Lambeth Council (202311129)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311129

Lambeth Council

29 May 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 the landlord’s handling of reports of:
1. Damp and mould in the property.
2. A gas leak in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom property. She lives there with her partner and her young child.
The resident made several reports of damp and mould over a number of years. On 7 December 2022 she requested a damp and mould survey be conducted due to the reoccurring issues. The landlord scheduled a damp and mould wash and a damp and mould survey for 15 December 2022. The resident was unable to make this appointment, and the mould wash was rescheduled for 4 January 2023. It is unclear from the evidence if the survey was rescheduled.
The resident did not allow access for the mould wash on 4 January 2023, as she advised she had arranged her own damp and mould survey. This was completed on 6 February 2023. The survey identified ventilation as a concern in the property. It also noted that there was a damp external wall and a possible leak in the bathroom. The landlord completed a mould wash on 23 February 2023.
The resident raised a complaint on 14 March 2023. She was concerned that the landlord was not taking her reports of damp and mould seriously enough. She advised that a survey had not been completed by the landlord. She also stated that her daughter had contracted a number of respiratory problems. She requested the landlord complete a deep clean, replace the extractor fan, and assess a broken drainpipe. The resident also referenced a gas leak which she stated was not repaired.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 April 2023. It advised that when the resident cancelled the appointment for the mould wash, it rescheduled it for 4 January 2023. However, it could not see that an appointment for a surveyor had been rescheduled. It confirmed that a survey would be done on 4 May 2023.
The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 24 May 2023. She advised that mould washing was not a sufficient remedy to her complaint. She also advised that no survey was completed on 4 May 2023. She raised concerns that the landlord had not acknowledged the survey she had arranged, which had identified possible underlying causes for damp and mould. She also re-raised a possible gas leak, advising that it was unclear if this was remedied. As a result of the leak, she had been without hot water and heating for 7 days during the previous winter.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 27 June 2023. It advised that a mould wash had been raised and should be completed on 7 July 2023. It also advised that a visit for 22 June 2023 had been made to inspect an external pipe. The landlord confirmed there had been no hot water and heating between 13 January 2023 and 17 January 2023.
The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response. She states that the mould is an ongoing problem and that the survey was never completed. She wants a permanent solution to the mould issues, as her husband has now had medical attention due to possible asthma. She has also asked that the money for the survey which she had completed be refunded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

There is evidence that the resident has been reporting mould since at least 2020. However, as per paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not normally consider events which have happened 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. The information is useful for context, however this investigation will only include events from 14 March 2022.

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

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.
The landlord’s damp charter outlines it will inspect properties with damp to diagnose the issue within 28 days of a report. It continues that if a home has persistent damp, a surveyor will act as the resident’s point of contact. They will arrange the necessary work and stay in touch until the works are completed.
A works order was raised on 21 June 2022 for the landlord to treat damp and mould in the property and install an extractor fan with a humidistat. The target date was 30 June 2022. There are no notes to confirm whether the landlord completed this appointment. The landlord should have ensured it responded to the concerns around damp and mould and recorded the outcome of this.
The landlord arranged a survey to be done for damp and mould at the resident’s request. However, when the resident made the landlord aware that she was unavailable for the survey appointment, the landlord should have ensured that it rescheduled the appointment. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that it could not see that the appointment was re-arranged. The landlord failed to investigate the underlying causes of the damp and mould.
The landlord stated in its complaint response that the mould wash was rescheduled for 4 January 2023 and access was refused. This was not noted in the repairs log the landlord provided to the Ombudsman. An appointment on 1 February 2023 was noted as refused as the resident wanted a surveyor to inspect the property. The resident should have been providing access to the landlord. However, due to the lack of records it is unclear what appointments were being raised and what communication was had with the resident prior to attending these appointments.
There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the damp and mould survey that the resident had completed. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord may not have been able to use this survey to inform a schedule of works, however it should have acknowledged the report and the underlying causes mentioned within it. It should have ensured its own survey was completed and works arranged to rectify the ongoing issues.
The landlord completed a mould wash on 23 February 2023 and on 15 April 2023. The resident reported further mould on 21 April 2023 and advised that the extractor fan was not working. It is unclear what action, if any, was taken to rectify the extractor fan.
A works order was noted on 21 and 27 June 2023 for further mould washes to be completed. On 27 June 2023, the landlord noted that there was no access and that it could not contact the resident. Although it is important for the resident to provide access, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord made subsequent attempts to contact the resident, or have the appointment rescheduled. The landlord should have been proactive in its attempts to rectify the mould issue.
The stage 2 response advised a survey would be completed on 22 June 2023. There is no evidence this went ahead. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that on 27 June 2023 she received text messages that a survey was to take place that day, but there was no access. She advised that her partner was home, and no one attended. Later that day she noted that the appointment was marked as complete, despite no one attending. The resident does not know what was completed. The landlord should have communicated when it was going to attend to complete the survey. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of a survey completed by the landlord. The landlord has failed to carry out the actions it promised in it stage 2 response.
The landlord noted on 8 September 2023 that it had re-raised the mould wash from 27 June 2023. This is an unreasonable delay, and the landlord has provided no evidence as to why it took this long. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 25 September 2023 to advise she had not had any further contact for the damp and mould wash.
The landlord completed some mould washes. The Ombudsman recognises that on 2 occasions access was not provided. However, further mould washes were scheduled and either not attended, or insufficient attempts were made by the landlord to ensure the resident was available. It is concerning that the landlord has not taken necessary actions to complete a mould survey. The landlord was made aware of ventilation concerns and of a possible damp external wall. The initial survey appointment was not suitable for the resident, however to date there is no evidence that the landlord has completed a mould survey.
The mould has been noted as being in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom. As the property is a 1-bedroom property, this is a considerable proportion of the home. The landlord was aware there was a young child in the property. The Ombudsman cannot make findings on any health conditions, however on becoming aware that the child was experiencing respiratory issues, the landlord should have considered the possible risk of mould exposure.
There is no evidence throughout the time period of the investigation that supports that the landlord was taking sufficient action to comply with the HHSRS requirements, or its commitments from its own damp and mould charter.
Due to the lack of action by the landlord in dealing with the mould and the underlying causes, and the impact this may have had on the resident over a prolonged period of time, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
Due to the loss of enjoyment of the home, a compensation award has been made based on 30% of the rent from 21 June 2022 until the date of this report. The date has been chosen as this is the first event the Ombudsman has considered for this investigation. As per the scoping paragraph we cannot consider events prior to this time. The percentage has been awarded due the damp and mould affecting a large part of the property. We recognise that the rooms were being used, however there was a significant loss of enjoyment due to ongoing concerns of mould in the property. The total amount is £4,170.
We recognise that the resident has requested that the independent survey be reimbursed. Although the resident felt it was necessary to complete her own survey, the landlord was not given an opportunity to consider this request. As such the Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate to refund the survey amount.
The Ombudsman considers a payment for distress and inconvenience should be made. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and in recognition of the length of time and the distress this matter may have caused the resident, £1,000 has been awarded.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a gas leak

On 13 January 2023, the landlord noted that the boiler was capped as it was unsafe. A gas leak was identified on 14 January 2023 and the repairs notes stated that a repair was needed. It identified a part that needed to be ordered. On 18 January 2023, another engineer visited the property and stated that there was no gas leak. It did not make any mention of the part which was previously referenced. The landlord advised it restored the hot water and heating on this day.
The resident recalled the above events as happening in December 2022. In her complaint to the landlord, she stated that she was without hot water and heating for a week before anyone came out. She stated that when the second contractor came out, she overheard a phone call in which the contractor was informed the part had not been purchased and would be expensive. The contractor then looked at the pipework and advised there was no gas leak. The landlord’s and resident’s account of events differ.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. The stage 2 confirmed that a part was identified as needed on 14 January 2023. It stated that the repair was completed on 18 January 2023. However, this does not match the repairs notes.
Although the contractor stated that there was no leak on 18 January 2023, it is understandable why the resident had concerns regarding the repair. The repairs notes do not explain why a repair was initially identified and subsequently not required. The landlord’s response also does not address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord provided a temporary heater on 16 January 2023 at the resident’s request. It was positive that the landlord provided this, however best practice would have been to offer this on the first day there was no hot water and heating, given there was a young child in the property.
The Ombudsman recognises that the period of time the resident did not have access to the boiler was only 6 days. However, it also notes that this was during the winter. The landlord has not offered any compensation and has not been able to evidence why the hot water and heating was off during this time. It has also failed to provide the resident with reassurance that the repair was fully completed. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a gas leak.
The Ombudsman considers £100 to be an appropriate level of compensation. This is due to the short period of time the resident was impacted, whilst also recognising the distress that may have been caused by the inadequate response from the landlord. The landlord should take action to ensure the affected pipe is safe and provide reassurance to the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 27 working days. The landlord did not meet the timescales in its policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 23 working days. This is out with the timescales, but the delay was minimal.
In its stage 1 response the landlord did not fully address all the concerns raised by the resident. This could have caused the resident to become frustrated. The landlord promised that a surveyor would attend on 4 May 2023 as part of the resolution. This did not happen, and the landlord made no reference to this in its stage 2 response. The landlord should have been reviewing the case as a whole and ensuring that its final response covered all issues raised by the resident.
The landlord’s policy states that where a complaint is upheld, it should consider what can be done to put things right, and where lessons can be learned. Although the landlord mentioned in its stage 2 response that by investigating complaints, it can improve its service, it has failed to identify any specific lessons learned for the resident’s case. It also failed to provide an apology or acknowledge its failings in how it had handled the resident’s case.
As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s record keeping.

As noted throughout the report, there have been incidences where the evidence has been insufficient to fully understand what actions the landlord was taking. The landlord should be ensuring that its records are clear and easy to follow so that it understands what is happening at any point during a repairs case.
There are events which have been referenced by the landlord in its complaint responses, which are not noted in the repairs log. The landlord should be ensuring that information is stored in a place which is accessible to the relevant staff, to allow it to progress repairs appropriately.
The Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of a gas leak within the property.
2. Complaints handling.
3. Record keeping.

Orders

The landlord’s chief executive is ordered to apologise to the resident for the significant failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to pay £5,420 in compensation. This is made up as:
1. £4,170 for the loss of enjoyment to the property.
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience in respect of the handling of damp and mould.
3. £100 for the handling of reports of a gas leak within the property.
4. £150 for complaints handling.
The landlord is ordered to send a gas safe engineer to inspect the pipe and ensure that it is operationally safe.
The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders with 4 weeks of this report being issued.
The landlord is ordered to complete a damp and mould survey and produce a schedule of works to rectify any underlying causes for the damp and mould. The landlord should ensure it communicates this clearly to the resident, setting out timescales for works to be completed and ensuring that consideration is given to any urgent action required. A copy of the programme of works must be shared with the resident and the landlord within 8 weeks of this report.
The Ombudsman recently issued a severe maladministration finding for a separate damp and mould case, reference 202317574. An order was made in accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, for the landlord to:
1. “Initiate and complete a senior management review into the issues identified in this case. This is to identify where it got things wrong and what steps it can take to ensure a similar situation does not re-occur. As part of this, it should consider whether its damp and mould processes are fit for purpose, and that staff are aware of the paramount importance when dealing with damp and mould cases. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman.”
2. The landlord is ordered to extend the review to include this case. The case review is to include consideration of the record keeping failures identified and any actions it needs to take to improve staff training in relation to record keeping. It should also consider how it can ensure that staff can access relevant documents when dealing with repairs cases and complaints. This should be completed and sent to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.