Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202419119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419119

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

15 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. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged her bedroom flooring.
This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bed semi-detached house. The resident moved into the property in 2012 and lives there with her 3 children.
The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with damp and mould in the property in April 2021. The landlord did not carry out any work at that time and gave the resident a leaflet about managing moisture and airflow in the property. She continued to report damp and mould throughout 2022.
In early November 2023 the resident reported an uncontainable leak coming through the ceiling of the downstairs WC. The landlord attended the same day and stopped the leak.
On 20 December 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould (Complaint 1). She said:
1. She had been reporting damp and mould for over 2 years. There were mushrooms growing in the bathroom.
2. The landlord had carried out several inspections and some repair but the mould kept returning.
3. She had young children with health conditions and the issue was impacting their health.
4. She kept having to take time off work for repeated visits from the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint 1 on 27 February 2024. It said:
1. It was aware that there had been a leak through the ground floor WC ceiling in November 2023.
2. It had completed works to resolve and repair the leak but the resident was still experiencing issues.
3. It had inspected the WC on 7 February 2024 and had raised works to:
  1. Check for further leaks.
  2. Renew an airbrick.
  3. Complete “minor” external pointing.
  4. Carry out a further mould wash.
4. It would inspect the WC again after completing these works to check they had resolved the issue.
5. It would try and arrange the inspection to ensure she did not need to take further time off work.
The resident responded on the same day and asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 1 to stage 2 of the complaint process. She said:
1. She had been experiencing ongoing damp and mould in the living room, WC, stairs and bedrooms.
2. The stage 1 response had only addressed the leak to the WC.
3. The issue was impacting her family’s health and wellbeing. Her daughter suffered from seizures.
4. She had had to leave her job because she kept having to take time of work for repairs appointments and her relationship had broken down due to the stress of the situation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 on 21 March 2024. It:
1. Outlined the inspections and works it had carried out in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Apologised for the “lack of investigation into the condensation, damp and mould”.
3. Accepted that the issues had not been “handled properly”.
4. Said it had carried out several mould washes to “contain the issue” while it completed further investigations.
5. Said it needed to carry out further investigations including inspections of:
  1. The ceiling where there had been a previous leak.
  2. External pipework.
  3. The roof.
  4. The bedroom window.
6. It upheld the complaint and said it should have arranged further investigations when previous works were unsuccessful at resolving the issue.
On 9 May 2024 the resident raised a further complaint (Complaint 2). She said contractors who were carrying out work to her bedroom window had caused damage to her flooring. She said operatives had moved the bed and this had caused a tear to the vinyl flooring.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 28 May 2024. It said:
1. It had asked its contractor to investigate the report of damage to her flooring. Having done so, the contractor said that its operatives did not damage the flooring.
2. It said it had carried out “minimal work” inside the property as it completed most of the installation from the outside. It said it had not moved the bed.
3. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate Complaint 2 to stage 2 of its complaint process on 31 May 2024. She said that the contractor had given incorrect information as it had moved the bed and had completed all works from the inside, it did not use any ladders.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 2 on 19 June 2024. It said:
1. It had telephoned the resident on 13 June 2024. She advised that the contractor had moved her bed as she had health issues and had been unable to do so herself. The contractor had not asked if it could move her bed.
2. She did not have any evidence except a photograph of the damaged flooring. She said that the damage was not there before the contractor arrived and she had noticed it after they left.
3. There was no evidence to prove whether the contractor caused the damage.
4. The landlord had asked if she wanted the contractor to raise an internal complaint or to accept £50 compensation. She had accepted the compensation.
5. It partially upheld the complaint. It would consider implementing a sign off sheet for every repair detailing any damage.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s repair policy does not specifically outline its response timeframes for damp and mould. It does however state that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 3 working days, and non-urgent repairs within 25 working days. It defines rotten timber flooring and leaking roofs as urgent repairs and the replacement of air bricks as non-urgent repairs.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy states a resident must raise their complaint no more than 12 months from the date the issue of complaint occurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s statements that the damp and mould and associated distress has affected her health and wellbeing and that of her children. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. The investigation of personal injury or damage to health and related compensation are more appropriately addressed through an insurance claim or a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can make legally binding judgements, including liability. The resident can seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury.
Therefore, while we note the serious nature of the matter, the resident’s concern about the health impacts of the damp and mould will not be considered in this report. Reference may be made to the resident’s mention of health issues in the report to provide context and will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances. We have also considered the distress and inconvenience that was caused as a result of any failings by the landlord.
The Ombudsman will generally consider events that took place within a reasonable period prior to a formal complaint being made. We will also give consideration to the period that the landlord has investigated. As the landlord’s final complaint response refers to actions it took in 2021, this report will consider the same timeframe.
This Service does not determine liability like a court or an insurer. We cannot therefore consider whether the landlord is liable for damage caused to the resident’s flooring. It would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this aspect of her complaint through the courts, or through another tribunal or procedure (e.g. insurer).
This report will however consider the landlord’s handling of the issue and the resident’s request for compensation. In doing so we will consider whether its actions were reasonable and in line with its own policy and procedures.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s repair records show that the resident first contacted the landlord regarding damp and mould in April 2021. Following her report a surveyor visited the property within a week to carry out an inspection. This was a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord raised no works after its inspection and it gave the resident a leaflet about how to control moisture levels in the property. We have no reason to believe that that this advice was unreasonable given the absence of historical reports at that time.
In August 2021 the resident again reported issues with damp and mould. Following this report the landlord attended in October 2021 to carry out work to repoint areas of the external wall. We note that it had initially booked to carry out the work in September 2021 but the resident cancelled the appointment. The timeframe for this work was therefore not unreasonable.
The records show that the operatives who attended in October 2021 stated that the gable wall needed inspecting for further pointing. The landlord raised the follow-on works in January 2022 and attended in February 2022 to complete this work. It is not clear why it took the landlord 3 months to raise the required work. In the absence of any evidence that the delay was unavoidable, this was unreasonable.
In February 2022 the landlord inspected the extractor fans and vents in the property. It is unclear from the records provided what the outcome of the inspection was and whether it completed any works. In the same month the landlord also applied thermal boards to the living room and back bedroom. The records do not make clear whether it completed these works following reports of further issues with damp and mould from the resident.
Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report states that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, which assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable it to provide accurate information to residents. That we cannot clearly understand from the records the outcome of the inspection and whether works were completed is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The records do not show that the resident made any further reports between February 2022 and November 2022 or that the landlord completed any further works.
In November 2022 the landlord raised an order for a damp and mould inspection. It booked an appointment for 14 December 2022 but the resident did not provide access.
The landlord returned on 23 December 2022 and carried out the inspection. The records note “excessive damp throughout property” and that it completed mould washes to window frames and “various areas throughout [the] property”.
The landlord attempted to carry out a further mould wash in January 2023 but the resident did not provide access. The resident telephoned to rearrange the appointment but the landlord did not raise this correctly so the job was passed back to office staff to raise again.
The landlord carried out another mould wash on 6 March 2023. It treated the bathroom, kitchen, living room, and all 3 bedrooms. Operatives noted at this time that the property was overcrowded and the resident was given a leaflet about controlling airflow and moisture in the property.
We acknowledge that the landlord has accepted that it did not correctly raise the repair order for a mould wash following the resident’s call. We do not consider it reasonable that there was a delay of 2 months in carrying out the work. This is particularly the case as the landlord had by this time noted that the property had “excessive” damp and was aware that there were children in the home.
We acknowledge that the landlord regularly carried out mould washes. However, there is no evidence that it was proactively investigating and addressing the source of the damp and mould at this time.
On 18 September 2023 the resident reported that the damp and mould in the downstairs WC was worsening. The landlord attended on 21 September 2023 and raised a repair for a plumber to attend to check the upstairs bathroom for a leak.
The landlord attended again on 22 September 2023. The records show that it had found the flooring in the WC to be “rotten and dangerous”. It completed temporary works to the WC to make it safe and raised required follow-on works. When it attended on 4 October 2023 to complete the works the records show the resident did not provide access.
On 2 November 2023 the resident reported an uncontrollable leak coming through the ceiling of the downstairs WC. The landlord attended the same day to stop the leak. This was appropriate. It is not clear from the records whether the leak that occurred in November 2023 was caused by the same issue as the landlord investigated in September 2023. Nevertheless, the landlord attended on 8 November 2023 to carry out a further mould wash and apply stain block and paint to the WC.
On 14 December 2023 the landlord carried out plastering works and completed the repairs to the flooring in the WC. It is accepted that initial delays to completing these works were caused by the resident failing to provide access in October 2023. We also acknowledge that the major leak would have further delayed the landlord’s ability to repair the WC flooring.
Operatives returned on 20 December 2023 to carry out mould washes and decorate the property. They reported that the walls in the bathroom were still wet and there were “mushrooms” growing on the exterior wall. The records state they suspected the issue may have been coming from exterior pipework.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord completed an external inspection of the property following the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It found an air brick was blocked and raised a repair for this and to repoint the side elevation of the property. It also raised further investigations into the leak into the WC.
It is unclear why it took the landlord 7 weeks after external issues were highlighted as a potential source of the damp and mould to inspect the outside of the property. Given that the issues had been longstanding and that there was mushroom growth internally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to expedite the works.
This Service notes that while the landlord raised orders for the external works in February, the records show that they were not completed until 7 October 2024. It is not clear from the records why it took the landlord 8 months to complete these works however that it did was an unreasonable delay.
In February the landlord replaced the bathroom extractor fan. The following month it attended to carry out further mould washes. However, from the evidence, it is unclear what rooms the LL treated. This is a further shortcoming in the landlord’s records.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection. It noted mould in the kitchen, bathroom, porch, lounge, WC, and all 3 bedrooms which it described as “Category 1”. The report said the property had been on the landlord’s ‘damp watch register’ since February 2023. On the same date it completed a further mould wash to the bathroom and WC.
The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property and for ensuring it is fit for human habitation, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and the tenancy conditions.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to identify potential hazards to health and safety in dwellings. The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government. This states that properties should be free from category 1 hazards under the HHSRS and be in reasonable state of repair. The HHSRS specifically recognises that damp and mould growth can pose a threat to physical and mental health.
The landlord was aware in May 2024 that the property contained a Category 1 hazard. It should have taken swift action to resolve the issues that were contributing to the situation. It has not demonstrated that it did so. This is inappropriate.
In response to an information request from this Service the landlord has stated that it does not consider that the damp and mould in the property has been resolved. It said that it has carried out works to address the issue but that the resident has not provided access for it to carry out a post-inspection to confirm that the works were successful. It is positive to the note that the landlord has been trying to gain access to the property for a post-works inspection. In line with her obligations under the tenancy agreement, the resident should ensure that she provides the landlord with reasonable access to the property so that it can take necessary steps to ensure that the repairs have been successful.
Overall, the landlord has carried out some works and had regularly completed mould washes to temporarily control the mould. It has however delayed in carrying out adequate investigations into the cause of the issue. There have been inadequacies in its record keeping which have caused difficulties in identifying why works were raised and if and when they were completed. The records also fail to clearly demonstrate the outcome of inspections and the detail of completed works. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The resident has paid approximately £450 per month (taking account some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman reasonably considers the maladministration to have started in December 2022, when records show that it became aware of “excessive” damp throughout property. We consider that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time that the resident’s enjoyment of property has been affected by outstanding repairs, (23 months). Taking into account the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £2,070 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. The Ombudsman will award additional compensation in recognition of other failings it has identified, and for distress and inconvenience.

Handling of the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged her bedroom flooring.

On 19 March 2024 contractors started work to resolve issues with the resident’s bedroom window which had moisture between the panes.
On 9 May 2024 the resident raised a complaint (Complaint 2) stating that the contractor carrying out the window works had damaged her bedroom flooring when moving her bed.
In its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 the landlord said it had spoken to its contractor and asked it to investigate her report. It said that the contractor said it had not caused the damage, had not moved the bed, and had carried out most of the work externally. Contemporaneous evidence shows that the landlord investigated the resident’s report by contacting the contractor and asking for its account. This was reasonable.
The resident disputed the contractor’s account and said it had moved the bed and had completed the work internally and did not use any ladders. Following the resident’s escalation we have not seen evidence that the landlord further questioned the contractor’s account.
The contractor’s account of how it completed the works was completely at odds with the resident’s account. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out further enquiries into how the contractor completed the work (internally or externally). This may have provided further validation for one account.
Furthermore, while we have seen evidence that the landlord made investigations of the contractor, it is not clear what evidence it requested to support its explanation of events. We consider that at the very least, it would have been reasonable to request a statement from the operatives who attended.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that there was no evidence to prove whether the contractor caused the damage to the flooring. While this is correct, we consider that it could have reasonably done more to investigate the resident’s concerns by examining the contractor’s account.
Overall, we accept that it was difficult for the landlord to determine whether the contractor did damage the flooring without corroborating evidence. However, it was ultimately the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it adequately investigated the resident’s report and made proportionate enquiries with the contractor. We do not consider that it did so in this case. We have therefore found service failure in its handling of the resident’s report that the contractor damaged her flooring.

Complaint handling.

It took the landlord 46 working days to provide a stage 1 response to Complaint 1. This far exceeds the timeframes outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own policy. We note that the landlord did not acknowledge this delay in its response or offer an apology or other redress. This was a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response focussed on the leak the resident had experienced in November 2023 and its actions directly after this. The response failed to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to this despite her specifically mentioning this in her complaint. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord did not do so in this case and this was inappropriate.
The Code also states that the landlord must confirm in writing its decision on the complaint and its reasons for making that decision. In this case the landlord’s stage 1 response to Complaint 1 does not state whether it upheld the complaint and why.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. It provided a timeline of the resident’s reports and damp and mould and its own actions. This was positive and provided transparency.
Within its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 the landlord acknowledged and apologised for service failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It accepted that there had been a “lack of investigation” and that the issues had not been “handled properly”. It was right that the landlord acknowledged these failings. It did not however offer any redress.
This Service considers that the resident had been experiencing damp and mould for almost 3 years and the landlord accepts it failed to handle the issue correctly. It should therefore have offered the resident financial redress.
While the landlord outlined in its stage 2 response to Complaint 1 the investigations it would be completing, it provided no timescales for these works. It therefore missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord should reasonably have said it would provide her with an update after an agreed period. That it did not was unreasonable.
It took the landlord 12 working days to provide its stage 1 response to Complaint 2. While not an excessive delay this timeframe is not in line with the requirements of the Code or the landlord’s own policy. The landlord should therefore reasonably have acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its response letter. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put things right.
Its stage 1 response outlined the investigations it had taken, its decision on the complaint, and its reasons for this decision. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 response the resident responded and disputed the contractor’s version of events.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident and contractor’s version of events differed. It also noted that there was no evidence to prove either version. It said that as this was the case it had partially upheld the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
It was appropriate that the landlord considered whether there was any evidence of fault. However, it should also reasonably have considered referring the resident to its insurance team or to her own home contents insurer if she had one. This would have helped to ensure that the resident could seek redress in relation to the damage itself.
We note the landlord asked the resident whether she wanted to raise a further complaint directly with the contractor or to accept its offer of compensation. This was not appropriate. It is important to make clear that the resident’s relationship is with the landlord, not its contractor. It is therefore the landlord’s responsibility to thoroughly investigate the matter with the contractor and communicate its findings back to the resident. It would not be reasonable for the onus to be on the resident to complain to the contractor. We also note that, given the landlord was aware that the contractor had disputed the resident’s version of events, it was likely futile for her to make a complaint to it. To do so would have caused the resident to invest further unnecessary time and trouble.
The landlord did however say that it “partially upheld” the complaint. It did not however acknowledge any service failings. It said it would “consider” implementing a sign off sheet for every repair detailing any damage. We consider that this would be a reasonable measure. We also consider that the landlord should have kept the resident informed as to whether it implemented this improvement.
Overall, the landlord:
1. Failed to adhere to the timescales in the Code and its own policy in providing its stage 1 response to Complaint 1.
2. Did not acknowledge, apologise, and provide redress for failing to adhere to the Code timeframes.
3. Failed to address all issues of the complaint in its stage 1 response to Complaint 1.
4. Did not give any timeframes for the actions it identified in its stage 2 response to Complaint 1.
5. Did not offer any financial redress for the failings it identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
6. Did not refer the resident to its insurer or her own insurer.
7. Inappropriately placed conditions on the resident accepting its offer of compensation.
Therefore we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a contractor damaged her bedroom flooring.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £3,020 which comprises:
1. £2,070 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. £300 for distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
3. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s flooring.
4. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must agree a mutually convenient appointment with the resident and complete a full damp and mould inspection of the property. The inspection should be completed by an independent specialist. The landlord must provide this Service and the resident with a copy of the report within 2 weeks of its completion along with an action plan for any works identified.
If it has not done so within the past six months, within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide complaint handling training to all relevant staff to ensure that:
1. Complaints are managed in line with the landlord’s own procedures.
2. Staff understand the requirements of the Code.
3. Compensation is considered when it is not possible to put the resident back in the position they would have been in if not for the landlord’s service failure. This includes consideration of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, inconvenience, disappointment, loss of confidence, and varying levels of physical and emotional impact.
4. Where it identifies actions to be taken within its complaint response, it provides a timeframe for these to be completed. It should also include a formal update to the resident when the agreed action has been completed.
5. It does not inappropriately place conditions on a resident’s acceptance of offers of redress.