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

Lincoln City Council (202312018)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312018

Lincoln City Council

18 December 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of damp and mould in her bathroom
    2. associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3-bedroom property with her husband. She has advised us that both her and her husband have a breathing condition called COPD, and the landlord is aware of this.
  2. On 4 November 2022, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and confirmed the presence of black mould in the bathroom.
  3. On 27 January 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She stated that, although the landlord had completed 2 mould washes on the bathroom walls, it had not yet installed the extractor fan in her bathroom as previously agreed. She emphasised the urgency of addressing the mould in her bathroom, given her and her husband’s health conditions.
  4. On 3 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It informed her that an electrician would install an extractor fan in her bathroom later that day. The landlord also explained that it had scheduled a follow-up inspection of the resident’s property for 28 February 2023, to assess whether the extractor fan was effectively addressing the mould issue in her bathroom.
  5. On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She confirmed that an electrician attended her property, but believed they were repairing an existing extractor fan rather than installing a new one. The resident expressed her frustration that she had prepared her bathroom for the scheduled work, only to be informed by the electrician that she would be contacted to arrange a new appointment.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 5 May 2023. It acknowledged conducting a further inspection of her property and agreeing during the visit to install a vent in place of the bathroom’s old brick air vent. However, the landlord confirmed it had not raised a repair order for the job or communicated with the resident about the repair.  It apologised for the lack of communication and stated it would address the issue with the repairs team to ensure better communication in the future. The landlord also confirmed that it had scheduled installation of the vent for 12 May 2023.

Events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 7 June 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to this service. She informed us that the landlord continued to send operatives to her property to perform mould washes in her bathroom but failed to address the root cause of the mould. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s poor communication and its failure to attend scheduled appointments.
  2. On 7 December 2023, the landlord installed a vent in the resident’s bathroom. However, on 5 January 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that her bathroom continued to experience mould issues. On 4 April 2024, the landlord instructed an independent surveyor to assess the situation. The surveyor noted high levels of condensation in the resident’s bathroom and stated that mould had increased around the bathroom window since the vent was installed. The surveyor recommended the landlord conduct the following works to address the damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom:
    1. cover the vent and install an extractor fan
    2. repair and repoint the external brickwork
    3. inspect the gully for leaks
    4. check the bathroom of the adjacent property for potential issues
    5. ensure adequate heating and ventilation throughout the resident’s property
  3. On 23 September 2024, the landlord installed an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom.
  4. On 5 December 2024, the resident told this service that she remained dissatisfied with the time the landlord had taken to address the mould in her bathroom. She stated that the landlord had not offered any redress to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience she had experienced over the past 2 years. Additionally, she advised that since the installation of the extractor fan, the landlord had not conducted a follow-up inspection of her bathroom or monitored the situation to ensure the mould issue had been fully resolved.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated that her and her husband’s COPD has been affected by the landlord’s prolonged delay in addressing the mould in her bathroom. It is widely accepted that mould can adversely affect health, particularly for those with respiratory conditions, therefore we acknowledge the resident’s comments. However, claims of personal injury, including damage to health, fall outside the complaints process and can be considered through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law, which will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her and her husband have been adversely affected by an action or lack thereof by the landlord. We have, however, considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced due to any errors by the landlord, as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her and her husband’s health.

Assessment and findings

Legal obligations and policy framework

  1. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that repairs fall within 3 categories:
    1. emergency – these are completed to within 24 hours
    2. urgent – these are completed within 3 days
    3. all other repairs – these are completed within 100 days
  3. The landlord informed us that, although it does not have a specific damp and mould policy, it schedules all initial repairs to address damp and mould within 20 days, with any follow-up repairs completed within an additional 20 days.
  4. This service’s Spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021, confirms that damp and mould should be a high priority for landlords. The report states that landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach; be proactive in identifying potential problems and clearly communicate to residents about the actions it is planning to take. Where inspections result in recommended works to tackle condensation, damp or mould, landlords should ensure they act on the recommendations in a timely manner. Any deviations from the recommendations should be clearly documented and explained to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom.

  1. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for detailed records relating to reported issues of mould in the resident’s bathroom, and evidence of the actions taken in response. Very little of this has been provided, and if this information does exist, the landlord’s records appear to be incomplete. For example, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 4 November 2022. However, there is no record of the reports made by the resident prior to this inspection to determine the extent of the issues or the timeline of the landlord’s response. The landlord’s poor record-keeping has led the Ombudsman to question the integrity of its records and whether they can be relied on.
  2. The importance of clear record-keeping and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on the landlord’s effective overall service provision. This service’s knowledge and information Spotlight report, published in May 2023, explains how a landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information, which can turn ordinary service requests into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. Accurate and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping, as highlighted throughout this report, demonstrate the need for improvement. However, we acknowledge that the landlord recognises this issue, and it has informed us that it is in the process of upgrading its record-keeping system to address these shortcomings.
  3. Following inspection of the resident’s property on 4 November 2022, the landlord’s records indicate that it agreed to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom to address the mould. In accordance with its approach for managing damp and mould, the landlord should have scheduled the installation within 20 days. However, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to raise a repair request and schedule the work until 3 February 2023, which was 92 days later. This delay was unacceptable as it far exceeded the landlord’s timescales for addressing damp and mould. Although the evidence shows that the landlord performed a mould wash in the resident’s bathroom during this period, which was a reasonable step to manage the immediate issue, it still had an obligation to promptly investigate and address the root cause, to prevent recurrence. The landlord’s failure to take timely and comprehensive action to resolve the underlying cause of the mould, demonstrated poor management of the situation, likely causing significant stress and inconvenience to the resident, as she had to continue living with the unresolved mould for an extended period.
  4. The resident informed the landlord that its electrician did not install the extractor fan in her bathroom on 3 February 2023, due to not having the correct job specifications. According to the landlord’s records, the electrician noted that there was no suitable location for the fan’s installation. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s account concerning, as it should have ensured the feasibility of the works before agreeing to them. It should have also contacted the resident immediately to apologise for the failed installation and explain the next steps. Instead, the evidence shows that the landlord made no meaningful progress in resolving the mould issue in the resident’s bathroom and left her uncertain about its plans moving forward. Additionally, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord installed an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom 19 months later, undermining the credibility of its explanation for not completing the installation at the time. Understandably, the resident expressed frustration after taking time and effort to prepare her bathroom for the works, only to be let down by the landlord’s failure to follow through.
  5. The landlord’s records do not confirm whether it conducted the follow-up inspection of the resident’s bathroom on 28 February 2023, as agreed in its stage 1 complaint response. However, its stage 2 complaint response indicates that it conducted a further inspection before 5 May 2023. The landlord has not provided an inspection report from this visit. Therefore, the lack of documentation limits the Ombudsman’s ability to evaluate the landlord’s reassessment of the mould in the resident’s bathroom, its decision that an extractor fan was no longer necessary, or its recommendation to install a passyfier vent. Still, what is clear from the evidence, is that the landlord scheduled installation of the vent for 12 May 2023, and did not complete the installation until 7 December 2023, resulting in a 7 month delay. This extended timeline was inappropriate and was not reflective of the urgent and zero-tolerance approach expected of landlords when tackling issues of damp and mould, as referenced above from our Spotlight report. By this point, the resident had waited over 12 months for the landlord to carry out works to address the root cause of the mould in her bathroom, further compounding the distress and inconvenience she experienced.
  6. On 5 January 2024, 1 month after the installation of the passyfier vent, the resident informed the landlord that the mould in the bathroom had not improved. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the resident’s property on 29 January 2024, which was 25 days later. Although the landlord’s response was 5 days beyond its agreed timescales for addressing mould, this minor delay did not appear to significantly impact the landlord’s overall management of the resident’s concerns at this stage. It appropriately raised a job for another mould wash in the resident’s bathroom, which it completed 3 days later.
  7. The landlord has not provided an inspection report detailing the findings or recommendations from its visit to the resident’s property on 29 January 2024. Additionally, it did not share the inspection outcome with the resident, which would have kept her fully informed about the findings and the planned actions to address the mould issue in her bathroom. Consequently, the resident had to spend time and trouble contacting the landlord for clarification on the works scheduled for her property. This was inappropriate, as landlords are obligated to proactively manage repairs, and residents should not bear the burden of following up on prospective works.
  8. The evidence shows that between 21 June 2023 and 9 July 2023, as well as on 29 February 2024, the resident informed the landlord that its operatives failed to attend scheduled appointments to carry out agreed works in her bathroom. The landlord’s records do not indicate that it acknowledged the resident’s frustrations regarding these missed appointments, demonstrating a lack of accountability, and likely leaving the resident feeling ignored and unsupported. The landlord should have investigated the missed appointments and outlined to the resident the steps it would take to prevent this issue from recurring. Taking these actions would have demonstrated a commitment to resolving the resident’s concerns and may have rebuilt her confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the mould and repairs in her bathroom effectively.
  9. The landlord arranged an independent survey of the mould in the resident’s bathroom on 4 April 2024, demonstrating an effort to seek professional advice and address the ongoing issues in a more informed manner. The independent surveyor provided multiple recommendations to address the mould, including installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom, which was installed on 23 September 2024, 5 months later. The Ombudsman considers this delay excessive, especially given the overall delays that had already occurred in addressing the mould issue. Therefore, without evidence of mitigating factors to explain or justify this delay, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted unreasonably in addressing the mould issue in the resident’s bathroom and failed to deal with the situation with the urgency it required.
  10. Finally, it is concerning that the landlord failed to properly consider the resident’s and her husband’s vulnerability in its response to her reports of mould in the bathroom. The evidence shows that the resident highlighted to the landlord that the bathroom was mouldy and unsuitable for their health, but the landlord failed to take this into account. In the first instance, the landlord should have conducted a health and safety risk assessment to determine whether reasonable adjustments were necessary to address any potential health risks to the resident and her husband. Following this, it should have promptly developed and communicated a clear plan of action to resolve the mould issue, prioritising their health and well-being. This plan should have included timelines for completing works, regular updates to the resident, and any interim measures required to mitigate the impact of the mould. The absence of any evidence showing that the landlord considered these factors highlights a significant failure in its duty to respond appropriately to the resident’s circumstances.
  11. Overall, the evidence shows that the resident lived with unresolved mould in her bathroom for a period of 22 months. Although this issue may have been limited to one room, its impact on the resident’s living conditions and well-being cannot be overlooked. We acknowledge the landlord performed multiple mould washes in the bathroom, demonstrating some effort to address the mould. However, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to act fairly, reasonably, or in a timely manner to address the underlying cause. The landlord’s disregard for the resident’s and her husband’s health condition is particularly concerning. Its poor record-keeping, lack of communication, and repeated failure to address missed appointments further exacerbated the resident’s distress. Moreover, the landlord did not offer any redress for its failings, which the Ombudsman finds unacceptable. A landlord is expected to take responsibility for its shortcomings and provide appropriate remedies to address the impact of its failures.
  12. Considering these factors, the Ombudsman has determined maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom.
  13. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. Where there has been a determination of maladministration which has adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, in order to put things right. In view of this, the landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in the handling of this case.
  14. The landlord must review the recommendations from the independent surveyor’s inspection of the resident’s property on 4 April 2024. It should write to the resident and set out what works it has already carried out, the dates of any works it intends to undertake, and the reasons for any works recommended by the surveyor which it will not undertake.
  15. The landlord must also update its records to ensure the resident’s and her husband’s vulnerabilities are documented and readily accessible for reference in the event of any future repair issues. This will ensure that the landlord can respond appropriately, prioritising the resident’s needs and providing necessary support to address any concerns effectively.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will aim to respond to a complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 27 January 2023, and the landlord promptly issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident 6 working days later. While the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it failed to apologise for the delay to raise works to install the extractor fan. This would have demonstrated accountability and reassured the resident that the landlord recognised its shortcomings. That said, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appropriately detailed the next steps, including clear dates for the subsequent scheduled appointments. This was positive, as it reflected an effort by the landlord to keep the resident informed.
  3. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 3 February 2023, and the landlord issues its stage 2 complaint response 64 working days later. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in its response, it offered no explanation for the delay. This delay likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she was left uncertain about how the landlord intended to resolve the issues in her property.
  4. The Ombudsman has determined service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, due to the significant delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  5. Based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, where there has been a determination of service failure by a landlord that may have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £50 to £100, to put things right. In this case, the landlord should pay the resident £100 in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to respond to her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of mould in her bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4-5 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the following compensation:
      1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused due to its poor handling of mould in the resident’s property
      2. £100 in recognition of the delay to respond to the resident’s complaint.
    2. Review the recommendations from the independent surveyor’s inspection of the resident’s property on 4 April 2024. It must write to the resident and set out what works it has already carried out, the dates of any works it intends to undertake, and the reasons for any works it will not undertake.
    3. Update its records (with the residents’ consent) to ensure the resident’s and her husband’s vulnerabilities are documented and readily accessible for reference in the event of any future repair issues. This will ensure that the landlord can respond appropriately, prioritising the resident’s needs and providing necessary support to address any concerns effectively.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 5 weeks of the date of this decision.