London Borough of Islington (202330311)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330311

Islington Council

30 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of damp in her property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority landlord. She occupies the property, a mid-terrace house, with her husband and her two children.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord raised a job for a surveyor to conduct a damp assessment of the resident’s property. The surveyor attended on 24 July 2023 and recorded damp in the lounge and bathroom. They recommended that it remove the tiles in the bathroom and remove the bath panel to check for leaks behind it, before replacing the panel. They said that to raise remedial works for the lounge, they would need to inspect the adjoining property first.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord booked the bathroom works which were completed on 17 September 2023.
On 22 August 2023, the landlord booked a further surveyor’s inspection which took place on the 8 September 2023. This time, the surveyor said that he thought the damp was caused by one of three things: a mains pipe leak, a heating pipe leak or drainage. It raised actions to investigate to eliminate one or more of the potential causes.
The surveyor asked that the landlord on 8 September 2023 to contact the occupiers of the adjoining property so they could get access to inspect whether the cause of the damp was water ingress from that property. There was a delay in the landlord determining whether the adjoining property was owned by the landlord, owned by another landlord or privately owned. They also raised a request for an inspection to conduct a main pressure test on 14 September. It completed this on 2 October 2023. The landlord told the resident that the leak could be coming from the water supply and that she would need to contact the water company to investigate this.
On 18 September 2023, the landlord checked the heating pressure which it found to be normal. It concluded that the cause of the leak was likely to be drainage related. The surveyor recommended that a CCTV assessment be undertaken to find the cause of the leak.
There was no further progress with the repairs and the resident raised a complaint via the landlord’s website on 6 December 2023. She said that there was unresolved extreme damp in her home since November 2022 in her living room, stairs, and bathroom. She said that she had 4-year-old twins living in the property and would like the damp issue rectified urgently.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 6 December 2023 and said that it would respond to her by the 20 December 2023.
On 20 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. It would arrange a CCTV assessment to find the cause of the leak.
2. The landlord had told the resident in error to contact the water company herself, as it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate the leak. It said that it would investigate this, and senior management would take further action.
3. It accepted that the resident was inconvenienced by the delay in works and it offered compensation of £200 which included:
  1. £50 for the resident’s inconvenience.
  2. £25 for its poor communication.
  3. £25 for the diagnostic surveyor’s failure to issue works promptly.
  4. £50 for the resident’s time and effort.
  5. £50 for the resident’s distress.
When the resident received no further contact regarding the scheduling of the CCTV investigation, on 9 January 2024 she asked that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure. She said that:
1. It had not resolved the damp in the bathroom.
2. It had not undertaken remedial works to the living room.
3. It had not completed a CCTV drainage inspection.
4. She was unhappy with the compensation offered.
5. Her children’s health was at risk due to the damp.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on the 10 January 2024 and said that she would receive a full response in 20 working days.
On 6 February 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response:
1. It said that although it had taken steps to try and resolve the damp, it had been difficult to pinpoint its cause.
2. The surveyor would attend on 9 February 2024 to check the drainage and check for any leaks coming from above.
3. It recognised the frustration that the resident had felt and awarded compensation of £1633.28 which included:
  1. £638 for the delay in resolving the issue from July 2023 – March 2024. This had been calculated as £41.66 x 8 plus an added £350.
  2. £300 for her inconvenience. This was an increase on the compensation of £50 offered at stage 1.
  3. £25 for its poor communication.
  4. £25 for the surveyor’s failure to issue the works order promptly.
  5. £300 to compensate the resident for her time and effort. This was increased from £50 at stage 1.

Post internal complaints process

The landlord has provided details of internal communications on 5 March 2024 showing attempts to access the next-door property in February and March 2024 that were unsuccessful. It asked that it contact the neighbour urgently to provide access.
On 6 March 2024, the surveyor raised a request for an asbestos survey.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 March 2024 to ask why she has had no further contact since the 9 February 2024. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 April 2024 and apologised, saying that it had been having difficulties in scheduling surveys of the adjoining properties, but it had since arranged these for 10 April 2024. It would inspect the resident’s property at the same time.
Following the survey, the resident chased the works up on 22 and 29 April 2024. The landlord wrote to her on the 29 April 2024 outlining the works that it proposed to do around accessing a drainage inspection chamber in the kitchen, undertaking surveys of the resident’s property and the adjoining properties, complete a plumbing inspection of both properties, remove plaster to the walls in the lounge and to open up the chimney breast, and to make good all the damage caused during inspection works. It said that the works were to start on 9 May 2024, and it would arrange a follow-up survey for the 10 May 2024.
Works ensued and the landlord confirmed with the resident on 20 May 2024 that it had found two of the sources of damp. It hoped that it could pinpoint the third source of damp once it had inspected the adjoining property. The proposed works were as follows:
1. To reduce the ground level at the front of the property which would address the low-level damp in the living room.
2. It could rectify the damp around the chimney breast in the living room by installing a vent.
3. It believed that the damp on the left wall of the hallway was due to a leak, but it would confirm this once it had visited the neighbouring property.
There was further discussion between resident and landlord during May and June 2024 about the ongoing works. On 25 June 2024, the landlord said it had found that the damp in the hallway was due to poor ventilation in the chimney of the adjoining property. It would contact the resident’s neighbour to ensure that a vent was placed in the chimney.
On 26 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was happy with works that it had undertaken to date. However, she said that there was still damp in the bathroom and on the kitchen wall.
On 15 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had completed the works and that a post-inspection was scheduled for August 2024. The resident contacted this Service on 19 July 2024 to confirm that the landlord had completed all the works.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, its own policies, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. be fair.
2. put things right.
3. and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in her property.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also 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 are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has said that she had first raised the issue with damp in the property in 2022. The records provided to this Service show the first report of damp in the property was in July 2023. The Ombudsman is an impartial service that can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. While the Ombudsman does not seek to dispute the resident’s account, in the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding that the resident first reported the damp in 2022.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. These obligations are mirrored in legislation and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The policy provides target timescales in responding to requests for repairs which range between 2 hours for an emergency repair and 20 days for a routine repair. The landlord also has a damp and mould procedure which supplements its repairs policy. This provides a framework of the processes the landlord follows where it receives a report of damp and mould and the timescales for doing so.
Resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. It is not always possible to find the source of water ingress at first inspection; sometimes there needs to be further investigation of the issues, particularly where there is complexity, or an expert opinion is needed. Further, it can take multiple visits to fully treat and resolve damp.
The records show that the landlord arranged for a damp inspection within 14 days of the report. This was within the landlord’s target response timescales in its damp and mould procedure. The records from the inspection show that it was thorough and structured with the surveyor outlining the potential causes of the damp and what further steps needed to be taken to investigate this.
The records show that the landlord undertook 6 damp inspections. This was reasonable, as to eliminate some causes of the damp, the surveyor would need to revisit the property over time to see if the works had been successful.
There were delays in arranging for inspections of neighbouring properties which the surveyor speculated could be the cause of the leak. This was first raised on 18 August 2023, although it is noted that the surveyor had tried to contact the residents of adjoining properties prior to this. However, there were delays in raising other works for which the landlord has not provided an explanation.
Works to stop water ingress in the bathroom were not raised within the landlord’s target response times in its damp and mould procedure, which was unsatisfactory. Once the works were raised, however, they were completed within 20 working days which was within the landlord’s target response timescales.
Delays in works were also caused because of the need for other investigative procedures to eliminate the cause of the damp. It was reasonable to look at the water and heating pressure. This would enable the landlord to establish whether the loss of pressure for either would indicate a leak. It undertook thermal imaging to see whether there were leaks or obvious issues that would cause the damp.
The resident raised a complaint in December 2023 on account of the time it had taken to resolve the damp problem. While there had been delays in raising works, the investigative steps were in process at this time. However, it is not clear from the records whether the landlord had fully updated the resident on the actions that it was taking, what needed to happen next and what the reasons were for the delays. This was unsatisfactory. Had the landlord kept the resident fully updated as to the investigation into the damp issue, she would have been reassured that matters were in hand.
There was a significant delay in raising a CCTV inspection. The landlord needed to access the property’s drains, which was not a straightforward process. The landlord had to remove the flooring to see whether there was a maintenance hole in the kitchen floor. However, these works were delayed by several months which was unreasonable. The resident was also asked by the landlord to contact the water company herself which the landlord later conceded was not her responsibility to do.
There were further delays following the CCTV inspection. This could have been due to the continuing need to access the adjoining property and to complete an asbestos survey, which were matters that were outside of the control of the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord did not communicate this to the resident, who then had to chase for an update as to the works.
Overall, this was a case involving damp and mould where there were complexities in finding various sources of damp and mould in different parts of the property. The source of the damp in the stairway came from the adjoining property and works were delayed because of problems with access to this property. Other sources of damp were due to poor ventilation, drainage, and a leak. The landlord needed to investigate each issue, find the cause, and then look at what works were necessary to eradicate the problem. This was a lengthy process, which undoubtedly caused frustration to the resident.
There were, however, delays that were the landlord’s responsibility, such as the delay in the CCTV drainage inspection and delays in raising other works. The landlord asked the resident, in error, to take action that was the responsibility of the landlord. Further the landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking and she spent time and effort in chasing works up.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for these failings, it said that it would raise this internally with its senior management team. It offered the resident £1633.28 in compensation.
It is positive that the landlord acknowledged that there were service failures in how it responded to the resident’s repairs. The resident had two young children living with her in the property and was understandably worried about the impact the damp living conditions would have on their health. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation of between £600 and £1000 is reasonable where we have identified failings that have had a significant impact on the resident. It also says that an uplift should be applied where there are aggravating factors, such as the presence of young children in the household.
The Ombudsman finds that, while there were failures in the landlord’s service delivery, it acknowledged these failures in its complaint responses and offered redress that was proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident and her household. As such, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress prior to this investigation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp throughout her property.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the amount of £1633.28 it offered at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure and provide confirmation to this Service.