Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202218444)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218444

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 July 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:
1. damp and mould in the property.
2. damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos.
3. damage to the garden fence and gate.
4. a drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen.
5. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The resident lives with her 3 children. One of the resident’s children has asthma. The landlord advised this Service there were no known vulnerabilities.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord identified some follow-on work required in the resident’s property after she had previously reported a leak in the bathroom. The follow-on work included replacing the bath panel, flooring, tiles and repainting the bathroom. The landlord identified multiple leaks in the property which it said needed investigating in the loft and asked for reports on the damage. On 30 June 2021 the landlord raised work orders for an inspection of the loft as there had been water ingress into a bedroom and for a complete re-decoration of the bedroom affected. Another works order was raised by the landlord on 2 July 2021 after the resident reported damage to the garden fence and sharp nails in the fence left exposed.
The resident raised a complaint on 16 March 2022 about outstanding repairs. She said there was damp and mould in the small bedroom and kitchen due to a lack of insulation in the loft and a wall. The resident stated one of her children had asthma and several asthma attacks were due to the condition of the property. She said she had to throw away and replace a lot of belongings due to the damp and mould. The resident stated repairs to the hallway and the lounge ceiling caused by a leak in the bathroom in 2020 were outstanding. She said the lounge ceiling contained asbestos. The resident was concerned about her children being exposed to asbestos. She stated the garden fence and gate were damaged and had sharp nails sticking out. One panel from the gate had blown onto a delivery driver and the nails had cut him. The resident said there was an ongoing issue with the drainage outside the kitchen which caused smells and overflows. She said the kitchen units near this area had become rotten as the kitchen wall is constantly wet due to the drainage and pipework problem.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 April 2022. It stated over the coming month a contractor would assess the property for insulation and get it fitted. The landlord said an appointment for a supervisor to assess the damage caused by the bathroom leak had been arranged for 8 April 2022. It said after the report had been received it would book appointments for the work required. The landlord said an appointment had occurred on 30 March 2022 for an emergency repair to the garden fence and gate. A full repair was booked in for 13 April 2022. The landlord said a survey was booked for 8 April 2022 to find a solution to the problem with the drainage and pipework outside. It acknowledged the repairs should have been completed much quicker and apologised for the overall experience the resident had. The landlord awarded £150 compensation for the poor experience the resident had overall. It offered to have the damaged skirting in the bathroom and hallway repaired or replaced, the affected walls in the hallway painted and the lounge ceiling repaired and painted.
On 14 November 2022 the resident escalated her complaint because many of the repairs remained outstanding. She had also not received the £150 compensation. The resident said the house was still wet and mouldy. She stated multiple areas of the house had become further damaged and rotten. The resident said she had experienced a lot of expense for mould treatments and replacing items that had been damaged. The outstanding jobs included the insulation, the drainage outside the kitchen, a garden fence panel, redecoration of the hallway and the lounge ceiling repair. The resident said she had put tape over the lounge ceiling as it was flaking, and white powder fell when her children ran across the landing above. She said several operatives had attended and surveys had been carried out, but the work never got actioned.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 January 2023. It said it had arranged for a technical team member to visit the property to assess the repairs and arrange for the work to be completed. The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation for the time the resident had taken to go through the complaints process and for any distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 May 2023. She was unhappy that the repairs remained outstanding and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident felt the landlord had endangered the health and safety of her children and had breached the tenancy agreement as it had not carried out the repairs. She wanted the repairs to be completed and compensation for damage to belongings, delays and distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident referenced in her correspondence to the landlord that one of her children suffers from asthma and had to attend Accident and Emergency (A&E) at hospital on several occasions. The resident advised the landlord that several of her child’s asthma attacks were induced by the damp and mould in the property. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s child’s health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance.
The resident said she had been reporting the damp and mould since 2016. However, paragraph 42c of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”. This means this Service will not normally consider events that have happened 12 months prior to them being raised formally with the landlord. However, there is information available to this Service from 30 October 2020 which is important to this case because it showed the landlord was aware of the issues long before the resident complained and point to failings which would be unfair for this Service to exclude from the investigation. Therefore, this investigation will include events from 30 October 2020.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states, “We must keep the structure and exterior of your home in good repair and repair any damage that has not been caused by you or someone living with or visiting you”. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
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 properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The evidence showed damp and mould had been an ongoing problem at the resident’s property for a long length of time. The resident advised in her complaint dated 16 March 2022 that she had reported her initial concerns of damp and mould in the small bedroom to the landlord in 2016 and had followed up with regular emails and photos. This Service has been unable to verify whether the issue existed in 2016 as this falls outside of the scope of our investigation, however, the landlord has shared records that date back to 30 October 2020. It is evident from these records that the landlord was aware of the problems with damp and mould at the resident’s property before this date. Despite this, the problems with damp and mould were still occurring at the time of the resident’s complaint on 16 March 2022 and remain at the time of writing this report. This is inappropriate. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is imperative that residents are not left living with damp and mould for an extended period” and “Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”.
It was unclear from the evidence what work the landlord had carried out to address the damp and mould because many of the repair logs submitted to this Service for this investigation had a status of “cancelled”, “other trade required” or “more time required”. There were two work orders raised on 30 June 2021. One was for an inspection of the loft as there had been water ingress into the small bedroom and as the damp was significant the landlord considered it might have been caused by a roof leak. The other work order was for a complete re-decoration of the bedroom affected. The evidence showed the re-decoration of the bedroom was not completed until 25 August 2021. It was unclear on what date the loft inspection took place, but a landlord internal email stated this occurred in July 2021.
The landlord’s internal email said the roofing contractor’s report from July 2021 stated, “The roof is in good order. The walls are not lagged so cold bridging is happening. This will require cavity wall insulation and ventilation”. However, the landlord did not action any work from the roofing contractor’s report. It was not until 20 October 2021 that internal communication showed a staff member at the landlord asked how to proceed regarding the roofing contractor report. It was unclear what response was received as there were no further notes on the works order about this and no action was taken. The rooms that were affected by the damp and mould due to the lack of cavity wall insulation were the hallway, small bedroom and kitchen. The small bedroom and kitchen adjoined the wall that did not have the cavity wall insulation and parts of the hallway also lacked cavity wall insulation.
The resident raised the lack of insulation in her complaint on 16 March 2022. She stated “I was told by multiple work men whom attended and checked the loft that insulation at that end of the property was missed and that there is a large area exactly above the box room and its most wet wall where there is no insulation and the wall is hollow. I was reassured multiple times that an appointment will be made to fix this in the past over 5 years. You have failed to deliver this so far”. In its stage 1 response dated 6 April 2022 the landlord said, “The contractor will assess for the insulation and have this fitted for you”. No evidence was provided to show when the contractor attended the property to carry out the assessment. However, the resident advised this Service on 26 June 2024, 812 calendar days later, that the insulation was still outstanding. This is inappropriate.
The resident had to repeatedly contact the landlord to try and get updates on what was happening. In an email to the landlord on 19 February 2023 the resident wrote “Further to [surveyor’s] visit 3 weeks ago, I started to experience a slight deja vu, as previously, following a visit, there has been no follow up, no communication at all, let alone any signs of any jobs to be carried out”. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states, “We will keep customers informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues and the timetabling of works, where these are required. This includes explaining to them why work might be needed and what work might be done. If any changes to the programme of works are needed, we will keep them informed”. Throughout the evidence it was clear that the landlord was not keeping the resident updated in line with its policy. This was inappropriate and would have added to the distress and frustration experienced by the resident.
The landlord raised work orders for some mould washes. A job for a mould wash was raised with a contractor on 1 March 2023. This was raised as “routine” for completion “within 10 calendar days”. However, this should have been raised as “extreme” or “severe” for completion within 48 hours or 5 working days respectively, in line with the landlord’s policy due to the health vulnerabilities within the household. On 7 March 2023 the resident said in an email to the landlord that, “Booking mould treatment/washing the walls is a temporary fix and as the walls [are] constantly wet because the underlying issue isn’t resolved, the mould returns. Unless [contractor] attends every day to wash the walls (which is what I do) it’s pointless”. On 27 April 2023 a contractor also stated a similar opinion about mould washes and the landlord’s approach to the damp and mould problem at the resident’s property. The operative said, “this appears to be an ongoing issue as I’ve been here quite some time ago, areas in question are physically wet, not in need of mould wash, but the problem to be solved”.
The notes on the work order for the mould wash were updated by an operative on 27 April 2023 and stated, “we went out today to do a mould wash, but the walls are still wet, the tenant says that she has had 4 visits from surveyor, do you have notes for this as work cannot commence until dry”. There was evidence that showed some other work could not be carried out previously due to the severity of the damp. A work order updated on 12 April 2021 stated, “unable to paint due to areas being wet”. The evidence showed another mould wash was requested by the landlord on 8 September 2023.
Both the resident and the landlord referenced in their communication that surveys were carried out. This Service was not provided with details of what surveys were carried out and when any surveys took place. Therefore, we are unable to establish if the landlord carried out these surveys in a timely manner and whether it acted appropriately in response to survey findings.
While this Service has not seen details of surveys, the evidence does show the landlord made repeated requests for surveys over a long length of time with no evidence of any work being carried out after. The stage 1 response dated 6 April 2022 said a survey would be carried out. On 17 January 2023, 286 calendar days later, the landlord advised the resident that it needed to carry out a survey. On the same date the resident replied “Don’t you have the reports from the last many surveyors?… Please tell me that we have moved on from the stage that you conclude that a visit is required to determine the next steps”. A note added to a work order dated 4 May 2023 said, “Further investigation to damp penetration required by surveyor or damp specialist”. On 2 November 2023, 575 calendar days after the landlord issued its stage 1 response saying a survey would be carried out to investigate the damp and mould, a repairs log note stated, “Passed to [contractor] today for D&M survey”. The resident reported to the landlord that multiple surveyor visits had occurred, but no work took place as a result which frustrated the resident.
Without the survey results this Service was unable to establish the full extent of the damp and mould at the property. However, the fact that on occasions work was unable to be carried out as the walls were too wet and parts of the property did not have any cavity wall insulation it was reasonable to conclude the resident and her children did not have full enjoyment of the property due to the damp and mould. The resident advised this Service that she had to ask her children to avoid the kitchen as it was so damp because water was penetrating the wall. She also said in winter she did not allow her child to sleep in the small bedroom.
Internal communication at the landlord showed there was a lack of clarity regarding what work had been actioned. An internal email dated 6 April 2023 stated, “It’s not clear what progress has been made on the damp and mould case for the above property”. On 20 June 2023 an internal email said the resident had emailed “requesting an update on the progress of her damp repair…I cannot see a current job regarding this on [system]”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that there was a lack of ownership and oversight of the resident’s damp and mould case which hindered progress and a resolution to the problem. There was no evidence to show that the landlord acted with any urgency or took sufficient action to comply with the HHSRS requirements.
The evidence showed one reason why the insulation work may not have been carried out could have been due to the landlord’s inappropriate damp and mould policy. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states, “Where a property inspection is undertaken, we will identify and resolve root causes such as sources of dampness, inadequate insulation, heating and ventilation. Any recommended upgrade or installation work will be considered as part of our planned investment programmes”. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is not aligned with the zero tolerance approach this Service expects from landlords. Recommendation 1 from the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
An internal landlord email dated 21 April 2023 stated, “The EPC certificate for this property states it has partial cavity wall insulation with an energy rating of D, we therefore anticipate any further energy performance improvements being installed in the latter part of the programme which covers the next 7 years to 2030. We do not have any immediate plans this financial year to install cavity wall insulation, we will however contact the customer closer to the programme year when works are due”. This was inappropriate and meant the root cause of the damp and mould at the resident’s property might not be addressed until 2030. The need for the cavity wall insulation had been seen as an “energy performance improvement” by the landlord rather than a solution to the damp that was penetrating the property and causing mould.
From the evidence it was clear the landlord had an inappropriate attitude towards damp and mould cases. A repairs log contained an internal Teams message dated 30 June 2023 which said “At the moment I’ve been told that we won’t be dealing with damp or mould cases for the foreseeable until a few things have been ironed out, sorry!”. This was inappropriate. The landlord has legal repair obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”. It also has legal obligations to do this under its tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s inappropriate attitude towards damp and mould was also evident in an internal email dated 4 July 2023 which said, “It seems a bit amiss for [colleague’s name] to recommend/discuss cavity wall insulation, as in the customer’s eyes it will be the answer to all their problems. Whilst it might resolve some issues in relation to damp and mould or fuel poverty – it isn’t an immediate solution to plant in a customer’s mind when their own housekeeping regime might be a more fitting solution. It also places unnecessary strain on other teams. I think we need to address this with the whole team”. This communication showed the landlord was not taking responsibility for resolving the damp and mould issue. Instead, it sought to apportion blame to the resident’s “housekeeping regime”. This was inappropriate and unreasonable. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “It is crucial that landlords avoid paternalistic attitudes, automatically apportioning blame or using language inferring blame on the resident”.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident”. The landlord had identified that cavity wall insulation was missing and the rooms that were affected by the damp and mould adjoined walls that did not have the cavity wall insulation. Therefore, the landlord should have installed the insulation rather than suggesting the resident’s “housekeeping regime might be a more fitting solution”. This was inappropriate and placed the onus on the resident.
When the landlord submitted evidence for this investigation, it advised this Service there were no known vulnerabilities. However, in her complaint dated 16 March 2022 the resident stated, “please also note that I have several times made [landlord] aware that one of the children suffers from asthma and several of her asthma attacks were induced by the damage and neglected repair to the property”. Repeatedly in the resident’s communication with the landlord, she mentioned her children’s health. On 23 November 2022 in an email to the landlord, the resident stated the property “poses a significant health hazard to my three children, one is asthmatic and one with a history of wheezing”. The resident advised the landlord on 3 January 2023 that she had “visited the GP and other urgent services with my children with breathing/ asthma related concerns” and said “I owe the duty to my children to ensure neither of them end up dead or seriously harmed from the unhealthy mouldy house (where these are beyond my capabilities to treat because it is structural issues)”.
On 14 January 2023 the resident sent the landlord a letter from her GP dated 10 January 2023 in which the GP stated, “I am quite concerned to hear that they are currently living in a place ridden with damp and mould….I do believe these poor living standards can be contributing to the worsening of [child’s] asthma….[Child] especially suffers from the most common symptoms of mouldy musty environment….but the other two children have also been showing signs of the same symptoms….Her symptoms did not improve at all regardless of what we try….and I am not surprised because the issue is the ongoing wet mouldy environment. Her symptoms ease slightly when she is in school for example as she is not exposed to the mould. I am very concerned about the impact of these poor living standards on [child’s], as well as the whole family’s physical health and would urge you to take it seriously and treat this case with high priority!”.
The resident advised the landlord she had to take her child to a doctor on 20 January 2023 due to the child “suffocating within these wet and mouldy walls”. She said, “I wouldn’t keep a dog in a room like these”. In other communications with the landlord, the resident said she had to take her child to A&E on 2 March and 3 March 2023 due to “breathing difficulties” and again on 23 May 2023 due to “asthma”. On 24 May 2023, the day after the visit to A&E, the resident said in an email to the landlord “My daughter once again was taken to A&E due to her asthma yesterday”. The resident stated the landlord was “endangering the health and welfare of a child”. She asked the landlord what would cause it to act, “Death? [A] fatal asthma attack?”. In this email the resident also raised concerns about “the long-term health consequences” of her child “being regularly treated with high levels of steroids” and the financial implication of taking time off work due to her child becoming ill.
The resident had repeatedly raised the health vulnerabilities of her children with the landlord. When it became aware that the resident’s child was experiencing respiratory issues, the landlord should have considered the possible risks of exposure to damp and mould. The landlord’s damp and mould policy accounts for vulnerability when defining the severity of a damp and mould problem. However, there was no evidence to show that the resident’s household was identified as vulnerable by the landlord, or their damp and mould problem responded to as “extreme” or “severe” in line with the landlord’s policy when the vulnerabilities were highlighted. There was no evidence to show a risk assessment was carried out by the landlord.
It appeared the vulnerabilities of this household had not been appropriately recorded by the landlord because this Service was told there were no known vulnerabilities when the landlord was asked about vulnerability in the evidence request for this case. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s household may not have had these vulnerabilities at the start of the tenancy. However, the landlord is expected to update its records when it becomes aware of a vulnerability. This is important as illnesses, disabilities and vulnerabilities may develop over time. The landlord cannot solely rely on out-of-date records. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management recording vulnerabilities is the first step in providing a sensitive and responsive service. This information must be kept up to date, be accessible, and be shared and used appropriately. The landlord did not do this.
It was evident from the resident’s communication that she experienced a lot of distress and concern about her children’s health regarding the damp and mould problem. The evidence showed the resident had repeatedly asked for a copy of the surveys that had been carried out at the property regarding the damp and mould but the landlord did not acknowledge these requests or provide this information. The resident advised this Service that during winters, she slept in the lounge so her child could use her bedroom as the damp and mould was so bad in the child’s bedroom. The resident said she was concerned that many of the rooms in the house were either covered in damp and mould or covered in chemicals as she tried to treat the mould.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states, “Landlords should recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident and should therefore be responded to in a timely manner”. There was no evidence to show the landlord ever acknowledged the resident’s concerns about her children’s health in relation to the damp and mould problem which was inappropriate and unreasonable. With the damp and mould problem ongoing for many years, the resident experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience.
The resident repeatedly expressed the financial strain the extent of the damp and mould problem was having on her. In her complaint dated 16 March 2022 the resident said she had incurred additional costs due to the damp and mould that she could “no longer continue to maintain”. Throughout her ongoing communication with the landlord the resident advised the damp and mould had damaged her belongings including flooring, blinds, her fridge that had rusted, other furnishings and clothing. The resident also advised of the increased costs due to “the increased washing, use of electricity to keep our bedsheets and clothes mould and earthy smell free”.
The landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation in its stage 1 response “in recognition of the poor experience, you’ve had overall”. In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded £100 compensation “for the time you’ve taken to go through our complaint process, as well as the distress and any inconvenience caused”. There was no compensation provided specifically for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. This is because the damp and mould problem has been ongoing for many years, since at least 30 October 2020 and remains unresolved. The landlord has not provided a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The cavity wall insulation required has not been installed.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by the Ombudsman in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of use and enjoyment of a property. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent charge, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident’s rent is based on the weekly rent of £200.33 for 2020-21, £203.33 for 2021-22, £211.67 for 2022-23, £226.49 for 2023-24 and £243.93 for 2024-25.
The order considers the weekly rents specified above from 30 October 2020, when the records show the landlord was already aware of the damp and mould problem, to 26 June 2024 when the resident confirmed the issue remained unresolved. As such, the resident and her children have been living with damp and mould for 190 weeks. The Ombudsman concludes that compensation based on 10% of the weekly rent should be paid to the resident because the resident and her family did not have full enjoyment of a bedroom and the kitchen in comparison to if the property had not been affected by damp and mould. This amounts to £4066.98 to recognise the loss of enjoyment of these rooms over 190 weeks.
The chief executive of the landlord must apologise to the resident for its significant failings in its handling of this case. The landlord must provide the resident with a copy of a surveyor’s or damp specialist’s report regarding the damp and mould within the property and the cavity wall insulation must be installed.
The Ombudsman has issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54f of the Scheme which states, “The Ombudsman’s determination may uphold or reject the complaint and make orders or recommendations, including that the member review and/or update policies and practice where a matter may result in further complaints about the same matter”. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy in relation to responding to damp and mould. This is to ensure the landlord operates a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and does not leave residents waiting for a “planned investment programme” to address “sources of damp, inadequate insulation, heating and ventilation”. We have set out the scope of the review below.

The landlord’s handling of damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos.

The resident stated in her complaint dated 16 March 2022 that in 2020 she had reported a leak in her bathroom that had significantly damaged her bathroom and affected the lounge ceiling below. The evidence did not show when in 2020 the bathroom leak was first reported. The resident advised this Service that she reported it in January 2020, but the landlord said it could not attend as it had a backlog of repair jobs, then the COVID-19 pandemic occurred. The resident said the leak was left for 6-7 months which affected the ceiling and a hole in the ceiling appeared. In her complaint the resident said the redecoration of the damaged floor and walls in the bathroom, hallway and lounge was agreed by the landlord because the damage occurred due to the delay in the landlord responding to the leak. The evidence received from the landlord supported that the landlord had committed to do this work. The evidence showed that follow-on work was raised on 30 October 2020 which included to “take photos and report on damage to the flooring and ceiling area as customer had advised a lot of damage has been done to these areas”.
The evidence showed that it was not until the bathroom work was completed on 12 April 2021 that the landlord requested an asbestos survey of the damaged ceiling. This was 164 calendar days after the follow-on works were raised on 30 October 2020 in which the damage to the ceiling was referenced. The delay in requesting an asbestos survey was inappropriate as the landlord was aware of the damage to the ceiling and it may have been a risk to the resident and her children. Asbestos is a building material which was banned in the UK in 1999. Many buildings constructed on or before this year may contain asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states that asbestos is not dangerous or a health hazard if it is in good condition and if safely managed and contained. However, if disturbed, fibres are released into the air and, if inhaled, this can cause serious diseases. The landlord should have acted promptly when it was aware the artexed ceiling had been damaged. It should not have waited 164 calendar days to request the asbestos survey.
The request for the asbestos survey was originally raised under job reference 3987061 on 12 April 2021. The evidence submitted did not show any further notes on this work order regarding the asbestos survey after this date. The evidence showed a new job for the lounge ceiling was raised on 6 April 2022 which was the date of the landlord’s stage 1 response. This was 359 calendar days after the asbestos survey was originally requested. However, this new job reference was not updated with notes saying an asbestos survey was needed until 4 July 2022, which was 89 calendar days after the job was raised and 448 calendar days after the original asbestos survey request was made. This was an unacceptable and inappropriate delay when the ceiling may have presented a health hazard. This was also an unacceptable and inappropriate length of time for the resident to wait for the repair to be actioned. The resident had used gaffer tape to try to cover up the hole. The evidence submitted did not show any further notes on this job reference for the asbestos survey or the ceiling repair.
A further job was raised for the lounge ceiling repair on 17 March 2023. This was the third job for this work, and it was raised 868 calendar days after the first job was created to address this repair. The notes on this job referenced this work was raised in relation to the stage 2 complaint response. However, this meant there was a 55-calendar day delay in raising this work as the stage 2 response was issued on 21 January 2023. This was not a timely response to address the issues in the stage 2 response, especially when the resident had already been waiting for such a long time for the work to be completed.
The landlord spoke to the resident when it raised this job, and the resident advised the landlord that an asbestos survey had been carried out and there was asbestos present. The landlord was unaware of this, and an internal email requested a copy of the asbestos survey. The evidence did not show when the asbestos survey took place. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Complaints about Repairs states, “The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre-and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. It appeared from the evidence that the landlord did not do this. It was not appropriate that the landlord had conducted an asbestos survey and the results had not been adequately recorded on the landlord’s systems. The HSE recommends that “a note is made by the landlord of the existence of the asbestos, on building plans or other records, that this information is kept up to date, and a register is set up of the location of the asbestos”.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord’s job reference was updated with notes to advise that asbestos was contained in the lounge ceiling. This was recorded 711 days after an asbestos survey was initially requested. The notes said, “asbestos team have been out and have not advised that it needs to be removed or encapsulated”. There was no evidence to show that the resident was advised about the outcome of the asbestos survey despite the resident expressing her concerns about this matter. In her escalation email the resident had advised “I still have a tape over the area that is exposed with asbestos in it, which is flaking, and white powder falls from it when a child runs across the hallway above this area”.
Despite the repair work to the lounge ceiling not being actioned or completed the job was cancelled on 24 March 2023 with notes stating, “[Contractor] will not be able to carry out these works before the end of the contract so no works to be carried out and to be picked up if required under the new contract” and “Job cancelled. Reason – no work required”. This was unacceptable. The evidence did not show when the contract with this contractor ended but the landlord should have ensured the outstanding work was carried out or allocated to another contractor. There was no evidence to show that the resident had been contacted and advised of this update, instead the resident was left to continue chasing the work.
The resident advised this Service on 26 June 2024 that this work was still outstanding, this was 1335 calendar days after the work was first raised on 30 October 2020. This is an unacceptable and inappropriate length of time for this repair to be outstanding. In the Ombudsman’s view this repair was mismanaged by the landlord. The repair was hindered by a lack of ownership to oversee the repair until completion, poor record keeping and unreasonable delays. There was no evidence to show that the landlord acted with any urgency or took sufficient action to comply with the HHSRS requirements when it was made aware of the potential hazard.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos. This is because the damage to the lounge ceiling has been left unrepaired for many years, since at least 30 October 2020 and remained unresolved as of 26 June 2024. There were significant delays to carrying out an asbestos survey and for many years the resident was left distressed about her children potentially being exposed to asbestos and feared using the lounge because of this.
The level of rent is used as a starting position by the Ombudsman in relation to the award of financial redress for loss of enjoyment of a property. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below considering the specific circumstances of this complaint, the resident’s rent charge, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The resident’s rent is based on the weekly rent payable for the years 2020-2024 as referred to earlier in this report. The order considers the weekly rent specified above from the 30 October 2020, when the records show the landlord raised a job to investigate the damage to the lounge ceiling, to 26 June 2024 when the resident confirmed the repair remained unresolved. As such, the resident and her children have been living with damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos for 190 weeks. The Ombudsman concludes that compensation based on 5% of the weekly rent should be paid to the resident as the resident experienced a loss of enjoyment of the lounge due to a perceived threat of harm from asbestos. This amounts to £2033.48 to recognise the loss of enjoyment of this room over 190 weeks.
The chief executive of the landlord must apologise to the resident for its significant failings in its handling of this case. The landlord must repair the lounge ceiling, if not already done so, taking the appropriate precautions regarding the asbestos.

The landlord’s handling of damage to the garden fence and gate.

In her complaint dated 16 March 2022, the resident raised outstanding repairs to her garden fence and gate. She said due to storms and wear and tear the garden fence and gate were damaged with pieces missing, pieces “crumbling when touched” and “dangerous sharp nails hanging out”. The resident stated she had raised this repair “multiple times in 2021”. The evidence supported this as the evidence showed that repairs had been raised for work to the fence on 2 July 2021, 19 October 2021 and 8 December 2021. The evidence did not show what work had been actioned because of these jobs, but the resident provided this information in her complaint. The resident said the first time she raised this repair the contractors did not attend as planned and she received no follow up. The second time she raised the repair a contractor attended, took measurements and photos and advised it all needed to be replaced but no work was actioned. It is unclear from the evidence what happened when the third job was raised. However, the jobs that were raised demonstrated that the landlord had missed opportunities to address this repair before the resident raised her complaint.
Due to the sharp nails sticking out of the fence and gate, the resident raised her concerns about the safety of her children and stated how one panel of the gate was blown onto a delivery man who sustained injuries to his arm as a nail cut him. Despite repeatedly reporting the problems with the garden fence and gate, the resident stated in her complaint dated 16 March 2022 that the repairs to the fence and gate remained outstanding.
On 29 March 2022, at the request of the complaints team, a job was raised for the fence and gate to be made safe on 30 March 2022 while the landlord arranged for a full repair to be authorised. This make safe occurred 272 calendar days after the first repair was raised for this matter. This was an unreasonable and inappropriate delay and was not in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s repairs policy states “general repairs” aim to be completed within 10 working days and “repairs exclusions”, which is not defined within the policy, were completed within 20 working days. The reasons for the delays to the fence and gate repairs were unclear but there were several tasks associated with the job references raised for the fence and gate that had a status of “cancelled”. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the full works would take place on 13 April 2022. The landlord has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its tenancy agreement. Therefore, the resident should not have needed to have raised a complaint to get the landlord to action a repair.
In the resident’s escalation email on 14 November 2022, she stated that work on one fence panel remained outstanding. The evidence showed a job was raised on 14 April 2022 to replace a fence panel, but this job was cancelled on 26 May 2022. There was no reason stated on the job notes for why this work was cancelled. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Complaints about Repairs states, “It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail”. The evidence submitted to this Service did not demonstrate this.
The resident advised this Service on 26 June 2024 that the repair to the last fence panel was still outstanding. This was 1090 calendar days since the repair was first logged and 804 calendar days after the repair for the outstanding panel was raised. This was an unacceptable delay and not in line with the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damage to the garden fence and gate. This is because of the length of time the repair remained outstanding despite repeated contact from the resident and as of 26 June 2024 the work is not complete. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of damage to the garden fence and gate, the landlord should award the resident £300 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to replace the outstanding fence panel.

The landlord’s handling of a drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen.

In the resident’s complaint she stated there was an ongoing problem with the drainage and pipework outside the kitchen. The resident said this drainage had been blocked several times and water had overflowed which created “an awful smell” that neighbours had complained about, and it kept “the wall of the kitchen constantly wet”. As a result, the resident said the kitchen cupboard under the sink had become rotten and damaged. The resident said she had “advised on many occasions that the area outside where the pipes are needs looking at”. However, the resident said no action had been taken about this. The resident explained in her escalation email that she had replaced the kitchen cupboard twice herself but could no longer afford to keep doing this, she said the problem needed to be fixed.
The landlord has not submitted any evidence about problems with the drainage and pipes at the property, so it is unclear how long this problem had been occurring. In its stage 1 response issued on 6 April 2022 the landlord said it had arranged for a CCTV survey to be carried out of the drainage on 8 April 2022. The landlord said this survey would enable it “to arrange further works for a permanent solution to solve this issue”. While this was a reasonable action for the landlord to take in response to the complaint, the resident should not have needed to have raised a complaint to get the landlord to investigate the matter. The survey results were not provided to this Service; therefore, it is unclear what the survey identified. However, in her escalation email the resident said this drain had “been multiple times surveyed and each time confirmed that it needs to be repaired/rebuilt as it is in an angle and that causes water blockage regularly which resulted in the long run to wet, mouldy and rotten kitchen units under the sink”.
Due to the resident’s communication with the landlord, it is evident that a contractor attended the resident’s property to work on the drain on 18 April 2023. This was 375 calendar days after the survey of the drain. The Ombudsman appreciates that sometimes repairs can take longer than anticipated if the repair is more complex than initially evident or if it takes time to identify the cause of the problem. However, 375 calendar days is an unacceptable length of time for this issue to remain outstanding when it was contributing to damp and mould in the kitchen. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to be monitoring the outcomes of surveys and appointments and taking the appropriate follow-up action in a timely manner.
The resident contacted the landlord after the appointment on 18 April 2023 stating, “Unfortunately again, wrong job description was handed to [contractor] by [landlord] and they sent a plumber to carry out ground works… He extended the pipe but obviously didn’t do any of the groundworks, which means my kitchen cabinets continue being wet and rot away, further property damage. It’s very, very frustrating that you are wasting my time and everyone else’s. And I can only imagine the cost of all these wasted wrong appointments. This also potentially means further weeks and months delay to send someone who can dig up the drain and realign it”.
The wrong operative being sent for this job demonstrated poor communication and a lack of oversight from the landlord, which was consistently a problem throughout the handling of all the resident’s repairs. This appointment caused more frustration for the resident and further extended the delay in the problem being resolved. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Complaints about Repairs states, “If a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services”. As the repair was outstanding for a long length of time and the contractor sent the wrong operative, it was evident the landlord did not have adequate oversight of this repair.
As repair records have not been sent to this Service for this matter, the Ombudsman is unable to establish what work, if any, has been completed since the appointment on 18 April 2023. However, the resident advised this Service that the landlord had removed the back panel of the kitchen cupboard and painted the wall where the water was penetrating from the drainage problem. The resident said the drainage problem was not resolved and the back panel of her cupboard was not replaced so items fell between the shelves. The resident stated that due to the water from the drainage problem penetrating the wall, the kitchen is too damp for her asthmatic child to be in, therefore she does not allow her children to be in the kitchen. On 26 June 2024 the resident advised this Service that the drainage problem remains unresolved. This is 833 calendar days after the resident raised the problem in her complaint. The resident said her kitchen is still affected by the drainage problem outside which causes water to penetrate the kitchen wall.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen. This is because of the length of time the repair remained outstanding despite repeated contact from the resident. This outstanding repair exacerbated the damp and mould problem within the kitchen which meant the resident did not feel it was safe for her children to be in the kitchen. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen, the landlord must award the resident £1000 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a copy of the drainage survey and carry out the required work to resolve this problem including making good in the kitchen once the drainage and pipework is repaired.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident asked this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of her complaint. The resident felt the complaints process had failed her because the landlord had not actioned the work which was the remedy to her complaint. The resident also advised this Service that she had not received some of the compensation the landlord had awarded her.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states, “The remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”. The landlord’s stage 2 response said a survey of the property would be arranged and the works from the survey would be completed. The survey took place, but the work was not carried out. This was a breach of the Code as the landlord did not follow the remedy through to completion. This meant the landlord’s complaint procedure did not resolve the resident’s complaint, it only further increased frustration for the resident when work continued to remain unactioned and outstanding.
The landlord also did not follow its compensation remedy through to completion. It awarded the resident £150 at stage 1 on 6 April 2022, but the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for the compensation payment. In the resident’s escalation email of 14 November 2022, the resident advised she had not received the compensation awarded at stage 1. The resident chased the landlord again on 28 February 2023 which was 328 calendar days after the compensation had been awarded. On 16 March 2023, the resident told the landlord she had now received the £150 compensation from stage 1. However, the resident said, “the additional £100 from the stage two process was not paid. Someone I spoke to reassured both will be paid on the same day, it wasn’t”. The stage 2 response was dated 21 January 2023 and the £100 compensation from this response remained outstanding when the resident spoke to this Service on 16 May 2024. This was 481 days after the compensation had been awarded. This compensation payment remains outstanding which is inappropriate and a breach of the Code.
Complaint handling by landlords should follow the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair”, “put things right” and “learn from outcomes”. It was evident throughout investigating this complaint that the resident was not treated fairly by the landlord. Her concerns and the repairs were not acted upon in a timely manner and she repeatedly had to chase the landlord for updates which often did not get responded to. The landlord did not put things right. The landlord did not identify what went wrong and why. It did not acknowledge its responsibilities and did not take appropriate steps in a timely manner to remedy the service failure. The landlord did not learn from outcomes as the resident had to repeatedly raise the same concerns and the issues remained which demonstrated lessons had not been learnt and actions had not been taken to improve service delivery. This was inappropriate and unreasonable. The complaints process should have brought resolution for the resident but instead it increased the frustration and distress she experienced.
Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. To reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £250 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damage to the garden fence and gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £8,650.46 The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to this Service. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £4066.98 in respect of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
2. £2033.48 in respect of the landlord’s handling of damage to the lounge ceiling containing asbestos.
3. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of damage to the garden fence and gate.
4. £1000 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the drainage and pipework problem outside the kitchen.
5. £1000 for distress and inconvenience caused over a prolonged period by the above matters.
6. £250 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is ordered to send a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failings she has experienced as identified in this report. The letter must acknowledge the detriment and inconvenience experienced by the resident. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of the letter it has sent within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a copy of a surveyor’s or damp specialist’s report regarding the damp and mould within the property and install the cavity insulation in all areas of the property that do not currently have it. After the insulation has been installed any areas of the property that have been affected by damp and mould should be appropriately treated and redecorated by the landlord. This work must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by completed works orders detailing the work carried out.
The landlord is ordered to repair the lounge ceiling, if not already done so, taking the appropriate precautions regarding the asbestos. If the asbestos does not need to be removed or encapsulated the landlord must provide a copy of the asbestos survey to the resident, for her peace of mind, so she can see what was recommended. After the repair to the lounge ceiling has been carried out, the landlord must redecorate the lounge ceiling. This work must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by sending this Service a copy of the asbestos report and completed works orders detailing the work carried out.
The landlord is ordered to replace the outstanding fence panel, if not already done so. This work must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by completed works orders detailing the work carried out.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a copy of the drainage survey and carry out the required work to resolve this problem, if not already done so. After the repair to the drainage and pipework is completed, the landlord must make good in the kitchen including appropriately treating any areas affected by damp and mould, redecorating any affected walls, replacing any affected flooring, kitchen cupboards and plinths and ensuring the kitchen cupboards have back panels. This work must be completed within 12 weeks of the date of this report and evidenced by completed works orders detailing the work carried out.
In accordance with paragraph 54f of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its policy and practice in relation to damp and mould. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. an exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
2. identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure, in the 12 months prior to the date of this report.
3. a review of its damp and mould policy and practices, in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould to ensure going forward there is a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould which does not delay remedies until a planned investment programme.
4. a review of its record-keeping practices to ensure appropriate recording of vulnerabilities and to ensure consideration is given to these when dealing with cases of damp and mould, and consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
5. a review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
Following the review, the landlord must produce a report setting out:
1. the findings and learnings from the review.
2. the changes it will make to its damp and mould policy to ensure going forward there is a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould that does not delay remedies to a planned investment programme.
3. recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
4. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
5. the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.

an implementation plan for staff training to ensure all relevant staff receive training on how to:
1. adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
2. respond to reports of damp and mould in a timely manner and reflect the urgency of the issue and any vulnerabilities within the household.
3. not apportion blame or use language inferring blame on the resident.

The landlord must embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform policy and practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord must provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord must also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in policy and practice have been embedded.
The landlord must contact the Ombudsman within 2 weeks of receiving this report to agree the terms of reference, timeframe, and milestones for the review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its repairs practices and carry out a self-assessment against the learning points made in the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Spotlight Report on Complaints about Repairs.
It is recommended that the landlord carry out complaint handling refresher training to ensure the remedies offered in future complaint responses are followed through to completion in line with the Code and all complaints are handled in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.