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

London Borough of Hillingdon (202402457)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402457

London Borough of Hillingdon

15 January 2025


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:
    1. Outstanding repairs.
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat where the resident lives with her partner and 2 children. The landlord is a local authority.

Summary of events

  1. On 7 August 2023 the resident raised concerns about outstanding work at the property. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 August 2023. It said it initially made an appointment for 20 July 2022 to upgrade the bathroom fan and install an extractor fan in the kitchen but was unable to install the kitchen fan due to cladding. A surveyor attended on 2 December 2022 advising that scaffolding was required. It made attempts to contact the resident and neighbour between May and July 2023 about scaffolding. Once it received a response it erected scaffolding on 31 July 2023 and continued to contact the resident about works. It left a message on 9 August 2023 to say work would go ahead on 10 August 2023. It acknowledged the delay in completing work and apologised. It said the appropriate redress in such circumstances was an apology and for it to complete work.
  2. The resident raised another complaint on 19 December 2023, this Service has not been provided with a copy of this. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 28 December 2023. It said it would attend on 29 December 2023 for damp and mould concerns and on 9 January 2024 to check the roof. It explained that it would put a plan together once it had reports from both visits.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024. It said:
    1. Its maintenance officer attended on 29 December 2023 and told the resident that the roof was to be checked, bathroom fan would be inspected, and mould wash would be completed in the bedroom.
    2. A roofer attended in January 2024 and recommended works which were completed in April 2024.
    3. The resident was advised to keep the bathroom fan on and to keep regular airflow in the bathroom. Mould wash was completed on 15 January 2024.
    4. It attended for the bathroom fan on 12 March 2024 but there was no answer and a card was left for the resident to contact it to make a new appointment. It received no contact and wrote to the resident on 8 April 2024 about this. It made another appointment for the property to be inspected on 16 May 2024.
  4. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service for further consideration. She said the stage 2 response did not include accurate information, it did not complete work for the roof or a mould wash. She also said she had to visit the doctor due to concerns about her 5 month old child’s health. In August 2024, the resident told the landlord that its stage 2 response was inaccurate and that the issues were ongoing. She said:
    1. It did not complete roof work in April 2024 and asked it to provide evidence to show it did.
    2. It incorrectly said a mould wash was completed in January 2024 when this was not the case. Damp and mould was present in her property and was spreading in the bedroom. She did not want it to complete mould wash until it had resolved the cause of the issue (the roof repair).
    3. It continued to inspect the property but did not take action despite its inspections reporting the same issues.
  5. The landlord apologised for the “breakdown in communication” and said it would retract its stage 2 response and file an apology. This Service has not been provided with a copy of a retraction.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told the landlord, and this Service, of concerns about her family’s health. In particular, she has mentioned concerns about her young child’s health in light of news, in December 2020, of a toddler passing away from living with mould. She has also said she suffered from a rash on her body which she believes may be due to the mould at the property.
  2. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident and her family. It is understandable that she has concerns about the impact of their living conditions on their health. It is important to explain that this Service cannot establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, the Ombudsman will give consideration to the general impact of the living conditions on the resident and consider what the landlord did when it was informed of health concerns.

Outstanding repairs

  1. The landlord’s website provides details about its repairs and maintenance service. It says it is responsible for roof leaks, amongst other things. Its repairs and maintenance factsheet sets out its target timescales to complete work, this includes 20 working days for routine work and 90 working days for “minor” works (large jobs that require more planning).
  2. In June 2022 the landlord raised work for the replacement of a bathroom fan and installation of a new kitchen fan to help with the management of the internal ventilation of the property. It appropriately replaced the bathroom fan within its routine repair work timeframe. However, it was unable to install a kitchen fan due to the need for further equipment (a ladder) and the cladding on the external building. It arranged an appointment to complete the work in November 2022 but this was cancelled due to staff sickness. In its further appointment for December 2022 it found scaffolding was required to install the kitchen fan. The timeframe of around 6 months to establish the equipment needed to complete the work was not reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. On 5 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about the outstanding work and that it had not been in touch. Within its stage 1 response from 21 August 2023, the landlord said it had made attempts between May and July 2023 to contact the neighbour to erect scaffolding. While it is noted that the landlord may have experienced difficulty in gaining consent from third parties, it should not have taken it 5 months from when it knew scaffolding was required (December 2022) to make its first attempt to gain consent. This timeframe was not appropriate. The landlord then took until August 2023 (around 13 months) to install the kitchen fan, this timeframe was also not appropriate.
  4. In October 2023 the resident reported a roof leak at the property. She repeated this in December 2023 and told the landlord that it needed to inspect the roof. The landlord’s roof inspection from 9 January 2024 found work was required. It took the landlord until October 2024 to complete work to the roof. The timeframe of 12 months to complete work to the roof was not appropriate.
  5. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response from May 2024 it incorrectly told the resident it completed work to the roof in April 2024. The landlord did not identify its error until August 2024, despite what the resident told it. This was not appropriate and does not demonstrate a “robust system” to maintain accurate records as per its damp, mould and condensation policy. It also demonstrates that it did not ensure a proper and adequate investigation had taken place as part of its internal complaints process. This was not appropriate.
  6. Overall, it took the landlord around 13 months (since June 2022) to install the kitchen fan and 12 months to complete work to the roof. Timeframes for both outstanding works was not appropriate and significantly exceeded the timeframes set in its repairs and maintenance factsheet of 90 working days. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated and did not monitor work until completion. It incorrectly told the resident that it had completed work when it had not and missed opportunities to put things right as part of its internal complaints process. The landlord’s failings would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service especially as she had to contact it about outstanding work and raise concerns about the internal condition of the property. The landlord’s handling of the installation of the kitchen fan and roof repair was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response from August 2023, it appropriately acknowledged that there had been delays in installing the kitchen fan and it found the appropriate redress in light of its delay was an apology and for it to complete work. At times an apology and the completion of work can be appropriate levels of redress, however, in light of the landlord’s delays and the impact this would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman considers financial redress more appropriate in these circumstances.
  8. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the scale of the landlord’s failings and that the repairs have since been completed. As such a compensation amount of £500 has been decided as more proportionate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy and operational practice note says it is responsible for maintaining resident’s homes to avoid penetrating and rising damp and for carrying out remedial action if these do occur. In summary it says:
    1. It will respond without delay to a report of condensation and mould. If it is a first report, it will ask a resident to follow guidance in a leaflet and make further contact if this is not successful within 30 days.
    2. After further contact it will arrange an inspection within 20 working days. The timeframe will shorten if there is a history of condensation and mould.
    3. It has a robust system in place to maintain accurate records. Records of inspections and a historical record of remedial works will be kept so that an ongoing evidence base is created and maintained.
  2. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have obligations to consider the condition of properties. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and carry out monitoring of a property where a potential hazard is identified (including damp and mould). The landlord has wider obligations to deal with mould if it is caused by a problem with the property and/or making the property not fit to live in.
  3. It is unclear when the resident initially reported damp and mould at the property. The landlord’s repair log shows it appropriately completed an inspection in June 2022 recording it found no mould and said it would upgrade the bathroom fan and install a new kitchen fan, as mentioned previously. This was reasonable in the circumstances, especially in light of its notes that the resident reported mould present in the winter months.
  4. In October 2023 the resident reported a roof leak at the property, mentioned previously within this report. In its inspection from December 2023, the landlord found evidence of mould, staining and condensation. It noted advice provided to the resident on how to manage the internal conditions of the property but recommended no work. After further reports of mould at the property, the landlord completed another damp and mould inspection in May 2024 where it repeated previous findings of mould in the bedroom. It took the landlord until June 2024 to offer a mould wash. This timeframe of around 6 months to offer a mould wash was not appropriate.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould was not appropriate. It failed to act in line with its policy or its wider obligations. Its actions fell short of the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 as it did not demonstrate a zero-tolerance approach. It was aware of mould at the property in December 2023 and took until October 2024 to complete work to resolve the issues including the roof repair. This timeframe does not show it identified the complex case at an early stage and during this time it did not keep the resident updated or attempt to alleviate the health concerns she told it about. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service and her worry about the impact of the living conditions on her family.
  6. While it is difficult to determine the full extent of the condition of the property, when considering its inspection findings of some mould in the bedroom in December 2023, it is reasonable to conclude that the property condition would have had some impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home for around 10 months. It is acknowledged that the landlord did eventually complete the required work and that this has since resolved the issues. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration. Had the landlord not completed the work to resolve the issue, the failings here would have been more serious.
  7. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the landlord’s failings and the impact this may have had on the resident, especially in light of its missed opportunities to alleviate her concerns about her family’s health. When considering this, a compensation amount of £500 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings.
  8. The resident has told this Service that she would like reimbursement of rent paid since December 2023 and compensation for damage to her belongings. Consideration has been given to what the resident has said. While the Ombudsman does sympathise with the resident, it has been decided that the compensation amount of £500 is appropriate in these circumstances and this amount falls towards the higher end of the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of
    1. Outstanding repairs.
    2. Damp and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,000 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of outstanding repairs.
      2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to explain its process for submitting a claim to its insurer for damage to personal belongings.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to establish any outstanding issues at the property.