Lambeth Council (202338837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338837

Lambeth Council

28 November 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of a window replacement.
3. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat. The resident resides with her husband and 3 children. The resident has told this Service that her husband has cancer, and her children suffer from allergies to mould and are asthmatic. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded on its systems for any members of the household.
On 28 December 2022, the landlord raised an order to replace the hallway window. This was following a report back from its contractor that the existing window was irreparable. The landlord noted that the resident advised she had waited over 2 years for it to repair the window.
On the same day, the resident reported that there was damp and black mould in the hallway and bedrooms. The landlord raised a job for its surveyor to complete an inspection. This took place on 8 February 2023. Following the inspection, the surveyor raised a job to carry out mould treatment throughout the property. They also outlined the need for the landlord to check all water services and conduct a roof inspection. The surveyor’s notes also refer to issues with the fanlight windows but there is limited information with regards to what work was needed.
On 1 March 2023, the landlord raised another job to replace the hallway window. The repair log referred to the landlord previously raising the job under a different works order.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord’s contractors attempted to complete a mould wash. However, the resident refused the contractors access as she wanted the window replacement works to take place. On 3 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the works. She advised that despite mould washes, the issue remained unresolved with damp and mould. She asked that the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend so the cause of the damp and mould could be determined.
The resident raised a complaint via telephone on 23 October 2023 as she was unhappy with the time that it was taking the landlord to respond to her concerns.
On 23 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said that it had spoken to the window contractors, and it would contact the resident within 2 weeks to schedule the window replacement. It said the delay was due to the contractors needing dry weather to complete the window installation. The landlord did not address the damp and mould issues in its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 November 2023. She said that she had waited several years for the repairs to be done, and the delays were having a detrimental impact on her family’s health. The resident asked for compensation for the time she had spent chasing repairs, and the time she had taken off work when the landlord failed to attend scheduled appointments. As part of her escalation, the resident provided the landlord with photographs evidencing the mould in the property.
On 24 January 2024, the landlord conducted an inspection. It noted damp and mould throughout the property and recommended that the landlord complete the following work;
1. Complete mould washes to areas in 3 bedrooms, the kitchen, bathroom and hallway.
2. Renew the loft hatch and its surroundings in hallway ceiling.
3. Overhaul 5 windows affected by condensation.
4. Conduct a roof inspection due to water ingress and clear the guttering.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 January 2024. It apologised for the delayed response, and said it was due to waiting for information back from the surveying team. Regarding the window replacement, it acknowledged that the resident had chased this up on 22 November 2023. However, contractors had confirmed on 23 January 2024 that it had fitted the new window.
With regards to the damp and mould, the landlord advised that it had scheduled to carry out a mould wash on 13 February 2024. The landlord also said that on 23 January 2024, its surveyor had requested to conduct an inspection. It said that it would contact the resident shortly to arrange that. It apologised for the delays that the resident had experienced and offered £150 compensation.
The resident remains dissatisfied as she does not believe that the landlord understood the significant distress and frustration caused by the damp and mould and replacing the window. She also does not consider the compensation reflects the extent of the inconvenience and discomfort endured. Nor does it cover the financial loss experienced due to mould damaging clothes, furniture and personal belongings.
On 6 November 2024 we asked the landlord to provide an update on the status of the repairs raised following the damp and mould inspection. It advised the following:
1. It completed a mould wash on 13 March 2024.
2. It conducted a roof inspection and cleared the resident’s gutters on 2 April 2024.
3. The replacement of the loft hatch and overhaul of the windows have not been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident has reported that issues with damp and mould have been longstanding, dating back to 2018. In addition, she had been waiting for window repairs/a replacement for over 2 years. This is not disputed by the landlord. However, 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 12 months of the matters arising.
This means this Service will not normally consider events that have happened more than 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported issues from December 2022, as detailed above, to the landlord’s final complaint response in January 2024.
The resident referenced in her communication with the landlord and this Service that the delays in resolving the damp and mould had affected hers and her family’s physical health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these concerns, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route.
This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance. This Service will also consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.

Damp and mould.

Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord 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 pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report notes that it is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period. If damp and mould is not dealt with at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident and can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
The landlord operates a repairs and damp policy. The policy outlines that the landlord prioritises the removal of mould with an initial wash and treatment within 7 days. The policy also says that the landlord aims to inspect and diagnose the causes of damp within 28 days. Following inspection, it will agree a remedy and write to the resident with an action plan and timeframes. It will also allocate a dedicated surveyor where there is a persistent issue.
The landlord conducted an initial inspection on 8 February 2023. This was 43 days after the resident reported the damp and mould. It subsequently arranged to complete a mould wash on 23 May 2023. This was 105 days after it completed the inspection.
The inspection and first attempt at action took place significantly outside the timeframes outlined within the landlord’s policy and is unreasonable. The reason for the delay is also unclear from the evidence that has been provided to this Service.
The inspection also flagged the need to inspect the water services and the roof. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. The contemporaneous evidence relating to the inspection is brief. It would be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it creates a clear and detailed record of what has been observed during an inspection. It would also be appropriate for the landlord to ensure that details of any further investigation and work required are recorded at the time. Recording such information helps to ensure that works are progressed in a timely manner and that there is clarity about what repairs and/or investigations are required. That such detail had not been recorded is a record keeping failing.
This Service acknowledges that the resident initially refused access to contractors to complete the mould wash. It is accepted that this caused further delays in addressing the visible mould. The resident’s reasons for declining the mould wash are understood. Further, it does not detract from the significant delays that she had already experienced. There is also no evidence that the resident refusing access caused any delays in the landlord determining the cause of the damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023 to request a further inspection to determine the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord attempted to contact the resident via telephone but received no response. The landlord’s notes say that the resident would need to call again to book an inspection. This was inappropriate. The landlord had already been put on notice of the damp and mould, and it had a duty to investigate and resolve.
The resident’s complaint escalation on 24 November 2023 prompted the landlord to take further action to investigate the damp and mould. In her escalation, the resident shared her concerns about the detrimental impact that damp and mould could be having on her husband’s and children’s health.
The landlord inspected the property again on 24 January 2024; 62 days after the resident escalated her complaint. This is again, significantly outside the timescales outlined within its repairs and damp policy. The reasons for the delay are unclear from the evidence, and there is nothing to suggest that it was unavoidable. Furthermore, the landlord knew that damp and mould had been an issue for over a year. It is well known that untreated damp can cause structural damage to a property, and lead to mould growth. Untreated mould can lead to respiratory infections and cause serious detriment to a person’s health. The length of time that the issue had been present should have given the landlord cause to act with urgency and proactively investigate the issue. It is concerning that it took the resident’s complaint to prompt the landlord to take further action. This Service does not expect that residents should need to raise complaints to have outstanding repairs addressed by the landlord.
The inspection identified required repairs, as outlined in the above background. The landlord completed a mould wash on 13 March 2024. This was 50 days after the inspection. This was unreasonable and caused the resident further distress. The landlord has provided no explanation for why a quick time action, expected to take place within 7 days of an initial report, took so long to complete. From the evidence provided, this further departure from policy was not unavoidable.
The landlord has said it inspected the resident’s roof. It confirmed that it had cleared the gutters, applied a liquid coating to the roof and flash banded. While not definitively clear, it appears the landlord completed this work by 2 April 2024. It is unclear why this took nearly 3 months to complete following the inspection.
The replacement of the roof hatch and overhaul of windows impacted by condensation remains outstanding. This was 10 months after the landlord completed a second inspection. It is highly concerning and inappropriate that this work remains outstanding. The landlord has not provided the resident or this Service with an expected timeframe for the work to be completed, nor has it evidenced that it is actively chasing completion of the work with its contractors. This has undoubtedly caused the resident further distress and frustration. The landlord has failed to complete necessary repairs identified to resolve damp and mould in the property, which has been an increasing problem for a considerable length of time. This is a significant failing.
It is unclear if the resident shared specific details with the landlord regarding her husband’s and/or her children’s physical vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, she shared that the damp and mould was having a detrimental on their health. This should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident. It should have also ensured that its internal systems were up to date with relevant information with regards to any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. Its failure to do was inappropriate.
The landlord offered £150 compensation in its stage 2 response. The landlord failed to provide a breakdown of its compensation offer. A breakdown would have helped to demonstrate how the landlord had determined the level of compensation it offered. It would have also demonstrated that it had given full and proper consideration to each element of the complaint and offered a proportionate amount. Nevertheless, based on the evidence available, and with reference to our remedies guidance, this offer was insufficient and does not reflect the significant delays experienced, and the distress, inconvenience and discomfort endured by the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore made a new order of compensation that replaces the landlord’s original offer.
Overall, the landlord has failed to resolve the resident’s damp and mould issues appropriately or promptly, resulting in the resident experiencing ongoing distress, inconvenience and significant frustration. It failed to act in accordance with its repairs and damp policy. There were significant departures from the timescales set out within both policies and the reasons for the delay are unclear from the evidence. The landlord additionally failed to identify the root cause of the issue within a reasonable period, and as such, it has been unable to put in place a lasting and effective fix, as per its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Furthermore, the resident had expressed concern that the conditions within the property were impacting the health of those within her household and the landlord failed to respond appropriately.
Consideration of the outstanding work required, the significant delays endured and the emotional impact on the resident, we have found there was severe maladministration by the landlord.
The Ombudsman has ordered compensation which considers all the circumstances of the case and this Service’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman also recognises that some of our resident’s circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their circumstances, or because of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s poor physical health) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. It is evident that great distress and inconvenience has been caused to the resident in this case.
Compensation of £1000 has therefore been awarded to appropriately compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience endured. The level of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Window replacement

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes windows.
The landlord operates a combined repairs and damp policy. It categorises repairs from emergency to planned repairs. Planned repairs should be completed within 90 calendar days. The policy does not outline what category that a window replacement would fall under. Given the requirement for the landlord to co-ordinate manufacturing times with the availability of operatives to install a new window, it is fair and reasonable to conclude that a window replacement would fall under a planned repair.
The landlord raised a job to replace the window on 28 December 2022. In accordance with its policy, it should have replaced the window by 28 March 2023.
It is unclear when the landlord’s contractors fitted the window. This Service has addressed this further in the record keeping section of this report. In the absence of a definitive date, this Service can determine from the available evidence that landlord contractors fitted the window at some point between 23 November 2023 (when it issued its stage 1 response) and 25 January 2024 (when it issued its stage 2 response). This is a minimum of 11 months after the landlord raised the replacement – and a significant departure from the timescales for a planned repair. This is a considerable failing and undoubtably caused the resident considerable distress, inconvenience, and frustration.
The evidence shows there has been a distinct lack of action taken by the landlord after it raised the job to replace the window. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord kept in touch with the resident, or the contractors installing the window. The landlord failed to keep itself up to date with the status of the repair, and confused matters by raising separate jobs for the same window replacement.
The resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions for updates about repairs, and eventually raise a complaint. Residents should not be expected to follow up on outstanding works or chase repair appointments. These areas are the landlord’s responsibility and speak to the importance of effective communication and robust follow up procedures.
As above, the landlord offered £150 compensation in its stage 2 response, and did not provide a breakdown. However, this was not sufficient redress given the significant delays, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience.
Overall, the landlord did not adhere to the expected timescales outlined within its repairs policy for planned repairs. It significantly delayed replacing the resident’s window and failed to effectively communicate with the resident. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, which has led the Ombudsman to conclude that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the window replacement.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, in use at the time, said it would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint and respond within 20 working days. No timescale was provided for issuing a stage 2 response.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time set out at paragraph 5.1, that a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. Following an escalation to stage 2, under paragraph 5.13, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy at the time of the resident’s complaint was not Code compliant.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord implemented a new complaints policy on 1 April 2024. As such, we have not made any orders for the landlord to review or amend its complaints policy.
We have assessed the landlord’s complaint handling with reference to its policy and the version of the Code that was in place at the time of the complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 23 November 2023. This was 24 working days after the resident raised her complaint. While this was marginally outside the timescales outlined in its policy and the Code, it is not deemed that this minor delay had any detrimental impact on the resident.
The resident escalated her complaint on 24 November 2023. The landlord said it would respond by 3 January 2024.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 25 January 2024; 42 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was more than double the time as stipulated by the Code, and a departure from the deadline the landlord had set. The landlord apologised for the delay but offered no further remedy. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to explain the reason for the delays, or to agree an extension to the deadline, prior to issuing its response. This was inappropriate.
Overall, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint. While it appropriately acknowledged the delay, it failed to take steps to put things right. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.” It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The landlord has confirmed that the repair log provided is not a full history of repairs and it devised the log for the purpose of this investigation. While this is not unreasonable, our investigation found inaccuracies in the evidence. For example, repair references detailed in the stage 2 response were not on the repair log supplied. The landlord rectified this and added them in, citing human error as the reason they were not on the log originally. This Service understands that errors can occur, however it casts doubt over the reliability and accuracy of the repair log supplied.
The landlord supplied a tenant contact history report. While brief, and clearly not a full history related to all contacts with the resident, it outlined that it raised the window replacement on 28 December 2022. This is not reflected in the repair log. The repair log states the landlord raised the replacement window works on 1 March 2023. This highlights a further inaccuracy, which is inappropriate.
During our investigation, we asked the landlord when it fitted the resident’s window, as the repair log did not outline a completion date. The landlord said contractors fitted the window on 18 October 2023. The evidence supplied indicates that this information is incorrect. The landlord’s stage 1 response, issued on 23 November 2023, states that contractors would be in touch to arrange the window installation. The resident had also chased the window installation on 22 November 2023. It appears that the landlord relied upon the repair log to respond to this Service’s query. This further supports the Ombudsman’s conclusion that the repair log is inaccurate. The fact that the landlord cannot accurately confirm when contractors fitted the resident’s window is concerning.
The dates contained within the repair log regarding the landlord raising jobs for mould washes are different to those dates in the landlord’s stage 2 response. This is a further failing and as above, concerning that the landlord cannot communicate to the resident or this Service accurate dates.
The landlord’s poor record keeping had a significant impact on its overall handling of the case. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it was keeping in contact with the resident or had a grasp on what was going on at the property regarding repairs. Furthermore, the landlord has not supplied any evidence to demonstrate it communicated with contractors to chase repairs or request updates.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs stresses the importance of landlord’s and its contractors keeping comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In this case, the landlord has failed to keep appropriate records.
Overall, the quality of the evidence supplied by the landlord has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation. In particular, the repair log supplied by the landlord is poorly presented and does not contain all the necessary information needed to enable this Service to accurately follow the history of repairs. The landlord has also shared inaccurate dates with the resident and this Service with regards to when it raised jobs and completed them, which is pertinent in assessing the reasonableness of the landlord’s actions. We have therefore concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a window replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to issue an apology to the resident, in writing, regarding the failures identified by this investigation.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is intended to replace the landlord’s original offer of £150. The compensation breakdown is as follows;
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £300 for the delays and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the window replacement.
3. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause by the identified complaint handling failures.
4. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £150 that it has offered, this may be deducted from the £1,400 awarded.
The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a specific plan of action it intends to take to address the outstanding actions from the latest damp and mould inspection. The completion date of all works must be within 8 weeks of this determination.
In accordance with paragraph 54f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of its record keeping processes, considering the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. The review must be carried out within 8 weeks and shared with this Service. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. current record keeping practices and systems in relation to resident contact and correspondence,
2. whether system improvements are required,
3. whether staff require further training to ensure that they are keeping and maintaining an accurate audit trail.
4. The review should show any learning highlighted and it should confirm to the Service and the resident how it aims to address these.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to this Service within the outlined timescales.