Lambeth Council (202306177)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306177

Lambeth Council

24 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

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

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority. The leaseholder sub-lets the property. The leaseholder is referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported damp in the property in June and July 2021.
The resident made a formal complaint on 2 October 2021. She said:
1. She had made several complaints via the landlord’s online form but had not received a response.
2. There was an ongoing damp and mould problem in the property which she reported many years ago.
3. In June 2021 she raised a repair request to get the damp and mould investigated, yet when she called to follow-up, the landlord told her it was resolved.
4. She made a follow up repair request to investigate the source of the damp. The landlord sent someone to look at a broken gutter, but the source of the damp had still not been addressed.
In March 2022, the resident arranged a damp inspection. The specialist listed the following issues within the property:
1. Cracked and defective external render causing penetrating damp.
2. Leaking pipes externally.
3. High external ground level.
4. Extensive moss growth against flank walls externally.
5. Inadequate ventilation throughout this property.
6. No extractor fan to kitchen.
7. Extractor fan to bathroom not working.
8. Extensive black mould.
9. Rising damp to all walls.
In April 2022, the landlord instructed a damp specialist to complete a damp survey. In summary, the survey said:
1. All accessible walls were moisture tested and had readings below the prescribed limits, except the chimney breast in the living room where the surveyor obtained high moisture readings.
2. Condensation existed in the property but at the time the surveyor took humidity readings, it was at an acceptable level.
3. The presence of condensation and mould within the property indicated humidity levels were regularly too high, creating conditions conducive to mould growth.
4. There were defective rainwater goods and gullies to the rear of the property and high plinths possibly allowing bridging to occur to the damp proof course.
5. Moss and algae growth was noted to the rear of the property.
6. It was suspected that the chimney pots were not capped which would allow moisture ingress via the flues.
7. The external defects noted were not currently causing internal dampness with exception of the chimney breast in the living room. If left unattended, they may become intrusive to the internal plastered wall surfaces.
8. Once the landlord’s main contractor had rectified the defects, the areas should dry out without the requirement for remedial works.
9. Condensation was at a manageable level and new extractor fans had been fitted to the bedrooms, bathroom, and kitchen to assist in the control of condensation and mould.
10. It recommended the landlord:
  1. Inspect and repair the defective external rainwater goods and drains.
  2. Ensure the chimney pots were capped
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 September 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint.
2. A work order was raised for a damp report which was completed on 16 August 2022.
3. It upheld the complaint in view of the delays.
4. An improvement in its level of communication about the works would have been beneficial.
The resident responded the following day. She said the stage 1 response did not resolve the issue. She asked what the findings were from the damp report and what actions the landlord would be taking.
The landlord attended the property on 20 October 2022 to complete an inspection, including a damp and mould growth checklist. It ordered a CCTV drainage survey.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 October 2022. It provided a copy of the damp survey and said:
1. A surveyor attended the property on 20 October 2022 to inspect and ascertain any outstanding repairs/issues that may be contributing to the damp and mould within the property.
2. The final report following the above inspection was still being compiled. It would raise any relevant work orders once this was completed.
3. It would arrange for a CCTV drainage survey.
4. It had inspected the guttering/external rainwater services.

Events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The landlord raised a work order for a guttering repair in November 2022 and asked for contractors to check if the chimney pots were capped. This was later recorded as cancelled on the landlord’s records.
In January 2024, the landlord raised a work order to repair any defects to rainwater goods (including gullies and drains) and to supply and fit caps to the chimney pots.
The landlord’s records indicate that it erected scaffolding in February 2024 and completed works in March 2024.
In July 2024, the resident told this Service that the damp and mould problem was getting worse within the property.

Assessment and findings

Where a landlord has admitted failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord’s final response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes

Scope of investigation

Within the resident’s complaint, she said she had reported damp and mould to the landlord for years with no response. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner – usually within 6 months of the issue occurring. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address the issues.
After reviewing the evidence available, this complaint considers the landlord’s actions from June 2021 (when the resident reported damp in the property) up to the date of its final complaint response on 28 October 2022.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

The lease sets out that the resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining the demised premises, including the interior plastered wall coverings and other surfaces of the floors and interior walls. The landlord is responsible for all structural parts including the roof, foundations, main timbers and joists, and all walls bounding the demised premises.
The landlord’s homeowner’s guide states the landlord must keep the building in good repair, including the roof, windows, shared drains, gutters and pipes.
Once on notice, the landlord must conduct the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair policy references timescales of up to 90 days for repairs.
The Ombudsman is concerned about the landlord’s record keeping, since the records provided do not include all details of what happened at every appointment. Additionally, it is not clear why the landlord recorded some of the work orders as cancelled when the substantive issue was unresolved. Further, the landlord failed to provide evidence of its communication with the resident regarding this matter.
It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its obligations or kept the resident reasonably updated throughout.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Additionally, we expect landlords to ensure there is effective internal communication between teams and departments and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints/reports relating to damp and mould are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. Based on the information provided to this Service, the Ombudsman finds the landlord did not follow best practice in this case.
Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to conduct an inspection/property visit to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause and decide an appropriate course of action or whether a specialist damp survey was required.
In this case, the resident reported damp in June 2021. From the records available, the landlord did not arrange for a damp specialist to inspect the property until April 2022 – around 10 months later and after the resident had arranged her own inspection. While we are aware the landlord may have been impacted by some of the Covid-19 restrictions, the landlord has not evidenced the reason for the delay or explained its decision making here. This was inappropriate.
When deciding on how best to proceed with a repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. Here, the landlord relied on a report compiled by a damp specialist in April 2022. This report concluded external defects were not currently causing internal dampness with exception of the chimney breast in the living room.
The survey stated that if the landlord left the external defects unattended, they may become intrusive to the internal plastered wall surfaces. Once the landlord’s contractor had rectified the defects, the areas should dry out without the requirement for remedial works. On this basis, no works were specified by the expert at this time. The report also stated that condensation was currently at a manageable level and new extractor fans had been fitted to the bedrooms, bathroom and kitchen to assist in the control of condensation and mould.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman would reasonably expect the landlord to raise the work orders to ensure the chimney pots were capped and to check/repair the rainwater goods within a reasonable period and to set out its position to the resident. The evidence available demonstrates it failed to do so, considering the guttering was not repaired until March 2024 – 2 years later.
The resident informed this Service in July 2024 that the damp and mould was getting worse. The Ombudsman does not have a full record of communication between the landlord and resident. It is noted in the work order history provided, there are no records of reports of damp in the property from April 2022 onwards (although other repairs were raised). Therefore, it is not clear to the Ombudsman whether the resident or her tenants continued to report this to the landlord or experienced further time and trouble pursuing a resolution to the substantive issue.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould within the property. The landlord failed to treat the matter with the urgency it required. It did not evidence that it communicated effectively throughout or adhered to its repairing obligations under the lease within a reasonable period. While it recognised the delays in its service provision, it failed to offer any compensation. Cumulatively, this results in a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
The resident complained on 2 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 355 working days later. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 23 October 2022. It issued its final complaint response 35 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate the landlord kept this complaint open for an unreasonable duration.
The Code expects a landlord to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord must set out the decision on the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made, the details of any remedy offered to put things right and the details of any outstanding actions. Outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident. The landlord failed to do this at both complaint stages. This is a significant complaint handling failure and made the resident feel the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously.
The Code states that landlords must provide early advice to residents regarding their right to access the Housing Ombudsman Service throughout their complaint, not only when the landlord’s complaints process is exhausted. This affords the resident the opportunity to engage with the Ombudsman’s dispute support advisors for impartial advice. In this case, the landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman’s details at stage 1. At stage 2, the landlord provided referral rights to this Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Considering the nature of the complaint, it was inappropriate for the landlord to direct the resident to the LGSCO as it has no jurisdiction in this matter.
Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline specific actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its complaint handling, communication and repairs provision.
After considering the available evidence and the landlord’s obligations under the Code, the Ombudsman is minded it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the complaint handling failures and delays, and the overall impact distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered compensation below.

Determination

Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the property.
Under paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its handling of reports of damp and mould within the property, including the impact of its record keeping.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
3. Contact the resident to arrange a damp survey. In addition to assessing the overall cause of the damp and mould, the surveyor must comment on the following and whether it is contributing to the internal issues:
  1. The condition of the external render.
  2. The condition of external pipework
  3. The level of the external ground.
  4. The external moss growth.
4. The surveyor must also assess whether the walls are affected by rising damp and whether the plinth(s) are causing cold bridging.
Within 3 weeks of receiving the damp survey, the landlord must write to the resident setting out its position. It must clarify what (if any) remedial works it will complete. The landlord must send a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to use its best endeavours to complete works it is responsible for within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.