Wandle Housing Association Limited (202321753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321753

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 January 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

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat at basement level. The landlord has said it does not have records of any vulnerabilities within the household. However, during the complaint, the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould impacted her son’s health.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 February 2023. She said it had treated mould the previous year, but this had returned. She said it had inspected the property the previous week and found issues in the living room, her children’s bedroom, and the hallway. She asked what it would do to resolve the damp and mould as this impacted their health. She also said that it had installed mould sensors the previous year, but she asked why it had not updated her of any findings.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had visited the property on 17 January 2023. Following this, it had raised a job to complete a damp survey to identify the works needed. It said its contractor would contact her to arrange the appointment date for the survey.
The landlord logged the resident’s escalation request on 15 September 2023. She said she still had mould in her living room and damp in her children’s bedroom. She said it had also not installed the extractor fans needed. She was unhappy that it had inspected her property on 3 occasions, but it had still not resolved the issues.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2023. It said it had tried to install monitors to track the conditions within the property, but the resident had declined this. It had inspected the property on 21 September 2023 and found that newly fitted windows caused condensation to build up. It explained how condensation occurred and advised her of ways to reduce this as this would reduce the damp and mould within the property. It said it would fit the monitors to help check the levels within the property.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she was unhappy that the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould within the property. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 31 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould affected the health of the household. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing.
The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We will, however, consider whether the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould caused any distress to the resident.
The resident experienced issues with mould within the property in 2022. She also experienced issues in 2024 which occurred after the complaints process ended. This included issues with the time taken to complete the necessary repairs and further inspections.
In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. The resident can raise any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

Our spotlight report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords. This includes that landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.” The report notes that it is imperative that landlords do not leave residents with damp and mould for an extended period. If a landlord does not deal with damp and mould at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident. It can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will focus on addressing the cause of the issue rather than treating the symptoms. The policy includes a process map which explained the steps it would take regarding reports of damp and mould.
At the first stage, the landlord will inspect the property and complete a mould wash. It will post-inspect the works and if needed, and progress this to the next stage, as necessary. At the second stage, a repairs supervisor will inspect the issues and raise further works to its inhouse repairs team. If the works are too complex for its repairs team, or if the works completed do not resolve the issues, it will escalate this to the next stage. At the third stage, it will refer the property to a maintenance surveyor to inspect the damp and mould. The surveyor will raise the necessary works and complete a post-inspection to ensure that it has resolved the cause of the issues.
On 16 December 2022, the resident reported that mould had returned after the landlord had treated this at the start of 2022. The mould was in the living room, bathroom, and her children’s bedroom. The landlord responded on 26 December 2022. It told her it had raised works to investigate her concerns, and it would provide an update within 5 working days. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show whether it did update the resident. It is evident that it rescheduled an appointment to inspect the property 3 times, and it later inspected the property on 17 January 2023.
Overall, the landlord’s repair records lack detail. Its records show the target date to complete repairs by, but it does not show when it raised the repairs, the dates of any appointments or the outcome of the appointments. Due to this, we cannot clearly establish whether it completed the works needed at each appointment. Additionally, it is difficult to assess the time taken to complete the repairs because of the landlord’s poor record keeping.
It is unclear from the records what the inspection found on 17 January 2023. The landlord arranged for its contractors to complete a damp and mould inspection, which it did on 3 February 2023. While it is unclear when it raised this inspection, the time taken to do so was reasonable given the date of the resident’s report.
The landlord’s repair records do not show what stage of the damp and mould process it was at in line with its policy at this point. The landlord’s records should reflect this detail clearly. If it had done so, it would evidence whether it acted in line with its own policy.
The landlord’s contractor’s inspection report outlined findings of high levels of mould, damp, and condensation. This was within the resident’s living room, children’s bedroom, and hallway. It found moisture penetration was the main cause of the issues. It recommended various works including a damp proof course, installing extractor fans and treatment to dry rot in the hallway.
It is unclear what steps the landlord took, if any, after the inspection on 3 February 2023. As such, the resident asked for an update on the damp and mould works on 8 occasions between 5 March 2023 and 25 May 2023. In response to most of the resident’s request updates, the landlord told her someone would get back in touch. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it did so on most occasions. This was a failing which understandably compounded existed feelings of distress.
The resident told the landlord that during the inspection, its contractors told her it needed to install extractor fans in the property. Within some of the above-mentioned contacts, the resident asked for an update on the works to install extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. On 2 occasions, the landlord said it did not have any records of works to install fans and asked her for details about what it needed to do. It is unclear why it said it had no such records given that it had a copy of the contractors inspection report which detailed the recommended works. It is a failing that its lack of consideration to the works recommended following the inspection on 3 February 2023 meant the resident had to manage her own repairs.
The landlord has provided a copy of a contractor’s completion report dated 25 June 2023. This relates to works that were raised to treat dry rot in the hallway. It is unclear when the works themselves were raised, what they entailed or whether any follow on works were required. The resident has told this Service that this issue turned out to be wet rot. This is not reflected in the records either.
While the landlord’s contractors completed works to the hallway, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had raised the works to address the damp and mould in the living room, bathroom, and bedroom. Between 28 June 2023 and 25 July 2023, the resident asked for updates on 4 occasions about the damp and mould works. She also asked when it would return to replaster and install a new skirting board to the hallway following the rot treatment.
The resident was again informed that someone would get back in touch on most occasions. However, it was not until 27 July 2023 that the landlord responded. On this occasion, it confirmed that it would replace the bathroom extractor fan and replaster the hallway wall on 4 August 2023.
The resident raised concerns with this as the landlord did not mention installing an extractor fan in the kitchen. It also did not explain how it would resolve the damp and mould in her child’s bedroom, the bathroom and living room. She added that she took pride in her home and that the landlord had let her down by not resolving these issues. Despite raising these concerns, the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it responded. The landlord’s lack of updates and poor communication would have understandably caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
On 4 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that its operative attended but could not install the bathroom extractor fan. She said the operative advised her this was because it had wrongly listed the job as a replacement instead of a new installation. She was understandably unhappy that it had not been able to install the extractor fans, especially since the work had been outstanding since February 2023. On 31 August 2023, the landlord carried out an inspection of both the kitchen and bathroom so that the installation of the extractor fans could be progressed.
This work remained outstanding on 20 September 2023, when the resident sought a further update. It is unclear why there was a delay. Regardless, the landlord became aware of the need for the extractor fans in February 2023 and the installation of these remained outstanding 6 months later. This was a significant failing, especially given the level damp and mould at the property. By not appropriately managing the works, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted in line with its policy.
The landlord had told the resident that it would replaster the hallway wall on 4 August 2023. However, from the evidence provided, it is unclear whether it completed the works on this date. The landlord raised another appointment for 8 August 2023, but it is not clear whether it attended on this date, and if it did, what works it completed.
Despite this, the resident asked for an update on the plasterwork on 18 August 2023. As it had completed the hallway wall treatment on 25 June 2023, the delay of at least 2 months to replaster the wall following the treatment was not appropriate. The landlord has a responsibility, in line with its repairs and maintenance policy to “make good” following a repair. However, overall, due to the poor record keeping, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted appropriately to do so.
The resident also asked the landlord when it would return to secure a new skirting board to the hallway wall. The landlord completed this repair on 8 September 2023. It is unclear when it completed the plasterwork. We therefore cannot say whether the time to refit the skirting board was reasonable or not.
On 22 August 2023 and 31 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord for updates about how it would resolve the damp and mould within the property. She said she still had damp in her children’s bedroom and had mould in the living room.
On 31 August 2023, the landlord confirmed that its repairs supervisor would inspect the damp and mould at the property on 21 September 2023. However, the resident raised concerns as it had already inspected her property that day on 31 August 2023. While we acknowledge this frustration, the inspection on this date was to assess the works to install the fans. This was therefore separate to the damp and mould inspections. However, the landlord should have provided this clarity to the resident.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided any further updates or communication to the resident after the inspection on 31 August 2023. On 15 September 2023, she escalated her complaint to the landlord. It had not yet resolved the mould in the living room, the damp in her children’s bedroom, or installed the extractor fans. She was unhappy that it had inspected her property on 3 occasions without resolving the issues.
On 20 September 2023, the resident received a message notifying her that the landlord had cancelled the inspection for the following day. This would have understandably caused her frustration and inconvenience. She queried this with the landlord who reassured her that it would instead arrange for a supervisor to attend on 21 September 2023. It was appropriate for it to do so to ensure it completed the inspection.
The landlord inspected the property again on 21 September 2023. It found low levels of damp within the property and that it had good airflow internally. It noted that newly fitted windows at the property caused condensation to build up. It also recommended the installation of monitors to track the moisture levels within the property. Its final complaint response explained the resident had previously declined the monitors, but we have not seen evidence to support this. On 20 September 2023, the resident asked why it needed to monitor the conditions given that it had not yet completed the required repairs. This was a reasonable question for her to ask given the ongoing issues at the property.
It is unclear why the landlord referred to new windows at the property. There is no evidence within its repair records which suggest that new windows were installed. The resident also disputed this after receiving the final complaint response. She said that the windows were not new, and the landlord had installed these around 15 years ago.
The landlord’s final complaint response did not refer to any repairs needed to the property, other than needing to install monitors to track the moisture levels within the home. It is unclear whether it later installed these monitors or not. It also gave the resident advice about how to reduce condensation including ventilating the property and not drying clothes on clothes airers inside.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould states that it can be too “simplistic” to blame residents for lifestyle issues such as drying their clothes inside. The report also notes that many properties were not designed for modern living and so it cannot blame the lack of adequate laundry facilities on residents. This is especially relevant given the resident lives in a flat within a converted house.
It is also unclear why the landlord explained the issue was related to condensation. The landlord’s contractors provided recommendations in February 2023 following a finding of high levels of damp and moisture penetration into the property. It noted that condensation was a “contributory” cause of the damp and mould, rather than the main issue present.
The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to review its handling of the resident’s reports, the works carried out and whether it needed to complete any further works. We have assessed the complaint handling further below. However, it is a significant failing that throughout February 2023 to the point of the final complaint response in September 2023, the landlord failed to look into or act on the recommendations of the initial inspection that was conducted in February 2023. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord claimed the issue was condensation and not water penetration as outlined in the survey it had instructed.
While there was no obligation on the landlord to act on every recommendation made, we would have expected the landlord to demonstrate that it had considered the findings. There is no evidence available to suggest that it did so. Its final complaint response therefore minimised the issues that the resident experienced within the property. This would have understandably caused her further distress and inconvenience.
It is concerning that throughout this time, the resident advised the landlord on several occasions that her son’s health was suffering. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the damp and mould. However, being notified of the situation should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with the resident. It should have also ensured that its internal systems were up to date with relevant information with regards to any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household. Its failure to do so was not appropriate.
Additionally, the landlord should have considered interim measures to manage the problem with damp and mould. There is no evidence to show that the landlord conducted a mould wash between the report in December 2022 and the final complaint response in September 2023. This was not appropriate.
This Service would expect that the landlord would complete a mould wash as a timely action to mitigate the visible signs of mould and alleviate the resident’s discomfort. However, this did not occur in this case. The landlord’s lack of action was therefore not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the reports of damp and mould appropriately. It:
1. Inspected the property on 3 occasions without evidence that it had raised works to deal with the damp in the children’s bedroom and the living room.
2. Delayed unreasonably when installing the extractor fans.
3. Did not complete any works to resolve the symptoms of the damp and mould, such as mould treatments to the affected areas.
4. Did not make any enquiries with the resident following her reports of damp and mould affecting their health.
5. Failed to consider the recommended works outlined by its contractors in February 2023. This included works such as installing a damp proof course and tanking to reduce the moisture penetration into the property.
6. Failed to provide proactive communication and updates to the resident, even after the resident’s repeated contacts to the landlord.
7. Failed to demonstrate that it had considered the impact of the issues on the household’s health. This was despite the resident’s repeated reports that the damp impacted her son’s health.
8. Had not resolved the damp and mould, or proposed any next steps, at the point of issuing its final complaint response.
9. Therefore, failed to follow its damp and mould policy as it did not address the root cause of the damp and mould during this time.
After the complaints process ended, the landlord inspected the property again. It raised works to address the damp and mould. In November 2023, it completed a mould treatment to various rooms within the property. It then completed further works in 2024. The resident has told this Service that the landlord resolved the damp and mould issues in June 2024.
Throughout the resident’s reports of damp and mould, from December 2022 to its final complaint response, in September 2023, the landlord cannot evidence that it acted appropriately. Given these findings and the significant impact that the outstanding damp and mould issues had on the resident, we have found that the landlord should pay her compensation to reflect a loss of enjoyment within the home.
We have calculated the compensation for loss of enjoyment of the home based on 25% of the weekly rent in place between the financial year 2023-24. We have calculated this from 16 December 2022, when the resident first reported these issues, to 27 September 2023, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
Given that the issues with damp and mould remained ongoing after the landlord’s final complaint response, the landlord should consider paying the resident further compensation to offer redress for this.
In addition to the compensation for the loss of enjoyment, the landlord should also pay a further £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. This includes the time and effort spent trying to chase the repairs, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its overall response.

The associated complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 February 2023. It had not signed the complaint response and so it is unclear which of its staff members responded to the initial complaint. Due to this, it is also unclear whether the staff member who responded at stage 2 was the same person who dealt with the initial response.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) effective at the time of the complaint outlined that the person responding at each stage of the complaint needed to be different and not involved with the original investigation. That the landlord did not make it clear who responded at stage 1 is therefore not in line with the Code. This lack of clarity means that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it conducted a fair and independent investigation into the resident’s complaint.
Part of the resident’s complaint included concerns with the mould sensors that the landlord had installed in 2022. The landlord failed to respond to this aspect of her complaint in its stage 1 response. Due to this, she asked it again to provide her with an update regarding the findings of the mould sensors it had installed. However, its final complaint response also failed to deal with this aspect of her complaint. There is no evidence available to show that it ever provided her with an answer to this part of her complaint.
The Code outlines that landlords must respond to all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses were therefore not compliant with the Code. As such, it was a complaint handling failure that the landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns within its responses. It missed an opportunity to investigate her concerns and put things right for her.
Additionally, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response outlined that it had raised a job to complete a damp survey. It said its contractors would contact the resident to arrange an inspection. This would have understandably caused her confusion and distress as it had already completed the inspection 3 weeks earlier. It is unclear why the response referred to a further inspection, but that it did suggested a lack of knowledge about the situation and that the landlord had not engaged in the complaint in a meaningful way.
Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she remained unhappy. Between 28 June 2023 and 15 September 2023, she asked it to escalate her complaint on 6 separate occasions. It is unclear why the landlord failed to escalate the complaint, and why it only did so after a final request in September 2023.
It is noted that the landlord did respond to one of the resident’s escalation requests. On 31 August 2023, it said it could log a complaint about her concerns that it had not listened to her but that it needed further information first. This response would have understandably caused the resident to experience further frustration and inconvenience, as she had been trying to escalate her complaint already during the conversation.
The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint sooner meant that she experienced considerable distress and inconvenience by repeatedly making contact about this. It also meant that the consideration of her complaint at stage 2, and referral to this Service, was delayed. The landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint upon her request was a departure from both the Code and its policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge any complaint handling failures within either of its complaint responses. It did not address the lack of response to part of her complaint, the lack of clarity as to whether it independently investigated each complaint, or its failure to escalate her complaint in a timely manner.
Considering these failings, the landlord should pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This is to reflect the level of time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience, the resident experienced throughout the landlord’s complaints process.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we have ordered the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
2. Pay a total of £2,071.49 compensation to the resident. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
  1. £1,471.49 for the loss of enjoyment of the property caused by its response to reports of damp and mould.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Consider whether to pay the resident further compensation to cover the period between the final response (September 2023) and repairs being completed (June 2024). It should provide the resident with its position in writing regarding its decision regarding any further compensation.
4. Contact the resident to ensure that its internal systems are up to date with relevant information with regards to any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, we have ordered the landlord to conduct a review of this case. It should:
1. Identify what went wrong with regards to its response to reports of damp and mould. This should include a focus on why it failed to consider the recommendations identified following the survey in February 2023 and why it did not complete any interim measures such as a mould treatment. It should also include a focus on why delays occurred in response to resolving the damp and mould.
2. Identify the changes and improvements it will make to ensure its procedures and working practices enable it to meet its repairs obligations in response to reports of damp and mould.
3. Identify whether there is a need for further training to its complaint handling teams to ensure that it meets the criteria set out in the Code.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.