London Borough of Lambeth (202416134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416134

Lambeth Council

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since May 2006. The property is a basement studio flat.
The resident reported damp and mould in his hallway and the main room of his studio flat to the landlord on 15 May 2023. A surveyor attended on 17 May 2023 followed by a contractor on 23 May 2023, which conducted a mould wash. On 10 July 2023, the landlord subsequently raised a work order for a further mould wash and for the plaster in the main room to be “hacked off”, and the complete room to be replastered and painted.
The contractor attended on 5 October 2023 to begin the work. It reported that more time would be needed for the follow–on work in the hallway and main room. While the contractor was on site, the resident removed a piece of wallpaper to show the damage present underneath. The contractor returned on 15 November 2023 to conduct another mould wash. The resident advised that the mould wash had already been carried out and that the main room was to be replastered. The contractor subsequently left. On 24 November 2023, the contractor told the landlord it had not been asked to replaster the whole room, and it had cancelled the job because the resident had refused the work.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 February 2024. He advised the contractor had not carried out the work that was required by the landlord’s surveyor and was refusing to replaster the entire main room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 June 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that it had replastered the hallway and the resident had refused a mould wash. It further advised the resident had taken the wallpaper off the walls because he wanted the entire room to be plastered. It said the contractor was instructed to undertake plastering to the affected wall only. If the resident wished to redecorate that would be his own responsibility.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day (4 June 2024). He said:
1. A surveyor had attended his property on 17 May 2023 and found that external cracks in the property were causing damp and mould in the hallway and main room. The surveyor advised they had raised a job for the external work to be completed and for the hallway and main room to be replastered.
2. The hallway had been replastered in the summer of 2023, but was now deteriorating again due to the external works not having been addressed.
3. He had not refused a mould wash in the living room. He had advised the contractor that the work had already been carried out and that the job required was for the room to be replastered. He would not have taken the day off work had he known the operative was attending to conduct a mould wash.
4. He had been informed that the contractor was refusing to conduct the work in the living room because he had caused the damage to the wall by removing the wallpaper. He disputed this. The damp and mould in the living room had destroyed the wallpaper, leaving him with no option but to remove it. When it had been removed it revealed structural damage caused by the damp. The surveyor was aware of the damage under the wallpaper, which was why they had requested that the whole room was replastered.
5. He had had to take numerous days off work for the repairs, which were still not complete. Most recently he had taken a day off only for the contractor to refuse to do the work.
6. The issues with the property were affecting his physical and mental health. He did not believe his home was in a suitable living condition, which was impacting his performance at work. It was also affecting his relationship with his children, as they could not come to the property because of the health and safety concerns with the damp and mould. This was creating additional financial costs as he was having to travel to visit his children.
The resident then emailed the landlord on 9 July 2024. He listed the following points:
1. He had received a text message from the contractor on 5 June 2024 that advised the work to the exterior of the property would be completed on 20 June 2024.
2. The surveyor had contacted him on 7 June 2024 and assured him that the contractor would be attending to complete all of the internal and external works on his property.
3. On 20 June 2024, he received an apologetic phone call from the contractor explaining that it would not be attending. It rescheduled the appointment for 27 June 2024.
4. He contacted the landlord’s repairs team on 24 June 2024 and was told the job had been put on hold for an unknown reason, and that he would be updated in 10 days.
5. On 27 June 2024 he waited in for the contractor, but nobody turned up or contacted him to say they would not be attending.
6. On 9 July 2024 he contacted the repairs team as it was over 10 days since his last contact. He was informed that the contractor had changed, and that the new contractor would be in touch at the beginning of August 2024.
7. He felt “extremely aggrieved and exhausted by the whole process”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 July 2024. It said:
1. It had raised a work order on 10 July 2023, for completion by August 2023, to carry out a mould wash, hack off the plaster, replaster and paint the main room. It then raised a follow–on job for the same work.
2. On 4 June 2024 it had raised a further job for the walls that the resident had stripped the wallpaper from. It required the plaster in the damaged areas to be hacked off, the walls to be plastered and skimmed, and the entire main room to be decorated.
3. It was changing its contractor and the work would be allocated to the new contractor on 1 August 2024.
4. It offered £150 compensation for the delays and the circumstances surrounding the complaint. It appreciated this did not fully compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience he had experienced, but hoped that it demonstrated its commitment to resolving the issue.
5. It sincerely apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 22 July 2024. As an outcome he wanted the works completed to an acceptable standard and compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. He later confirmed the landlord had scheduled the work to begin on 8 January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said he has been reporting damp and mould issues since 2017. The focus of this investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould from May 2023 onwards. This is because, under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to a member landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. However, all the evidence provided by both parties has been considered.
In the resident’s complaint, he detailed how he feels the landlord’s inaction has impacted on his mental and physical health. We are unable to make a determination about any causal link between the landlord’s actions and the health impacts described. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the issues in this case may have caused. A finding relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts or a personal injury insurance claim, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if he wishes to pursue this.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property. The policy lists a number of repair categories, which include emergency, routine and planned repairs. Plastering works are classed as a planned repair with a timeframe of between 28 and 90 days for works to be completed.
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. A property with dampness and/or high humidity can pose threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths, resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
The landlord introduced a damp charter in 2022, outlining its commitments to residents affected by damp, in which it commits to resolving issues in partnership and communicating in a sympathetic way. Actions include arranging an inspection within 28 days to facilitate a quick diagnosis, followed by a written timebound action plan to resolve the damp. For cases involving persistent damp, the charter confirms the landlord will allocate a surveyor as the resident’s point of contact until completion of the work.
After receiving the resident’s report on 15 May 2023, the landlord’s surveyor visited on 17 May 2023 and undertook an initial mould wash on 23 May 2023. This was a prompt response and in line with the landlord’s policy and damp charter. In its evidence submission to this Service, the landlord confirmed it had no record of the surveyor’s inspection. An inspection report is a fundamental part of a damp and mould investigation. Its absence represents a significant failing, and one that has been raised in a previous determination by the Ombudsman in October 2023 (202221633). Inspection reports are vital records; they demonstrate the condition of the property and findings of the surveyor at that point in time. If the surveyor is not available or has left the organisation, the report allows others not present at the inspection, to understand the specifics of the case. The report can also be used by the landlord to support requests for work or explain its decision not to undertake works.
After the inspection, the landlord’s damp charter required a written action plan to be agreed with the resident that outlined the timescales for repair. There is no indication that this happened, which is a failure to comply with the requirements of the damp charter and further evidence of poor record keeping. When landlords create policies and procedures it is essential that they are embedded and that compliance with their requirements is followed and monitored. Not doing so can lead to indifference among staff and erode trust in the landlord and resident relationship.
Good record keeping is also vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s repairs and complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
The surveyor raised a work order on 10 July 2023 for a mould wash, removal of plaster, replastering and decoration of the complete main room in the resident’s property. When the contractor attended on 5 October 2023, 73 working days had passed since the landlord’s initial inspection, which was a failure to meet the timescales out lined in its repairs policy. At this inspection the operative determined that more time was required for follow–on work. However, it was a further 37 working days before the contractor’s staff returned. The landlord’s records do not provide any explanation for this unreasonable delay, which caused further time, trouble, and likely frustration to the resident.
When contractor did return on 24 November 2023 it said it was there to conduct a further mould wash and plaster over the cracks on 1 wall. The resident removed the wallpaper, showing the operative the damage underneath, and explained the entire room was to be replastered. The operative subsequently left, noting in the records that the resident had refused the mould wash. When contacted by the landlord, the contractor said that it had cancelled the job because the resident had refused the work. The records show that the resident did not refuse the work, but rather explained that a mould wash had already been conducted and that the surveyor had requested that the entire room was replastered. His assertion is supported by the work order raised on 10 July 2023 which required the complete main room to be replastered and painted. It was unacceptable that the resident had to inform the contractor what work was required, which indicates further poor record keeping, communication and contractor management.
When the landlord became aware of the issue on 24 November 2023 we would have expected it to liaise with the surveyor and contractor to resolve the issue and clarify to the contractor what it was required to do. However, there is no evidence that it took any steps to do this, as there followed an excessive period of 53 working days where the landlord took no action until the resident made a complaint. After the complaint, the landlord raised the same work order again and forwarded it to the contractor. Despite this, it again did not complete the work. The landlord then raised the order again but still the contractor declined to conduct the work. It is not for contractors to stipulate what work they will and will not do (or, if this was provided for in the contract between the landlord and contractor, the landlord should have put measures in place to address such situations where there is a difference of opinion without detriment to the customer). Likewise, it is the landlord’s responsibility to communicate effectively, providing clear and unambiguous directions that enables the parties to deliver the repairs required in line with its policies and procedures.
The evidence demonstrates that there was poor communication throughout the case between the landlord and contractor as well as with the resident. Even after raising his complaint, the resident was continually required to chase the landlord for updates on the repairs. This was evidenced on 7 and 15 May 2024 when he emailed but got no response. After a further request for information on 4 June 2024, the landlord provided a complaint response that did not give any detail about the work or when it would be started or completed. The resident emailed again on 24 June 2024 for an update but did not receive a response. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have in place, apply and monitor their own communication key performance indicators, to ensure residents are responded to in line with published timescales. This helps to deliver clear, effective and timely communication, which is essential to a productive landlord and tenant relationship. The landlord’s poor communication caused the resident to feel deprioritised and that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
The resident made clear to the landlord that its inaction was significantly impacting his life. The property conditions were preventing him from having his children at his property, thus increasing his travel costs to see them. He also reported that he was losing days off work due to the contractors changing appointments at the last minute or not turning up when they said they would. He told the landlord the way he had been treated was “totally unacceptable” and that he was “extremely aggrieved and exhausted by the whole process”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to demonstrate empathy and an understanding of the personal impact on the resident, as well as taking suitable steps to put things right. Its failure to do so was unsatisfactory
Despite assurances from the landlord that the work would be conducted on 20 June 2024, it was not. A change in its contractor further lengthened the delays, with the work still outstanding and now scheduled to be completed on 8 January 2025. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange for the overdue works to be completed through another means.
In an update to this Service on 19 December 2024, the landlord forwarded an email from its new contractor. In the email the contractor explained that it had inspected the property on 6 November 2024. It found that the damp on the exterior walls had again caused the plaster in the hallway to come off the walls. It confirmed it would be replastering the hallway and main room but stated, “there is no order for any external works with us”. The resident had explained in his stage 2 escalation that the landlord’s surveyor identified the cracks in the exterior as the cause of the internal dampness. The fact that the landlord raised the order for the internal works and not the external works with the new contractor was unacceptable. It demonstrates ongoing communication and work planning failures that will ultimately have a negative impact upon the resident if not addressed.
The landlord’s handling of the repairs associated with damp and mould has been poor. From the date of reporting the issue until the current scheduled date for completion, the repair will have been ongoing for 418 working days (20 months). The resident lives in a studio flat, which means he has had to live and sleep in close proximity to the damp, mould and partially completed works for the entirety of the period. The landlord failed to comply with its repairs policy and the requirements of its damp charter. It has demonstrated poor record keeping and communication throughout the case, which caused significant frustration for the resident and impacted his family life. Considering the above factors, it is the Ombudsman’s decision that the landlord’s handling of the repairs amounts to severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman has previously identified repeated failings similar to those listed above, as well as complaint handling as detailed in the next section, during our special investigation into the landlord. As the recommendations from the investigation are currently being progressed, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case which would duplicate those already made. The landlord should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this case that require further action.

Complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. It commits to acknowledging complaints at both stages within 2 working days. It will then provide a response within 20 working days at stage 1 and 25 working days at stage 2. The policy states that the landlord will acknowledge and apologise for its mistakes, explain why things went wrong, and detail what actions it will take to prevent the same mistakes happening again. It also aims as far as possible to put the customer back in the position they would have been in had there been no fault, which can include financial compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to pay compensation to remedy an adverse effect on a resident due to a serious failure it has caused. Such failures include:
1. Unjustified delays
2. Failure to follow policies
3. Failure to provide a service to the published standards
When failings are identified, this Service’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was 59 working days beyond the target date. It is evident the landlord did not undertake a thorough investigation as it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It failed to acknowledge the lateness of the response and did not identify any of the repairs, record keeping or communication failures that had occurred. It was also not compliant with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) or the landlord’s own policy. Upon receipt of the stage 1 response the resident said he had “lost all faith in the landlord’s complaints system and team”. This demonstrated the additional impact of poor complaint handling on him.
In its stage 2 response the landlord advised it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delays. However, the apology was not specific. It was not clear whether it was apologising for the delays associated with the repairs or its complaint handling. Further, it did not highlight the mistakes and detail what actions it would take to prevent them happening in the future as required by its policy. As compensation it offered £150 as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord’s handling of the complaint indicates that it had failed to learn from its mistakes, and its compensation offer was insufficient to put things right for the resident. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not detail what amounts should be considered in any goodwill offer, nor does it clarify whether distress and inconvenience should be considered. It does state that for time and trouble, an amount of between £50 and £250 is payable, depending on the circumstances. However, as acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response, this amount does not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s poor complaint handling, communication repairs, contractor management or record keeping. We have therefore made an additional award of compensation below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks from the date of this report (allowing for the Christmas period) the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from its chief executive to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £1,300 in compensation. This sum is inclusive of the £150 already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the damp and mould repairs.
  2. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
3. Confirm to this Service in writing that all the external and internal works associated with damp and mould at the resident’s property have been completed and signed off. If the works have not been fully completed by the time of the landlord’s update, it should provide to the resident and this Service a timebound schedule of works. The works should then be prioritised and completed at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits specified.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, we recommend the landlord puts in place measures to ensure that inspection reports and records are produced by any of its staff or contractors that conduct disrepair inspections or surveys.