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

Lambeth Council (202337739)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337739

Lambeth Council

23 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 reports of damp and mould.
  2. The investigation will also consider the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. He lives with his partner and 3 children in a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy commenced on 27 October 2008. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the family.
  2. The resident reported mould in the bathroom in October 2022. He washed this down but told the landlord the ceiling and walls needed scraping and plastering before being painted. He contacted his councillor who sent the landlord a ‘members enquiry’ on 25 November 2022, in which they asked for urgent treatment. The landlord’s response on 7 December 2022 confirmed an appointment had been made for mould treatment on 13 January 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 7 December 2022 as he said it was not the first time the mould growth had happened. He suggested this may be due to a leak from above.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 27 January 2023. It confirmed a contractor had been instructed to complete the necessary work on 13 January 2023. The landlord said it hoped this would be a lasting repair, but if it returned, a survey may be needed. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and advised the resident he could appeal the decision.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 July 2023 asking for an update. He said the last communication received said the complaint was being investigated at stage 1 but there had not been any follow up. The landlord responded and confirmed the mould wash had been completed and suggested if the problem had returned, to make contact and request an inspection from a surveyor. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 2 August 2023. He said the repairs had been done, but the escalation was due to the impact and inconvenience the issue had on his family.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 12 January 2024. He said his complaint had been at stage 1, but he was expecting compensation due to the time taken for the landlord to attend and for the impact on his family’s health. This Service wrote to the landlord to advise of the resident’s contact. As evidence of the escalation had been seen, the landlord was asked to provide a response by 12 February 2024.
  7. The landlords final response was sent on 14 February 2024. It confirmed an order to complete a mould wash had been raised with a target date of 16 February 2024. It said that it had asked if a surveyor could inspect the property, but the dates offered had been rejected by the resident.
  8. On 28 February 2024, the resident contacted this Service. He advised the landlord had attended that day without an appointment, and as only his daughter as present, no access was granted. The resident confirmed he wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to investigate and treat the damp and mould in the property and to award compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience.

Post complaint process

  1. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord sent a representative to his property at the end of June 2024. The resident told this Service that the landlord is carrying out further work in the corridors to prevent water absorption to the concrete. This Service has asked the landlord to provide an update on the situation, however this information has not been received. It is therefore not known if the root cause of the damp and mould has been identified and what action the landlord is taking to rectify this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to historical issues linked to damp and mould in the property. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. The scope of the investigation will therefore be limited to the 6 months prior to the complaint being submitted in November 2022.
  2. The resident also referred to the impact the issues have had on the health of the family, particularly his daughter.  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. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s records show the resident reported mould in the bathroom on 27 October 2022. There is no evidence to confirm an appointment date was given to the resident and this led to him contacting the landlord on 9 November 2022 for an update. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable as the landlord should have a process whereby appointment dates are provided to the resident. The resident should not be inconvenienced by having to contact the landlord for this information.
  2. The landlord has not provided any contact logs from when the resident reported the repair, therefore it is unclear if any health concerns were raised at that time. The Ombudsman has seen an email dated 18 November 2022 from the resident in which he asked the landlord for an update following the visit to the property. He also informed the landlord of his daughter’s health, stating she was allergic to mould, and this was causing reactions. There is no evidence of the visit to the property, or any evidence to suggest the landlord considered the health concerns by trying to bring the appointment forward.
  3. It was at this time that the resident involved his councillor who then sent a request to the landlord for the “terrible mould in the home”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the above issues raise several concerns, including the landlord’s record keeping and communication, but also its lack of empathy and understanding of the impact of the situation, and the lack of urgency placed upon the repairs. There is also concern that the landlord had not taken onboard the information and recommendations highlighted in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould which was published in October 2021.
  4. It appears from the landlord’s records that it attended the property on 6 December 2022, marking it a routine repair with a 28 working day response time. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s repair and mould policy which states it will prioritise the removal of mould with the initial wash and treatment being carried out within 7 days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not react appropriately, particularly given the resident had advised of a potentially vulnerable situation.
  5. The landlord’s repair records suggest the resident had tried to wash the mould away himself, however further work was required, and decorations were arranged for 13 January 2023. Although this is the information that was relayed to the resident and the councillor, the repair records suggest this was actually arranged for 23 and 24 February 2023. The repair records provided as evidence do not clearly indicate at which point the repairs were completed, however when the landlord attended again on 24 February 2023, its notes confirmed all repairs were completed and the resident was happy.
  6. The resident approached the landlord again in late July 2023 and the landlord told him that he could request an inspection. Given the resident had continued to raise concern about the health impact of mould in the property, the frequency of previous reports of this nature and that it was apparently aware of a leak elsewhere in the block, the landlord should have been more pro-active at this point and arranged a damp inspection. This was not offered until February 2024.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. There is evidence of poor communication from the landlord which led to the resident investing unnecessary time and effort into chasing for updates, while also feeling the need to involve his councillor. There was evidence of poor record keeping linked to visits to the property, and unclear repair records. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould made several recommendations which (although not exclusively) focussed on communication with residents and ensuring responses to damp and mould are timely and reflected the urgency of the issue.
  8. The landlord did not demonstrate behaviours which support these recommendations. It was made aware of a health concern linked to the issue reported shortly after the repair was reported, yet there is no evidence it considered this by trying to bring the appointment forward or by completing an assessment to highlight the need for urgent attention. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was a lack of empathy and understanding throughout from the landlord with no acknowledgement as to how the mould had affected the resident and his family. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable, although it is now carrying out more in-depth work to investigate the cause.
  9. As below, an order of compensation has been made to reflect the failures identified. The Ombudsman has found failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould through recent investigations (for instance, under case reference 202311129) and orders have been made for it to review how it deals with damp and mould and record-keeping processes. Such orders have therefore not been repeated in this case.

The associated complaint

  1. The resident first raised his concerns via his local councillor on 25 November 2022 and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, he received a response within a reasonable time. However, the resident was not happy with the response, and he raised a complaint with the landlord on 7 December 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the landlord’s acknowledgement of receipt, or an indication being given as to when it would respond. This is not in line with the complaint policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) which states a complaint must be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. This is a service failure of the landlord and raises concern regarding its complaint management.
  2. The stage 1 response was provided after 34 working days, which is not compliant with the policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay, which it said was due to an increase in correspondence which had affected timescales. While this may have been the case, it is expected that the landlord communicates such delays to the resident – there is no evidence of this.
  3. The January 2023 stage 1 response told the resident the complaint “is being handled” as a stage 1. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s use of language open to misinterpretation and may have led the resident to believe his complaint was open and ongoing. The Code includes a guide as to what should be included in the response letter. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the response was limited in information, and did not demonstrate a thorough investigation. By only providing a date for the proposed treatment, the landlord failed to address the issues raised by the resident or provide confirmation as to what it had done previously to resolve the problem. The landlord did not show any empathy or understanding to the situation or how it may have affected the resident or his family. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  4. Although the response confirmed the resident could ask for a review, it did not state how long he had to request this. The landlord’s policy states a complaint will be closed after 10 working days unless it hears otherwise, but this was not reflected in the information given to the resident. The lack of clarity led to the resident requesting an escalation of the complaint on 2 August 2023. He confirmed the repairs had been completed, but he was not happy with the response regarding the impact the issue had on his family. There is no evidence of this escalation being acknowledged, and it took the involvement of this Service in January 2024, for the landlord to provide a response. The lack of acknowledgement meant the landlord was not clear on why the complaint was escalated and what the resident wanted as a resolution. The Ombudsman finds this unreasonable.
  5. The landlord’s final response was sent on 14 February 2024, 6 months after the escalation was initially requested. This far exceeds the policy timescale of 25 working days and was unreasonable. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns.
  6. Overall, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy and failed to recognise and process the escalation when requested. The landlord failed to demonstrate a timely or appropriate investigation and subsequently failed to respond to the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not address, apologise, or compensate the resident for its failure to respond to the escalation request, nor did it address the inconvenience of the resident who had to contact this Service for help in progressing the case. The Ombudsman finds the lack of ownership, accountability and resolution displayed unreasonable. Due to the findings, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that compensation should be paid to the resident. Further information can be found in the orders section of the report.

Determination

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

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology for the failings identified within the report.
    2. Pay the resident £350 for the failures identified with the management of the damp and mould.
    3. Pay the resident £250 for the complaint handling.
    4. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears that may be owed.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide an update to the resident and this Service as to how it intends to resolve the recurring issue with damp and mould in the property, including the result of any inspections to the building that it undertook last month. For any work required in the resident’s property or in the communal areas, it should provide him with a clear action plan, including a timetable of appointments to ensure access arrangements can be made.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence that it has complied with the orders within the specified timescale.

Recommendations

  1. Following the completion of all the repairs, the landlord should consider monitoring the resident’s property on a regular basis to ensure the damp and mould issue has been resolved.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should update its stage 1 complaint response letters to include a timeframe as to when an escalation can be requested by the resident.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide this Service with confirmation on its intensions against the recommendations made.