Portsmouth City Council (202346800)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346800

Portsmouth City Council

22 November 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:
1. handling of renovation works to the property.
2. response to reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant who has lived at the property since 2006. The property is a 3 bedroom mid-terrace.
The landlord included the property within the scope of a renovation project to repair, improve and redecorate the external areas of a number of properties. It wrote to the resident in July 2023 to advise her that works to her property and neighbouring properties would commence that month. It said it would repair the render, decorate the exterior, and carry out works to the fascias, soffits and rainwater goods of each property.
The resident rang the landlord on 21 September 2023. This was shortly after the renovation works commenced at her property. She said she was unhappy with the quality of work and the speed at which it was progressing. The landlord attended the property on 29 September 2023 to inspect the work and discuss the resident’s concerns with its contractor. The resident remained unhappy. She submitted a formal written complaint on 17 October 2023. She said:
1. the landlord previously told her it would install solar panels on the roof as part of the renovation works. It now said it was no longer going to install the panels.
2. the work did not start in July 2023 as the landlord had indicated in its letter.
3. the landlord’s contractor built scaffolding outside her property in August 2023. However, work did not commence for a further 3 weeks meaning the scaffolding was unused during this time.
4. the contractor removed render from a section of the front wall of the property, including under a bay window. It did not cover the exposed area. As a result, rainwater had caused damage to walls and ceilings in the property. It also led to the property being very cold.
5. she suffered financial loss as she would have to redecorate and it was costing her more to keep warm.
6. the contractor kept leaving the forecourt of her property in an untidy condition and as a result she had to clean it every day.
7. she was unhappy with the landlord “bodging jobs”.
The landlord attended the property on 25 October 2023 to carry out an inspection and discuss the complaint with its contractor. It issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023. It said:
1. it considered the installation of solar panels during the procurement of the project work but it did not pursue this.
2. it was unable to find any previous correspondence in which it confirmed to the resident that it would install the solar panels. If a member of staff told her this anecdotally, it had no record of this but apologised for any confusion caused.
3. it assigned the contractor 8 properties to complete within the timeframe 17 July 2023 to 8 November 2023. The start date for each property was due to be staggered throughout this period. The landlord therefore had not intended to start the works to the resident’s property on 17 July 2023.
4. it could have made the projected start date for work to the resident’s property clearer in the letter it sent in July 2023.
5. it accepted there was an unnecessary delay of 2 weeks between the contractor erecting the scaffolding and commencing works to the fascias and soffits.
6. it had inspected the reported damp ingress and found it was attributable to defects in the brickwork. It repaired these defects during the renovation project and also completed works to the rainwater goods. It hoped this would address the damp but it would continue to monitor the property.
7. as part of the ongoing works, it would carry out internal and external decoration, including to the areas damaged by damp.
8. although the removal of render from the front wall had not caused the damp issues, it agreed that the contractor should improve the temporary weather stopping. It had instructed the contractor to make this improvement.
9. it apologised that the contractor had not adequately managed the level of cleanliness in the forecourt. It raised this with the contractor. It asked it to provide photographic evidence at the end of each day to confirm it was leaving the property in an acceptable condition.
In concluding its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised again for not being clearer in its communications with the resident. It said it was sorry for the “clear contractor performance issues”. It confirmed that it had raised these issues with the contractor. The landlord said it would take account of these issues when it assessed the contractor’s performance in the future.
The landlord had not completed the renovation project works and decorative works due to the damp by the time of the stage 1 response. It therefore continued to progress this work.
On 20 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported that there was damp and mould in a bedroom. She said she was unable to secure blinds to the walls as they were wet and crumbling. She also reported a bedroom window was leaking. She asked to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy with the stage 1 response and remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s progress in resolving the damp ingress.
The landlord removed the scaffolding from the property on 24 November 2023. It completed the renovation project, which involved works to the fascia, soffit and rainwater goods, on 13 December 2023. However, the damp remained an ongoing issue. When the landlord inspected the property on 22 December 2023, it found that the walls and render were still wet. It could not complete internal and external decorative works until the walls and the new render on the front of the property had fully dried out. The landlord wrote to the resident following the inspection to advise that as it needed to carry out further investigations, the stage 2 complaint response would be delayed.
The landlord carried out 3 further inspections during January 2024 to investigate the cause of the ongoing damp. It agreed with the contractor the action that was required to resolve this. It then issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 30 January 2024. It provided a similar response as it did at stage 1 to the complaints about the solar panels, the delay in commencing the renovation works, and contractor performance. In response to the damp issues that had arisen, it said:
1. the damp issues to the front elevation of the property were not fully resolved by the remedial works undertaken during the renovation project.
2. its investigations in January 2024 identified the remedial work required to resolve the damp issues. It listed the jobs it would carry out.
3. it would replaster and redecorate the front elevation walls as these had become stained and damaged due to the damp and associated works.
4. although the resident had reported she was unable to fit her blinds due to crumbling walls, it understood she had since resolved this. It advised her to report any further issues with defective plaster to the repairs support team.
5. it tested humidity levels in the property and the temperature of the external walls during its investigations. Humidity levels were high and wall temperatures were low, which could contribute to condensation. To address this:
  1. it recommended the resident increased the levels of ventilation and heating in the property where possible.
  2. it provided the resident with a guidance leaflet on how to reduce condensation.
  3. it offered to install an electronic device that monitors temperature and humidity levels in the property. It said it would review the results of the monitoring to determine what further action it could take to mitigate condensation.
6. condensation may have caused the mould in the bedroom, although blocked guttering to the rear of the property and the condition of the party wall may also have been contributing factors. It set out the remedial work it would carry out to resolve these repair issues.
7. it was sorry it had not repaired a leak in a bedroom window in a timely manner. It set out the remedial work it would carry out to repair the window.
The landlord asked the resident to contact its surveyor so it could arrange appointments for the remedial works set out in the stage 2 response. It said that upon completion of the works, it would carry out further inspections at 3, 6 and 9 months to ensure it had effectively resolved all issues. It recognised that it had been “frustrating” for the resident that it not carried out the various remedial previously. It said this was because “defect diagnosis within buildings is a dynamic process in which multiple actions may need to be undertaken over a period of time to resolve the issues.” It offered the resident £100 as a “gesture of goodwill” for the various issues and disruption she had encountered.
The landlord progressed the remedial works set out in the stage 2 complaint response. However, by April 2024, damp remained an ongoing issue. Further investigations found that some replastering was required inside the property. This meant that decorative works also remained outstanding.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s progress in resolving these issues. She therefore referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had been living with damp and mould since the start of her tenancy. She wanted the landlord to fully resolve it or to move her to a suitable property free from disrepair.

Assessment and findings

Handling of renovation works to the property

Prior to the resident submitting her formal complaint, she rang the landlord on 21 September 2023 to express her concern about delays and the quality of the renovation works. The landlord responded to this by sending its lead surveyor for the project to inspect the property on 29 September 2023 and discuss the concerns with the resident and the contractor. This was a reasonable first response and demonstrated that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord received the resident’s formal complaint on 17 October 2023. On 25 October 2023 it sent a senior building surveyor to inspect the renovation works and reported damp issue along with the lead surveyor. The findings of this inspection informed the stage 1 response. The stage 1 complaint handler discussed the findings with the lead surveyor and also reviewed the landlord’s repairs database to understand the history of works in the property. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), this was a thorough stage 1 complaint investigation. The landlord carried out a similarly thorough investigation at stage 2 which was informed by numerous further inspections of the property, including by the senior building surveyor.
The landlord’s handling of the damp issues that it identified during the renovation project is considered separately in the assessment section below. In relation to the renovation project itself, the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses a number of areas in which it could have provided a better service. These included:
1. that it “could have been clearer” in its July 2023 correspondence to the resident about when the work to her property would start.
2. that there was an “unnecessary delay” between the contractor erecting the scaffolding and commencing the work.
3. that the contractor could have improved the temporary weather stopping.
4. that the level of cleanliness in the forecourt “not well managed” by the contractor.
The landlord appropriately recognised that a number of these failures were a contract management issue for which it was responsible. It said in the stage 1 response that it would raise the performance issues with the contractor. The Ombudsman has been provided with copies of emails between the landlord and the contractor, along with the landlord’s reports of site inspections. It is evident that further to the stage 1 response, the landlord did raise these issues with the contractor and agreed a clear plan of action with timeframes. This included requiring the contractor to provide it with photographs of the front of the property to demonstrate that it was being left in a tidy condition. The landlord appropriately undertook regular site visits to oversee that the remaining project work, which completed on 13 December 2023, was carried out to an acceptable standard.
The landlord explained in both complaint responses how the failures would reflect upon the contractor in its performance reviews and could potentially affect the award of future contracts. This demonstrated that in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, the landlord intended to learn from the failings identified in this case.
In relation to the solar panels, the landlord was not obliged by the tenancy agreement, or otherwise, to provide these. During its stage 1 complaint investigation, it checked its records and found no evidence that it had previously advised the resident it would install these as part of the renovation project. It acknowledged in both complaint responses that she could have been told they would be by a surveyor given that the panels were a consideration during the procurement stage of the project. However, that surveyor had left the organisation so it was unable to ask him about this. The landlord reasonably explained all of this in its complaint responses and apologised to the resident for any miscommunication she may have received from the surveyor.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture for all the “issues and disruption” she encountered during the renovation works. We are satisfied, in line with our remedies guidance, that this amount was reasonable to compensate the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the renovation works to the property.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s complaint about the handling of renovation works to the property. It acknowledged in both complaint responses that it could have improved its communications with the resident prior to the project starting and that there were issues with the contractor’s performance. It offered her a reasonable amount of compensation for this. It appropriately raised the performance issues with the contractor and oversaw that it completed the remaining renovation works to a satisfactory standard.

Response to reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord is responsible under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes drains, gutter and external pipes. If damp and mould occur in the property due to disrepair, the landlord is responsible for resolving it and taking steps to prevent reoccurrence.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will:
1. undertake a property inspection within 14 days after a repair is reported relating to suspected damp, mould and condensation.
2. investigate and diagnose the cause of damp and deliver effective solutions that deal with the cause of the damp and not just the symptoms.
3. undertake reasonable improvement works required to assist in the management and control of condensation dampness.
4. provide residents with general advice and guidance on how to minimise damp and condensation.
5. follow up each completed damp and mould repair within 6 months of work being carried out to assess if it has been effective.
The evidence shows that there was a history of damp and mould in the resident’s property. In September 2022, she reported damp in the living room ceiling and a leak in the bay window at the front of the property. The landlord appropriately accepted that it was responsible for resolving this. It investigated and completed remedial works in January 2023 to plasterwork and guttering. It inspected the air bricks on the front elevation and removed debris from the cavity. It was satisfied that it had resolved the damp issue. This was based upon advice from a qualified surveyor. It was reasonable that it relied upon that advice and determined that it did not need to take any no further action.
In August 2023, as part of the renovation works, the landlord removed some render from the exterior of the property. This revealed that the brickwork of the bay window was in poor condition. The landlord therefore appropriately decided to repair the brickwork while carrying out the renovation works.
The resident rang the landlord on 21 September 2023 and said she was unhappy with the progress of the renovation works. The landlord attended the property to assess the works and discuss her concerns on 29 September 2023. During this inspection it found that there was damp in the front wall of the property. However, it believed that by replacing the brickwork and rainwater goods during the renovation project, the damp issue would be resolved. It reasonably recorded in its inspection notes that it would continue to monitor this.
The resident submitted her formal complaint on 17 October 2023. She suggested that there was damp in the front rooms of the property due to the contractor not adequately weatherproofing the external wall where it had removed the render. The landlord inspected the property the following week on 25 October 2023. This was in adherence with its damp and mould policy which requires it to carry out inspections within 14 days of a resident reporting an issue.
During its inspection, the landlord ruled out that the damp to the front of the property was caused by poor weatherproofing as the resident had suggested. It concluded that it was instead caused by the defects in the brickwork. It advised the resident of this in its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It explained that it hoped the repairs carried out during the renovation project would prevent any future damp issues arising. It committed to further monitoring of the property to ensure it had fully resolved the issue. This was a reasonable response based on the evidence and information available to the landlord at that time.
The landlord followed through with the commitment made in the stage 1 response to continue to monitor the property. It carried out inspections on 17 November, 1 December and 22 December 2023. It checked if the new render applied to the front of the property was drying out as internal and external decoration could not be completed until it had done so. It found it was not and that further investigation was required.
A senior building surveyor attended the inspection on 22 December 2023. By this stage the resident had escalated her complaint. The senior surveyor was asked to consider the complaint issues during his inspection. He then produced a detailed inspection report. This was provided to the stage 2 complaint handler along with reports from the further investigations carried out in January 2024. This enabled the landlord to carry out a thorough complaint investigation in line with the Code and provide a stage 2 response that listed the specific remedial works required to resolve the ongoing damp issues.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on the Code recognises that landlords may not have completed all outstanding actions by the time a complaint response is issued. This is often the case where the complaint involves repair issues that can take time to resolve. Our guidance provides that in such instances, the complaint response should provide an action plan setting out what is required to resolve the issues. The landlord should monitor the action plan and keep the resident updated on the progress of any outstanding actions until they are completed.
The landlord’s stage 2 response listed the remedial work required to address the damp in the front elevation of the property, the damp and mould in the rear of the property, and to repair the bedroom window. The landlord reasonably asked the resident to contact it in order that the work could be scheduled in. It then liaised with its contractor and arranged for the remedial works to be carried out. It has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it conducted regular inspections to oversee the quality of its contractor’s works and to address emerging issues. It produced a detailed report in August 2024 setting out all the works that had been completed and detailing some further work that was scheduled in for later that month. This included replastering of internal walls and work to the party wall with the neighbouring property.
In her contact with the Ombudsman in July 2024, the resident outlined her frustration that 6 months after the stage 2 complaint response was issued, the works to resolve the damp remained ongoing. However, based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord followed through on the commitments made in the stage 2 response. It explained in the response that “defect diagnosis within buildings is a dynamic process in which multiple actions may need to be undertaken over a period of time to resolve the issues.”
The Ombudsman accepts that damp can be difficult to resolve and that the remedial works required are not always immediately identifiable. For example, we recognise that the landlord may not have known in January 2024, when issuing the stage 2 response, that the internal walls required replastering. It only identified this through its ongoing monitoring of the moisture levels in the property. It carried out the ongoing monitoring as this was a commitment made in the stage 2 response.
In addition to identifying the various repair issues associated with the damp and mould, the landlord’s inspections revealed there were high levels of humidity in the property and low temperatures in the walls. It believed this may have caused condensation which it said was a contributing factor to the damp and mould in the rear bedroom. It was therefore reasonable that in its stage 2 response it provided the resident with advice on how to reduce the occurrence of condensation. It provided her with an information leaflet. It also offered to install an electronic device to measure humidity and temperature. It said it would use the readings from this device to inform its future decisions about whether any specialist ventilation devices were required to mitigate condensation. The resident agreed to this and the device was installed. This was good practice by the landlord. It demonstrated that it was seeking to proactively manage and prevent the reoccurrence of damp and mould in the property.
Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property. In line with its policy, it carried out its initial inspections promptly upon receiving the resident’s reports. During these inspections, it investigated and diagnosed the causes of the problem. It identified the remedial works required. It liaised with its contractor and oversaw that the remedial works were carried out to an acceptable standard. It has committed to continue to monitor the property for damp and mould. It has also offered the resident reasonable advice and support to reduce the occurrence of condensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of renovation works to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.

Recommendation

If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 30 January 2024, it should reoffer this to her. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress in relation to the handling of renovation works to the property is based upon the understanding that this offer, if not already paid, remains valid.