internal complaints procedure on 21 May 2024, this repair had not been actioned. This was a period of around 17 months. The timeframe of this outstanding repair was not appropriate.
  17. The landlord consistently failed to demonstrate consideration for the health and safety risk posed by the mould to the household during this period. Given that it knew what works were required to rectify the mould, its failure to action this was not appropriate.
  18. The landlord considered the loft insulation to be part of its planned works programme. In doing so it failed to demonstrate an understanding of its obligations under the HHSRS to reduce risks to residents. Its reliance on mould washes was not appropriate without undertaking the repair required to prevent the mould reoccurring. As such the landlord unreasonably left the household exposed to mould for a significant period of time. At the time the resident brought her case to this Service, the loft insulation was still unresolved. Despite the landlord implementing a damp and mould policy setting out its zero tolerance approach, it failed to act in accordance with this. Instead it left the repair unactioned for over a year and half and did not expedite the works. The landlord’s offer of £560 compensation to acknowledge the impact of this was not proportionate to its failures or the impact on the household.
  19. The landlord’s failures in this case, which left the repair unresolved for at least 17 months and its lack of consideration for the risk of this, amounts to severe maladministration. To acknowledge the impact caused to the resident over this time period, compensation of £1000 has been ordered. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £560. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for severe administration where a resident was impacted over a significant period of time with the landlord not fully recognising its failures.

Compliant handling

  1. The landlord did not provide this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. The version available on its public facing website commenced on 28 June 2024, after the events considered in this investigation.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code), however, states that landlords should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 6 February 2023. It took the landlord 39 working days, until 31 March 2023, to respond at stage 1. This was outside of the timescale provided in the Code. This response advised that works to the insulation would be carried out. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to rely on this assurance.
  4. The works, however, had not been completed by 17 October 2023 and the resident submitted another complaint due to this. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 6 March 2024. This was 98 working days after the resident made her complaint. This was significantly outside of the timescale of the Code of 10 working days. The landlord advised that this delay was due to a staff member leaving. This was not appropriate, as the landlord should have sufficient record keeping systems in place to ensure that workload could be monitored and reallocated in the event of a staff member being unavailable. This response was lacking in detail, with the response to the substantive issue consisting of  one line of text, and as such it was inadequate. This Service expects landlords to undertake a comprehensive investigation into what has gone wrong, why and how it will prevent this from reoccurring. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had done so in this response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 March 2024. As the landlord did not respond to this, the resident subsequently sought the help of this Service. Despite this Service asking the landlord to respond at stage 2 by 16 May 2024, it did not do so until 21 May 2024. It therefore took the landlord 49 working days to respond at stage 2. This was outside of the timeframe of the Code. Again, the landlord advised that the delay was due to a staff member leaving its employment. This was not appropriate. It should have systems in place to track complaints and the responses it has sent. It should be able to clearly ascertain if a complaint is outstanding.
  6. The landlord apologised for the delays in responding to the complaints and offered £200 compensation within its stage 2 response. Whilst an offer of compensation was appropriate, this amount was not proportionate the inconvenience caused to the resident or her time and trouble in chasing responses. The landlord significantly delayed responding to the residents complaints. This impacted on her ability to bring her complaint to this Service and caused frustration. This amounts to service failure. To acknowledge the impact on the resident, this Service has ordered £300 compensation. This takes into account the delays experienced with both of the resident’s complaints and the landlord’s lack of effective complaint recording systems.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
    2. Pay a total of £1300 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £760 and is made up as follows:
      1. £1000 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in responding to the reports of damp and mould.
      2. £300 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    3. Offer the resident support with making an insurance claim if she wishes to pursue this.
  2. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Arrange for a contractor to complete works to the loft insulation.
    2. Carry out a damp and mould survey to identify any other sources of damp and mould. Provide a copy of this report to the resident and this Service. If works are identified, provide a timeframe for completion.
    3. Conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. The review should consider:
      1. The evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the work identified as required to the loft insulation and any missed opportunities there were to action this between December 2022 and May 2024. The landlord should identify what it will change regarding its repair recording and works organisation to prevent a re-occurrence of this issue.
      2. As part of its zero tolerance approach to damp and mould cases, the landlord should show how it will improve its processes and the transparency of decision making when considering if works required to prevent damp and mould should be actioned as responsive repairs or planned works. It should also examine why its new policy on damp and mould was not followed in this case.
      3. How it will improve its processes for maintaining proactive contact with residents whilst works are outstanding and detail any changes it will make.
      4. How it will improve its process for recording and monitoring the progress of complaints, with emphasis on ensuring there is no break in delivery due to staff members leaving its organisation..
      5. How it will deliver staff training regarding the key improvements identified from its review that may improve its future response to similar cases.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to clarify if she wishes to make a complaint in respect of the rotten window sill and rodents in the property.