Stockport Homes Limited (202322767)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322767

Stockport Homes Limited

15 April 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a mould wash treatment.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant. He lives at the property with his partner and young children. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority. The tenancy is managed on the landlord’s behalf by an arms length management organisation which, for the purposes of this report, will be referred to as “the landlord”.
3. On 22 August 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a mould wash treatment at the property. It applied the wash to 3 rooms, including the living room and both bedrooms. Later that day the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He sent a further email with additional complaint information on 25 August 2023.
4. In his complaint correspondence the resident said:
   1. the operatives who carried out the treatment did not wear any Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when applying the mould wash. He challenged them about this and they told him they were not advised by the contractor to wear any.
   2. the operatives used “two dirty sponges which were dipped in a couple of inches of liquid”. They cleaned all the rooms with the same sponges and same liquid. At no stage did they replace the sponges or tip away the “dirty liquid”.
   3. he was concerned that as a result of this mould spores were disturbed and were “floating everywhere, landing on anything and anyone”.
   4. the outcome he sought was for the landlord to address his concern that the operatives were not “properly equipped” and lacked “correct training to deal with toxic black mould”.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 1 September 2023. It said:
   1. PPE is a requirement when carrying out mould washes.
   2. the contractor advised it that the operatives started the work without the correct PPE, but that they put the PPE on when the resident raised concerns with them.
   3. it was “extremely disappointed” that the operatives did not initially wear the PPE. It was sorry for the concern this caused the resident.
   4. it had addressed this with the contractor and was “confident that going forwards there [would] not be a repeat mistake made in regard to use of PPE”.
   5. the operatives put 5 litres of a fungicidal wash into a bucket and used this to clean the property. That amount of liquid was enough to cover approximately 20 square metres of mould washing.
   6. the operatives had an “ample supply of sponges, clothes and brushes for cleaning in their vehicles”.
   7. the risk of mould spores spreading throughout the property while washes take place was “minimal”. The wash was “incredibly important in terms of eliminating the mould and preventing its growth”.
   8. the operatives had received the necessary training on carrying out mould washes. Information on the use of products was kept in the contractor’s vehicles. The contractor had clear processes in place through which operatives could raise any health and safety concerns.
6. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 1 September 2023. He said that the operatives did not at any stage wear PPE during the 3 hours they were in his property. He outlined in detail the conversation he and his partner had with the operatives. He said the operatives told him they had “never been told to wear any PPE” and that it would “probably take one of them dying” before the contractor or landlord made them wear it. The resident said the contractor’s account of events, as outlined in the landlord’s stage 1 response, was a “fabrication”. He asked the landlord to acknowledge this.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 October 2023. It said:
   1. the contractor was certain that while the operatives did not wear PPE at the beginning of the works, they later did.
   2. it was impossible for it to confirm whether the contractor or resident’s version of events was correct as there was no further evidence other than the statements made by each party.
   3. regardless of this, it accepted that the operatives began the work without wearing the correct PPE. It was sorry for this failure which was “unacceptable”.
   4. the contractor was satisfied the operatives used the correct amount of cleaning fluid given the amount of mould and number of rooms that required treatment.
   5. it had reviewed health and safety guidance. There was nothing within this to suggest the operatives should have replaced the cleaning fluid and sponges when moving between rooms. However, it believed it would be “best practice” to do so when larger areas were being treated. It had discussed this with the contractor.
   6. the likelihood that mould spores caused cross contamination when moving between rooms was “minimal”. This was because the cleaning liquid killed the spores.
   7. it had raised the complaint with the contractor. It was assured that the contractor’s operatives had been appropriately trained and had received refresher training on the correct procedures for carrying out mould washes.
8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 7 November 2023. He told us the outcome he sought was for the landlord to stop sending operatives to properties who are “poorly trained and ill-equipped to deal with black toxic mould”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. When referring the complaint about the mould treatment to the Ombudsman, the resident told us that the landlord “bullied and threatened” him into allowing the contractor to attend his property. We understand the resident was initially reluctant to allow access due to an ongoing dispute with the landlord about the property condition. This wider context was the subject of a separate investigation we carried out and completed in November 2023. In that investigation we found there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
10. In the current case, we have not re-investigated the wider context within which the treatment was carried out. The focus of this investigation is solely on the resident’s complaint that the contractors did not follow proper procedures when applying the mould wash. This is the issue that the landlord considered and addressed in its complaint responses of 1 September 2023 and 2 October 2023.

The landlord’s handling of a mould wash treatment

11. The Ombudsman is satisfied that prior to our investigation, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint about its handling of a mould wash.
12. The landlord took the following reasonable and proportionate actions during its investigation of the complaint:
    1. it raised the complaint with the contractor and asked it for its account of events.
    2. when the contractor confirmed that the operatives failed to wear PPE at the start of the appointment, the landlord sought assurances from it regarding working practices and training.
    3. in addition to seeking the contractor’s view about the liquid and sponges, the landlord reviewed the relevant health and safety procedures itself. It determined that the operatives followed correct procedures with regard to the liquid and sponges.
    4. it considered how practice in relation to the liquid and sponges could be improved going forward and discussed this with the contractor.
    5. it considered the resident’s concern that mould spores may have spread from room to room. It determined the risk was minimal.
13. The landlord explained all of the above investigative steps in its complaint responses. It appropriately accepted responsibility for its contractor’s actions. It acknowledged and apologised that PPE had not been worn at the start of the appointment.
14. The resident asked the landlord in his escalation request to acknowledge the operatives had not worn PPE for the duration of the appointment. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it was unable to determine this either way. This was because the only evidence it had was the conflicting statements of the resident and the contractor. However, it acknowledged that regardless of the length of time PPE was not worn, the fact it was not worn for even some of the time was “unacceptable”. This was a reasonable and measured response to the complaint based on the evidence available.
15. The landlord did not offer the resident any financial compensation even though it recognised there was a failure by the operatives to wear PPE. However, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recognises that in some circumstances, an apology is all that is required. The guidance states that when making the apology the landlord should acknowledge the failure, accept responsibility for it, express regret, and explain how it will ensure it will not happen again. We are satisfied the landlord did this in both of its complaint responses. There was no evidence that the failure of the operatives to wear PPE had a lasting impact on the resident or his property. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not offer compensation and offered only an apology for the failure.
16. The landlord demonstrated good complaint handling practice in line with its complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). In its acknowledgement of both complaints, it set out its understanding of the complaint and gave the resident the opportunity to add to it or clarify any points raised. It asked the resident if he required any reasonable adjustments to assist him with accessing the complaints process. It issued both complaint responses within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code.
17. After he received the stage 2 response, the resident sent the landlord a social media post in which he asked other residents about their experience of the contractor. Within the responses to the post, 5 other residents indicated the contractor had carried out mould washes at their property without wearing PPE.
18. The landlord sent the social media post to the contractor. It advised us that it then carried out some unannounced visits to properties where the contractor was carrying out mould washes. It said that it had discussed PPE during performance meetings with the contractor and would continue to do so. These actions demonstrate that it learnt from the resident’s complaint. It has taken reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of further PPE failings by the contractor.
19. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns and the serious nature of this matter. However, we find that prior to our investigation, the landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge and put right the concerns that were raised by the resident. It accepted responsibility for its contractor, acknowledged its failure to comply with PPE requirements, apologised to the resident, and took steps to better manage the contactor’s performance going forward. We are satisfied that it provided a fair and proportionate response to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to his complaint about its handling of a mould wash treatment.