London Borough of Hillingdon (202310021)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310021

London Borough of Hillingdon

28 June 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 the resident’s reported damp and mould in his flat.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident holds a secure flexible tenancy with the landlord and has lived in his ground–floor flat since March 2019. The landlord’s records showed that the resident had physical disabilities and that he was diabetic.
On 20 September 2022 the resident reported that there was damp and mould in his kitchen to the landlord. The landlord attended on 28 September 2022 and arranged for a mould treatment to be carried out throughout the flat on 19 January 2023.
At the beginning of October 2022 the resident asked the landlord to bring the appointment forward. In internal discussions the landlord stated that it called the resident several times around this time to offer him earlier appointments when it had cancellations. It said that it was either unable to make contact with him or the appointment was unsuitable for him.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the 19 January 2023 appointment had been cancelled because its operative had COVID-19. It re-arranged the appointment for 2 March 2023.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord carried out the mould treatment.
On 13 March 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. He said:
1. the landlord visited in September 2022 and had arranged to treat the mould on 19 January 2023. He had tried to bring the appointment forward but there were no available appointments.
2. The landlord contacted him on 17 January 2023 to cancel the appointment on 19 January because the officer had COVID-19 and re-arranged the appointment and the work was completed on 2 March 2023.
3. he had serious medical conditions, such as weakened immune system which was exacerbated by the prolonged exposure to the black mould and damp within his flat. He had also been diagnosed with asthma in January 2023.
4. the landlord did not resolve the damp and mould in his kitchen within “a reasonable length of time.” This meant that he had lived in poor living conditions for a prolonged period of time in which the damp worsened.
5. the landlord should pay him compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and the time it had taken to “pursue a resolution.”
On 28 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. upon receiving the resident’s report of damp, it “immediately” made an appointment to carry out an inspection, which took place on 28 September 2022.
2. it apologised for the delay from the inspector’s initial appointment to the work being carried out.
3. the mould treatment took “a lot longer than” it would have expected to complete. Its then subsequent cancellation of 19 January 2023 appointment would have been “very frustrating” for the resident.
4. it had introduced a damp and mould team which would ensure that residents would no longer have to wait too long to have the works completed.
On 15 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He:
1. reiterated his concerns that he outlined in his stage 1 complaint. He added that his mental health had also been affected due to the anxiety and stress that he had experienced due to the [poor] living conditions.
2. reiterated that he should be compensated as the landlord failed to resolve the damp and mould in a timely manner.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated what it had said in its stage 1 complaint response and added:
1. it had provided the resident with advice to prevent mould and damp and was satisfied that its actions had helped the resident.
2. the resident should seek medical advice regarding his health.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service because as he considered that the landlord should compensate him for its delay in resolving the damp and mould in his flat.

Legislation, policies and procedures

Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety.
The landlord’s repair factsheet stated that it would carry out routine repairs within 20 working days. It is unclear whether the landlord had a responsive repair policy at this time as we have not been provided with one.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained that the damp and mould in his flat affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould

When the resident reported that there was damp and mould in his kitchen on 20 September 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection on 28 September 2022. This demonstrated that the landlord took appropriate action within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord noted that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom had been turned off. It said that the resident had been drying clothes in his flat and showering with the door open. It said because of these actions, the moisture was trapped in the air and the property was “sweating”. It also stated that it had provided the resident with information on how to prevent damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s Damp and Mould Spotlight Report stated that landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident and when there is a problem, effective diagnosis is critical. While we are not doubting the landlord’s observations in its inspection, it would have been reasonable for it to have carried out a wider assessment of the property, noted the outcomes and acted on any findings. This could have included inspecting the resident’s internal and external walls for any structural issues. This would have demonstrated that it satisfied itself that it had properly identified the causes of the damp and mould and therefore provided the resident with accurate information to resolve the matter. This would have also ensured that there were no further actions that it would need to take other than completing a mould wash. Furthermore, given the landlord’s records of the resident’s health concerns at the time, it would have been reasonable for it to have assessed the risk of the damp and mould against his health conditions. This would have provided it with a better understanding of what timely actions it should take to support the resident. In addition, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate the extent of the damp and mould in the resident’s flat at this time. Again, it would have been reasonable for it to have noted this to ensure that it was taking appropriate and timely steps to resolve the matter.
Around the same time the landlord arranged for a mould treatment to be carried out on 19 January 2023. It is noted that the landlord stated that there was a “back log” of repairs and that that was the next available appointment. While this may have been the case, that the resident had to wait approximately 4 months for the mould treatment would have caused him distress and inconvenience.
The evidence available demonstrates that the resident contacted the landlord in October and November 2022 to bring the appointment forward. It is noted that the landlord attempted to call the resident several times within the time period and had offered him an appointment. It is noted that the appointment was not suitable for the resident. We do not have contemporaneous records of the outcome of these calls, which is a record keeping failure. However, the resident and landlord do not dispute that the landlord had offered at least one earlier appointment around that time.
It is unclear whether the landlord had taken into consideration the resident’s health concerns in relation to the damp in his flat at this time. However, its offer of an earlier appointment suggests that it took some steps to bring the appointment forward for the resident which was appropriate. However, this was unsuccessful and the appointment remained for 19 January 2023.
The resident had to wait approximately 4 months for this appointment, which already had caused him distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s rescheduling of this appointment for approximately 2 months later would have exacerbated his distress and inconvenience. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the call this call, which is a record keeping failure. In our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight Report, we said that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on, this could include complete absence of information. Given that the landlord rescheduled its damp and mould treatment for a further 2 months, it would have been reasonable for it to have established a refreshed view of the current status of the damp and mould in the resident’s flat during that time. This would have demonstrated that it was taking a proactive approach to the matter and had up-to-date information. This would have provided it with a better understanding on what reasonable steps it could take to mitigate the resident’s distress and inconvenience while he waited for the mould treatment. There is no evidence that it did so, which is a further failing.
It is noted that the landlord published a Damp and Mould Policy in February 2023, which is welcomed and demonstrates that the landlord is taken appropriate steps to address damp and mould in its residents’ homes. It also noted that the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy management team when he raised concerns that it was not cost effective to keep the extractors on. This was appropriate and reasonable action. However there is no evidence that the landlord considered the installation of passive ventilation such as a trickle vent which have no running costs.
Overall, the landlord failed to carry out the mould treatment within a reasonable timeframe, which was also a substantial deviation from its own published repair timescales that stated that it would complete routine repairs within 20 working days. This meant the resident lived with damp and mould within his flat for approximately 6 months until the landlord resolved the matter on 2 March 2023. It also did not take reasonable steps to consider whether there were other factors that contributed to the damp and mould outside of the resident’s actions. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould within his flat.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In its complaint responses, the landlord said that the resident had to wait “longer than usual” and that its rescheduled appointment would have caused the resident frustration. This went some way to acknowledge the impact that its delays had on the resident. However, it did not go far enough to put matters right given that the resident had to wait approximately 6 months for it to carry out the mould treatment. The landlord’s complaint process provides it with an opportunity to demonstrate that it has heard its residents’ concerns and provide reasonable redress when it has identified a service failure. In this case, while it acknowledged its service failure, it would have been reasonable for it to have compensated the resident for distress and inconvenience caused. That it did not is a failing. Furthermore, it caused the resident time and trouble as he pursued the complaint to this Service, which may have been avoidable if it took reasonable steps to appropriately offer him reasonable redress during its complaint process.
The resident told the landlord that its delays to treat the damp and mould effected his health. In its complaint response the landlord said that he should seek medical advice. While this went some way to address the resident’s concerns, it did not go far enough. Given that the resident said that his health had been affected by the landlord’s actions, it would have been reasonable for it to have directed him to its insurers so he could make a public liability claim if he wished. That it did not is a further failing.
Furthermore, the resident explained in his complaint that he had been recently diagnosed with asthma. It is unclear whether this was the first time that he had provided the landlord with this information. Nonetheless, the landlord failed to address this in its complaint response. Given that the resident had provided it with new information about his health, it would have been appropriate for it to have acknowledged it. Such as confirming that it had received the information and had added it to its records. This would have demonstrated that it took the resident’s medical concerns seriously and had taken action to make suitable and reasonable adjustments in the delivery of its services to the resident as a whole.
Overall, the landlord missed an opportunity to offer the resident reasonable redress through its complaint process. It failed to provide the resident with its insurers details when he stated that its failure to treat the damp and mould within his flat affected his health. All of which caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported damp and mould in his flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case, in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
2. pay directly to the resident £650 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. 450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in treating the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for its inadequate complaint handling.
  3. £100 for poor record keeping.
3. contact the resident and ascertain whether he would like to make a public liability claim, and provide him with the details if he wishes to do so.
4. contact the resident to ascertain whether the damp and mould has been resolved. This should include a full inspection and any relevant measures it will implement to manage any further damp and mould. It should act upon any findings within 6 weeks of the date of this report.
5. contact the resident and confirm whether it should update its records on his health conditions.
6. compile an action plan to complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management report. The action plan should include dates that the landlord expects the elements with the plan. It should complete the self-assessment within 12 weeks of the determination of this report.
7. remind staff of the importance of adequately responding to residents’ complaints. In particular, ensuring that :
  1. appropriate redress for its residents is considered when there is a clear service failure.
  2. it refers residents to its insurers when it has been raised that its actions or inaction has affected their health.
  3. it records new resident information when relevant and appropriate.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should monitor its application of its identified best practices in its existing damp and mould self- assessment.