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

Islington Council (202322636)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322636

Islington Council

9 July 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. She lives in a 2 bed second floor flat with her partner and 3 sons aged 16, 13 and 10 at the time of the complaint. The resident and her partner share 1 bedroom and her sons share the remaining bedroom between them.
  2. In November 2022, the resident reported mould in the property. She said it had been treated many times previously but had returned and was affecting the family’s health and belongings. A damp survey was completed in January 2023, which confirmed surface condensation mould. No damp was present. The survey concluded the mould was due to overcrowding and a lack of ventilation and heating. The landlord recommended mould treatment, but in March 2023, it advised belongings would need to go into storage so the work could be done and said it could arrange temporary accommodation if the family had nowhere to stay during the work. The resident raised concerns regarding temporary accommodation stating the treatment would be a short-term fix.
  3. In May 2023, the resident raised a complaint about the situation. She said they needed a permanent move to suitable accommodation. The resident asked for additional welfare and decant points due to the major works. The landlord did not respond, and the resident submitted another complaint on 5 June 2023.
  4. The landlord responded on 20 June 2023, in which it said the previous complaint had been managed as a service request. It confirmed the mould treatment was not considered as major works therefore decant points were not applicable. It said the work could be done with the family in situ, but it understood this was not practical. Although temporary accommodation had been offered, this was refused as the resident thought a permanent move was more suitable. The landlord said the work had been cancelled due to issues with furniture storage and confirmed the offer of temporary accommodation was still available. The shortage in the desired accommodation was explained and the landlord advised a move may not happen imminently. It confirmed the resident’s application for medical points had been assessed but no additional points were awarded. The complaint was not upheld.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 June 2023. She was unhappy with the decision not to award major work points and welfare points.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 2 August 2023. It confirmed the work to the property would take less than 2 weeks and did not fall under the major work category so the resident would not qualify for extra re-housing points. It confirmed welfare points would not be applicable as there was no evidence of any ‘at-risk person’ in the property. It advised the bathroom mould could be treated with the family in situ and someone would contact her to arrange the work. The landlord asked the resident to consider the temporary move as the other work could not be done without the family moving into alternative accommodation. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.

Post completion of the complaint

  1. The resident said an operative attended the property in November 2023, but said he could not do the work alone. Further offers of temporary accommodation, including a hotel, were made. In December 2023, the landlord confirmed a management transfer had been agreed. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the mould treatment has been completed, but she remains concerned it will only be a temporary fix due to the overcrowding issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “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.” An element of the complaint concerns the allocation of priority points for bidding on the housing register. The management of a housing register is a statutory function of the local authority and would come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, this Service will not investigate this aspect of the complaint. The resident has been provided with information on how she can raise this matter with the LGSCO.
  2. The resident has stated the ongoing issues have impacted the health of the family. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Should the resident wish to pursue this, she should obtain legal advice regarding a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Damp and mould

  1. As the resident had not reported damp or mould in the 6 months prior to late 2022, the landlord acted in line with its procedure and raised a request for a damp survey. While no damp was found in the property, the necessary requests were made for mould treatment. The landlord confirmed the mould was due to “excess occupants in the property and large furniture against external walls which restricted airflow”. However, it did not suggest the family needed to move out to allow the work, or that furniture needed to be moved.
  2. Although, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this should have been noted during the initial visit, this was highlighted in a visit shortly after on 23 January 2023. Due to the nature of the work and the timescale involved, the landlord made an offer of temporary accommodation and support in moving furniture. It also noted that following the visit on 23 January 2023, the landlord asked for the treatment to be accelerated. The Ombudsman finds the actions and offers from the landlord reasonable.
  3. With no further action or update, the resident had to spend time and effort contacting the landlord. Although it confirmed it had chased the repairs and was waiting for the surveyor’s report, there is no evidence of further pro-active contact with the resident. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable as the resident should not be expected to chase the landlord for updates. The internal records do indicate the landlord enquired about the increase in re-housing points but was told no further points would be awarded. Although not within the scope of this investigation, this demonstrates the pro–active work of the landlord in trying to support the resident.
  4. When the resident missed an appointment on 13 February 2023, she told the landlord she had been unaware of the appointment. She asked for information as to how the work would be done, who would move the furniture, and how long it would be before the rooms could be accessed afterwards. While this was a reasonable request, the landlord did not respond until 6 March 2023, which considering the impact the situation was having on the family, was unreasonable. It was at this point that the landlord made a second offer of temporary accommodation and support in removing the furniture.
  5. It took until 17 April 2023 for the resident to receive a call about the planned mould treatment, but the member of staff was unaware that furniture needed moving. This raises concern regarding internal communication and record keeping as there had been clear discussions and offers made around this issue. The resident asked if the work could be done in the bathroom while decisions were made on the re–housing but was told this had to be done in all rooms. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this approach was unreasonable, particularly when in the final complaint response, it was agreed that the work could be completed in the way the resident had requested.
  6. The resident was still chasing progress at the end of April 2023. She reiterated the impact the situation was having on her family’s physical and mental health. The landlord asked if she was still refusing a temporary move and explained they could move back once completed and it would be mould free. The resident confirmed her concerns around the temporary move, and again asked if the bathroom could be treated while she was waiting to hear about re–housing. The Ombudsman finds it unreasonable that the landlord did not respond to this further request regarding the bathroom. The resident was inconvenienced further and had to invest more time and effort chasing the landlord for updates throughout May 2023.
  7. At the end of May 2023, a major works transfer application was rejected by the landlord. It confirmed the work was not categorised as major works and could be done during a temporary move. Due to the nature of work required, the Ombudsman finds this decision reasonable. While a further survey of the property was requested and completed, it returned the same findings as the one completed in January 2023. It is unclear from the evidence why this was required if the transfer had been rejected, and if the reasoning was explained to the resident, who was inconvenienced further by the additional visit.
  8. In August 2023, the landlord provided its final complaint response, at which point no treatment had been completed. It confirmed again the work was not classed as major and would take less than 2 weeks. It said that works could be done to the bathroom, and someone would contact the resident “shortly”. It explained that to effectively treat the other rooms, it would be better for the family to move temporarily. The landlord asked the resident to take this into consideration while deciding on a way forward.
  9. After the landlord’s final complaint response, it is evident that work did not progress for several months. Although further offers of temporary accommodation and support with storage were made, the resident repeated her concerns and request for a permanent move. A management transfer was requested in November 2023 – this was approved and communicated to the resident on 6 December 2023 (points were added for her re-housing application accordingly). It is not clear what triggered the landlord to reconsider a management transfer and why it reversed its earlier stance. However, the Ombudsman has not established any failings in the landlord’s decision not to award major works or management transfer points when it considered this earlier in 2023. While the resident has confirmed that the property has now been treated, this Service was not provided with any evidence to confirm if the family moved temporarily to allow the work to proceed and when this was carried out.
  10. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The decision to reject the major work transfer was reasonable but the landlord could have completed the treatment in the bathroom earlier than it did. This would have helped the family somewhat and demonstrated that the landlord was pro-actively trying to resolve the problem.
  11. With evidence of poor communication and delays in providing updates, the resident was inconvenienced unnecessarily in having to contact the landlord on a regular basis which in turn is likely to have increased her frustration. Further confusion, delays and poor record keeping faults were apparent when the landlord was making calls regarding the work but was unaware of the full situation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the failures identified should be recognised in the form of compensation being awarded to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of the report.

Associated complaint

  1. The resident submitted a complaint on 9 May 2023, but did not receive a response. The landlord confirmed it had treated this as a service request. While this may have been the case, there is no evidence to show the landlord confirmed this or discussed the approach with the resident. Regardless of its decision, as the resident completed an online complaint form, the landlord should have communicated its intentions to the resident. Due to the lack of communication, the resident believed her complaint was ongoing and was inconvenienced by chasing a response. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable, and this raises concerns with the landlord’s complaint management and communication with the resident.
  2. The lack of response led to the resident raising a further complaint on 5 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint within its policy timescale. It demonstrated a thorough investigation by looking for service failures for the previous 12 months. It included its actions and findings from the investigations and confirmed the position on the major work points request. The landlord confirmed its attempts of offering temporary accommodation and help with storage and said it had completed a management transfer request. It is however noted that this was a major work transfer request and not a management move request. This highlights an inaccuracy in the landlord’s response and may have caused confusion to the resident. Notwithstanding this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord showed empathy and understanding of the resident’s situation and set clear expectations regarding how long it may take for a suitable property to become available.
  3. The landlord failed to provide its final complaint response within the policy timescales. Although not excessive, there is no evidence of the landlord communicating the delay and an estimated response date to the resident. Considering the landlord’s knowledge of the impact the situation was having on the resident, the Ombudsman finds the lack of communication unreasonable.
  4. The landlord appropriately confirmed the position it took on the major works and related points and the attempts made to move the family temporarily to allow the work to progress. It advised someone would contact the resident to arrange the bathroom treatment, however it made no commitment to monitor progress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.
  5. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord was inconsistent in complying with the complaint policy timescales, and there was no communication regarding the delays. The responses were thorough but did not identify any failures with the substantive issue, or the complaint handling.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed to monitor the situation to ensure it completed the mould treatment work as soon as possible. Consequently, there is no evidence of when or how the treatment was done, making it difficult to confirm how long it took the landlord to complete the work. To that end, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in acknowledgement of the failures identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failings identified in the report and confirms how it will improve relevant service delivery for similar cases in future.
    2. Pay the resident £250 for the delays in completing the treatment to the bathroom, the delays in communication and for the inconvenience experienced by the resident.
    3. Pay the resident £200 for the lack of communication regarding the complaint handling.
    4. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset any rent arrears that may be owed.
  2. As per the landlord’s offer in its complaint response, it should schedule in regular visits to the property in which it will monitor the success of the mould treatment completed. This should be communicated with the resident so she is aware of when these visits will take place.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm compliance with the orders above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider delivering refresher training for staff responsible for complaint management. This should include the importance of clear communication to residents on when a complaint will be treated as a service request.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should confirm to this Service, its intentions towards the recommendation made.