Islington Council (202321631)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321631

Islington Council

28 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff conduct.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
With regards to the response to her request to be rehoused the resident complained about the banding of her transfer application. Complaints about housing allocations under Housing Act 1996 Part 6 fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This covers applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf). This includes complaints about:
1. Assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
2. Operation of choice-based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes.
The resident’s complaint about rehousing concerned the banding of her housing application, in particular that it did not gain medical priority. The complaint concerns her application for housing under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6 therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the LGSCO. Consequently, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, it is outside the jurisdiction of the Service to consider.

Background and summary of events

Policy and Legal context

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states “As set out in your tenancy agreement, Islington Council is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in repair, including:
1. External walls, external doors, external window frames and sills;
2. Drains, gutters, external pipes;
3. Access paths and steps to individual properties;
4. The roof and chimney (but not sweeping);
5. The internal structure; and
6. External decoration”.

The resident’s tenancy agreement mirrors the Repairs Policy and confirms that the landlord is responsible for these items.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy states with regards to targets:
1. “If it poses an immediate threat and is an emergency we aim to come out to you within two hours.”
2. “If the problem will affect your day to day living significantly, this will be treated as urgent and we aim to come to you within 24 hours.”
3. “If it is a routine repair we aim to come out to you within 20 working days.”
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. 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. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As per Section 11 of the same act, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for making sure the structure and outside of the home and certain parts of the inside, including the inside walls, floors and ceilings are kept repaired. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies an obligation into the tenancy agreement that the landlord must ensure the property is ‘fit for human habitation’ in relation to, by virtue of Section 10 of the same act, ventilation.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
When considering whether the landlord acted reasonably and fairly to reports of damp and mould, the Service considers the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021). This report has provided recommendations for landlords, that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord has a Damp and Mould Procedure which states a damp inspection should initially be carried out within 10 working days. It must “as standard take and record damp meter readings throughout the property ensuring clearly readable photographs are taken of the meter readings. Photographs should also be taken of any identified leaks/repairing issues, extractor equipment or fixtures and heating/thermostat controls as necessary to support the survey and assist with any follow-on repairs. Further dissatisfaction from the resident should “prompt a stage 2 repeat survey”. If the resident remains dissatisfied the case should be reviewed by senior repair staff.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure:
1. Stage 1 – The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated.
2. Stage 2 – The second stage of the complaints procedure gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive.
The landlord’s compensation procedures set out compensation awards of:
1. £25 per month for delays in complaint handling,
2. between £100 and £300 up to £1000 for distress related to complaint handling,
3. between £100 and £300 for time and trouble related to complaint handling,
4. between £500 and £2500 (pro-rata per annum) for disrepair compensation payments depending on the severity of the problem.
The landlord’s Code of Conduct states that employees must always:
1. “show respect for the public and colleagues and behave in a way which cannot reasonably cause offence to anyone.”
2. “exercise self-control – never behave in a loud, aggressive and angry manner, nor use foul and abusive language.”

Summary of Events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her property is a two-bedroom basement flat in a converted street property. The resident has two children. Her tenancy commenced on 14 February 2019 and her rent is £185 per week.
The resident has advised the Service that there has been damp and mould in her property since she moved in. She states this has affected her son’s breathing as he has obstructive sleep apnoea. The landlord’s records stated that she has submitted a transfer application citing damp in the property. The resident has also stated that she submitted a disrepair claim in 2021 due to a burst water pipe following which the landlord carried out some works, including repairing the bathroom replacing the flooring, tiling and caulking and painting in the front room and kitchen.
The landlord raised an order for a damp inspection on 13 March 2023 and attended the resident’s property on 18 March 2023.
1. It noted mould growth in a cupboard in the rear bedroom behind the bathroom (around an uninsulated cold-water pipe). There was also mould in the right rear corner behind stored boxes. and moisture penetration from pavement outside, as a drainage gulley was blocked.
2. In the living room it noted that a skirting board on the right-side flank wall was damp and rotten. Rainwater was getting in through a gap under the door of the neighbour’s external storage cupboard.
The surveyor recommended:
1. insulating the cold-water pipe in the rear bedroom cupboard.
2. cleaning the external gulley.
3. washing the mould in the right-hand corner of the rear wall in the rear bedroom. Once external waterproofing works were completed, the skirting boards in the living room could be renewed.
4. tanking the floor in the storage cupboard that belonged to the neighbour and installing a waterproof door threshold to prevent rainwater getting into to internal area.
5. once the tanking work was completed, re-inspecting the property to confirm the moisture level in the affected areas.
With regards to the works to wash the mould and repair the skirting boards, the landlord’s repair records indicate that it did not take any action until 22 August 2023. The landlord marked the works as complete as the resident advised a contractor on 5 September 2023 that there was no mould. After the landlord made further appointments, the resident advised a contractor who attended on 31 October 2023 that the job had been completed and there was nothing to do.
The landlord’s records state that the tanking of the storage cupboards was completed on 14 June 2023.
On 28 June 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She stated:
1. weeks after moving into the property her son developed obstructive sleep apnoea. There was mould over his belongings and her clothes and shoes.
2. she thought there was rising damp and mould in her property and had been raising this for 4 years. Contractors only covered up the mould; the standard of repairs was very poor.
3. she wanted to be moved from the property.
On 14 July 2023, the landlord sent the stage 1 response:
1. The resident had no housing need points as she was suitably housed.
2. It was very sorry to hear about the damp/mould in her home and the impact on her and her son’s possessions and her son’s health. However, works were carried out after her disrepair claim which included treating damp and mould. The works were signed off and the resident had signed the post-inspection.
3. The resident should claim for damage to personal items under her home insurance, otherwise she could make a public liability claim.
On 22 September 2023, a repairs surveyor inspected the resident’s property for damp and mould. The landlord has not kept a record of the outcome of the visit.
On 27 September 2023 and 3 October 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and asked for her complaint to be investigated at stage 2 of the complaints process. She requested to be moved to a different property, for the mould and damp inside the property to be addressed, to be compensated for the damage to her personal goods and the negative experience with a surveyor who inspected her home to be investigated. She stated that the surveyor sought to blame her for damp telling her she had too “much shit” in her flat. He questioned why her son had a double bed and why she stored items underneath. She also highlighted that that the earlier reports had noted external causes for rising damp.
The landlord renewed the skirting boards on 25 October 2023 and carried out the mould wash on 31 October 2023 according to its repair records.
On 29 November 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. It noted condensation of a window in the rear bedroom, a repair to the window frame in the bathroom and a mould patch in the hall. It also noted “External Drainage stack pipe between bathroom and kitchen windows is leaking on the joints, no evidence internally of any water ingress”. The landlord concluded that the property suffered from excess airborne moisture. It noted that the resident had stated she opened windows but only at the rear due to being a basement flat. The heating could also be used more efficiently, and the radiators needed to be open as the property was cold (14°C) at time of inspection.
On 29 November 2023, the landlord raised an order to renew a corner section of the bathroom window frame and to overhaul the extractor fan.
On 9 December 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response to the complaint:
1. With regards to the resident’s request to be moved to a different property, her circumstances did not meet the criteria for medical priority. Furthermore, there was no medical evidence that her and her children’s medical needs were caused or made worse by her current accommodation. Therefore, she was adequately housed.
2. The landlord noted works raised and carried out after the inspection of 18 March 2023. It noted works had been competed at a surveyor inspection of 22 September 2023 and following a surveyor visit on 29 November 2023:
  1. The works to overhaul the extractor fan were scheduled for 21 December 2023.
  2. The works to renew the corner of the bathroom window frame were scheduled for 8 January 2024.
  3. Repairs to external drainage pipe joints required scaffolding.
3. The conclusions of the report were that there was no damp or mould detected in the living room, bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom. However, in the hallway there was a small mould patch to the right of the door. No water ingress was evident and the property also suffered from excess airborne moisture. It also noted that the resident mentioned that she only opened the rear windows due to being in a basement flat. The surveyor also mentioned that the heating could be used more efficiently, and the radiators needed to be open as the property was cold (14°C) at the time of inspection.
4. With regard to the resident’s health and wellbeing it hoped that the resident could live comfortably in her home once the repairs were carried out. She may wish to contact the landlord’s SHINE service (which provides financial advice).
5. It apologised for the distressing experience the resident had with the surveyor and confirmed his manager had raised the incident with him.
6. The resident could make a claim for damaged belongings on her contents insurance. If she had no insurance she could make a public liability insurance claim against the landlord.
7. It would award £525 compensation which comprised:
  1. £125 – late stage 2 escalation (25 x 5 months, August – December 2023)
  2. £100- poor communication from the council
  3. £200 – distress
  4. £100 – time and effort to complain.
A senior member of staff visited and wrote to the resident on 10 January 2024:
1. He agreed a joint home visit would be conducted at her home by senior officers of the Property Services team and Housing Management. After they would produce a joint report relating to the condition of her home and the property factors which may affect her health and well-being. He would receive this report and would advise her of the outcome of this assessment. A housing management officer would visit her to consider her well-being and support. The Property Services team would investigate the rising damp from the floors and walls as she lived in a basement flat.
2. He apologised to the resident for the behaviour of the surveyors, and she accepted his apology. He agreed to ask a senior member of staff to investigate their “rudeness and falsified comments” although he would not be able to divulge the outcome due to reasons of confidentiality.
3. He agreed that the repair required to the resident’s window needed comprehensive replacement material and not to be filled with adhesive.
On 21 February 2024, the landlord raised an order:
1. to apply mastic sealant around the wet room including a ledge mitre joints and gaps in the floor covering. It completed the works on 8 March 2024.
2. to carry out a 3-stage mould wash treatment to the bathroom, hallway, and bedroom cupboard, and to refit a radiator. It completed the works on 14 March 2024.
On 27 March 2024, the landlord carried out a damp inspection. It concluded, “The main concern in this property is the reoccurring mould growth due to condensation. The resident informs me that she heats and ventilates the property, the evidence noted on my inspection supports this statement. Due the age and construction of this property, the walls are solid brick and the floor is concrete. The resident informs me that personal belongings grow mould growth on them when placed under beds or close to external walls, this will be due to the low temperature of the floors and the solid brick external walls. There were multiple belongings noted in front of radiators which will not assist the situation. Works have already been raised from previous work order issued by …. The only additional item I will raise is the CCTV of the small drain at the front of the property and for a roofer to inspect the asphalt on the stairs outside the property.”
The surveyor who inspected listed the following jobs:
1. “Plumber to check incoming supply pipe near front entrance for leaks under the hall floor. – COMPLETED.
2. Repair leaking joints to rear soil stack – COMPLETED.
3. Hack off and re render front basement wall [left hand side near front entrance] and fill cavity to base of wall to the right of the front entrance door Total 4sqm –OUSTANDING – J3FPKX appointment 3 June 2024.
4. Remove plastic cover to ledge in the wet room shower area and provide additional support to stop the ledge from flexing. Refit plastic cover and renew mastic sealant. 2LM – COMPLETED.
5. Apply mastic sealant to open mitre joints and gaps in wet floor covering in wet room as per photos. – COMPLETED.
6. Carry out woodcare repairs to wet rot affected sill and window to rear bedroom OUSTANDING – J3FPKX appointment 3 June 2024.
7. Renew window putty to rear bedroom window – OUSTANDING – J3FPKX appointment 4 June 2024.
8. Carry out timber care repairs to bathroom window and sill and internal frame – OUSTANDING – J3FPKX appointment 4 June 2024.
9. Re Paint Rear bedroom window internal and external – OUSTANDING – J3FPKX appointment 24 June 2024.
10. Repaint rear bathroom window internal and external – OUSTANDING – 3FPKX appointment 24 June 2024.
11. Hack off damp section of wall plaster to right hand wall in the kitchen near the boiler 2sqm – COMPLETED.
12. Re emulsion previously plastered area in kitchen 3sqm – COMPLETED.
13. Lag supply pipe in rear bedroom cupboard to prevent condensation forming on wall. 3LM OUTSTANDING – J3FPNF appointment 4 June 2024.
14. Re secure loose radiator supply pipe in the lounge – OUTSTANDING – J3FPNF appointment 4 June 2024.
15. Apply mastic to worktop behind kitchen sink 3LM – COMPLETED.
16. Fill gap to top of render finish to rear basement wall behind downpipe – OUTSTANDING J3FPKX appointment 24 June 2024.
17. Paint rendered areas to front elevation – OUTSTANDING J3FPKX appointment 24 June 2024”.
The resident has confirmed to the Service that the landlord has completed the rendering works, the works to rotten wooden window sills, the washing of mould around the pipe in the rear bedroom and the repairs to the waste pipe which was leaking at 3 joints and which was running down to her flat. The landlord is to further inspect on 5 July 2024 and the windows are to be painted that month.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

Although it is noted that the resident has stated that she has reported damp and mould since the start of her tenancy, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2023 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is also limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, which the landlord has had an opportunity to respond to. In this case the landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response of 9 December 2023 then sent a further response of 10 January 2024. Events after these dates have been considered only to place the complaint in its current context and to inform the orders and recommendations on the case. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The Service notes that the resident has stated that damp and mould had a detrimental impact of her son’s health, and appreciates her concern. 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 the 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.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 18 March 2023, which was a Saturday. This showed flexibility and pragmatism in order to meet the resident’s needs. It was also within the timeframe in its damp procedure. However, its record of the visit does not contain readings from instruments or photos, therefore it did not follow its damp procedure fully. The landlord noted water ingress from outside in two separate places which it should have taken photographs of. Without readings and photographs it was unable to show that the inspection was adequately thorough.
The landlord identified works at the inspection of 18 March 2023, but they were not completed in a timely way, within the 20-day timeframe set out in the Repairs Policy. There is no evidence that it insulated the cold-water pipe or cleaned the gully, or that it even raised a repair order for these items. It took 12 weeks to tank and waterproof the storage cupboard. The works to renew the skirting could have been completed immediately after; however, it took a further 4 months before these works were completed. It took over 8 months to carry out a mould wash which would have alleviated the impact of the mould for a period, pending other works. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the landlord was aware that there had been previous reports of damp and mould, and the resident had concerns about the heightened impact on her family. In fact, the landlord’s lack of action here was not inline with its HHSRS and wider obligations.
The delay in the works identified at the inspection of 18 March 2023 indicates that the landlord did not follow up the inspection and lacked oversight of the works identified. No particular individual or team took ownership of the works to monitor progress and ensure completion. This is not consistent with a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould or a commitment to communicate clearly and regularly with residents about actions to tackle damp and mould.
The landlord had the opportunity to review the situation regarding damp and mould in the resident’s property when she made a formal complaint on 28 June 2023. This should have prompted it to identify outstanding works. However, the complaint response focussed on prior works completed following the disrepair claim, and which, in any case, the resident was saying were unsuccessful. This demonstrated a lack of attention to the resident’s complaint and possibly inadequate internal communication between the landlord’s teams as to the status of the resident’s case. Moreover, it failed to recognise the recurrent nature of mould and damp and the obligations under HHSRS to monitor the potential hazard.
The landlord carried out a further inspection on 22 September 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the damp procedure as the resident remained concerned about damp and mould. However, there is no contemporaneous record of the inspection at all which is another record keeping failing. The further inspection of 29 November 2023 was appropriate as its report contained photographs of the resident’s property and of protimeter readings. However, in focussing on airborne moisture due to windows being closed and the temperature of the flat, the landlord put the onus on the resident without evaluating mitigations it could put in place to support the resident.
The landlord relied on the report of 29 November 2023 when responding to the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2023. However, the following month the landlord reviewed its position accepting that a further inspection was needed that also considered how the resident was affected by the condition of her property. The landlord also accepted that the repair identified for the rear bedroom window would not be effective. The landlord subsequently identified a more comprehensive schedule of works after the complaints procedure which included repairs to several windows, rendering works and sealing gaps. This indicates that the landlord’s previous inspections may not have been adequately thorough with it failing to recognise the recurrent nature of the damp and mould and establish the root causes.
In summary, the landlord has not taken a zero tolerance to damp and mould and did not clearly and regularly communicate with the resident about its actions. It did not consistently complete reliable surveys with readings and photographs as required by its damp procedure and expected by this Service. While it identified works it delayed in completing them. In fact, it identified a more comprehensive schedule of works after the complaints procedure indicating that the previous inspections may not have been not adequately thorough. Furthermore, in focussing on airborne moisture due to windows being closed and the temperature of the flat, the landlord put the onus on the resident without evaluating mitigations.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, the Service has considered the resident’s loss of enjoyment over the use of her property over the period of time pertaining to her complaint. This is 18 March 2023 when the landlord initially inspected to 10 January 2024. Although the landlord sent the stage 2 response on 9 December 2023 the landlord revisited the complaint and its response of 10 January 2024 was in effect its final response. Compensation has been calculated as a proportion of the resident’s rent which takes into account that the landlord did carry out some works during this period. This amounts to £20% x £185 x 42 weeks = £1,554.
It is important to acknowledge that the calculation of compensation for loss of enjoyment of amenity is not exact. However, here it is appropriate to make a further order for compensation in light of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and to acknowledge that the issue remains outstanding. The Service recognises that the landlord offered £400 for these factors in its complaint response and orders that it pays the resident this amount. The resident has advised the Service that she has not yet accepted this payment.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving leaks, damp and mould under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Using powers within its Scheme, the Ombudsman produced a learning report for the landlord and made recommendations for service improvement. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with the recommendations made under the paragraph 49 investigation so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of staff conduct

The resident when escalating her complaint stated that the surveyor at the inspection of 22 September 2023 blamed her for damp and mould in her property. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints about staff conduct would be investigated under the usual complaints policy but there is also a separate human resources (HR) Policy which governs these issues. The landlord would therefore be expected to investigate the alleged rude behaviour internally and follow its internal HR process if evidence of misconduct by one of its staff members had been found.
The Service’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen; it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Service takes into account whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case the landlord apologised in its stage 2 complaint response and in the response of 10 January 2024 for the actions of the surveyor at the visit of September 2023. However, it did not acknowledge the details of the resident’s complaint and therefore showed a lack of empathy which was not conducive to improving the landlord-tenant relationship. It did not provide the staff member’s version of events or provide an explanation of the reported actions. Indeed, the response of 10 January 2024 indicates that the landlord had not previously investigated the incident and would only now do so. As such it is not evident that the landlord had followed its complaint procedure for investigating staff complaints before sending the Stage 2 complaint of 9 December 2022. Without investigating the resident’s complaint, the apology was tokenistic and insubstantial. Moreover, as the purpose of the complaints procedure is to put matters right, it was unreasonable that the resident had to pursue the matter further after the stage 2 response before the landlord committed to investigate.
The Service’s Spotlight report specially states that landlords should not automatically apportion blame to tenants who report damp and mould, and that residents should be treated with respect and empathy. Given this guidance, the failure to address the resident’s complaint, which concerned comments about her lifestyle, was especially unreasonable. In particular, there was no acknowledgement that a young child was living in a bedroom with mould or that the resident had stated items had been damaged by mould. By responding in a cursory manner, the landlord did not show appreciation of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the mould and the conduct she described.
In summary while the landlord apologised for the conduct of its staff member in its stage 2 complaint response of 9 December 2023, it did not acknowledge or investigate the details of the resident’s complaint as required by its complaints procedure. As such the response was cursory which was especially unreasonable as the resident had complained that staff member was blaming her for the damp and mould.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord has not taken a zero tolerance to damp and mould and did not clearly and regularly communicate with the resident about its actions. It did not consistently complete reliable surveys with readings and photographs as required by its damp procedure and expected by this Service. Whilst it identified works it delayed in completing them. In fact, it identified a more comprehensive schedule of works in March 2024 indicating that the previous inspections may not have been adequately thorough. Furthermore, in focussing on airborne moisture due to windows being closed and the temperature of the flat, the landlord put the onus on the resident without evaluating mitigations it could put in place to support the resident.
While the landlord apologised for the conduct of its staff member in its stage 2 complaint response of 9 December 2023, it did not acknowledge or investigate the details of the resident’s complaint as required by its complaints procedure. As such, the response was cursory which was especially unreasonable as the resident had complained that the staff member was blaming her for the damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. arrange for a senior member of staff to send an apology to the resident taking into account the guidance of the Service on apologies.
2. pay the resident compensation of £2,004, comprising:
  1. £1,554 for failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould. This is calculated as 20% of the resident’s rent from 18 March 2023 when the landlord initially inspected to 10 January 2024 when it provided the final response to the complaint.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the handling of her request for repairs if it has not yet paid the compensation offered within the complaint procedure.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint about staff conduct.
3. carry out a damp survey of the resident’s property. This should assess the effectiveness of works already completed in relation to the cause of damp and mould. The landlord should document the findings in each room with photos and measurements taken. The results of the survey shall be shared with the resident and this Service.