Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Wandle Housing Association Limited (202346420)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346420

Wandle Housing Association Limited

29 August 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed ground floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her 2 children, one of whom was a baby at the time of the complaint. One of the children has autism, and the other has breathing difficulties.
  2. The landlord previously decanted the resident to another property while it carried out remedial works to resolve damp and mould at the property. Those works were completed in May 2021. The resident reported that the damp and mould had returned from 1 February 2022 onwards. On 12 February 2023, the resident made a complaint about how the landlord handled her reports.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 March 2023. It upheld her complaint, and said it had approved quotes for the works but had not booked the works in. It said it would arrange for a supervisor to attend and inspect the areas of concern, then put a plan of action in place. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 April 2023, as she said nobody had been in touch to resolve the damp.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 May 2023. It said it had arranged an inspection, and its operative said they were unable to locate any damp or mould, and that the air circulation system had been working. It said there was 1 room the operative had not been given access to, and that it would arrange for someone to attend and carry out a full property inspection.
  5. On 23 April 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had made multiple complaints about damp and mould, but nothing was resolved. She said mould was growing on the walls, ceilings, and internal doors, and that she repeatedly had to throw away belongings as they became mouldy. She said a surveyor had confirmed the property was affected by subsidence and rising damp.
  6. Since referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has commenced the pre-action protocol for housing disrepair claims. The landlord has confirmed that no proceedings have been issued at court so far. It also told the Ombudsman that the works needed at the property are extensive, and that the resident will need to be temporarily decanted for them to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraphs 42(a), 42(b) and 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider the following:
    1. Complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
    2. Complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
    3. Complaints which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (usually 12 months).
  2. The resident has made a number of reports of damp and mould in the property dating back to at least January 2020. She also made a previous complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, for which the landlord issued a stage 2 response in March 2021. The resident made her current complaint in February 2023, and the landlord issued a stage 2 response in May 2023. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in April 2024. In accordance with paragraphs 42(a), 42(b) and 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider the landlord’s actions from February 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint) until the landlord’s second stage 2 response as part of this investigation. However, events outside of that timeframe may be referred to for context. Any further events after the stage 2 response would need to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process before the Ombudsman could look into them.
  3. The resident has referred to the effect the damp and mould had on her baby’s health, and has said she believes the property was not fit to live in. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, damage to health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be determined by the courts, as the courts can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings in this regard.
  4. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make a formal finding as to whether or not the property was fit for human habitation, as such a finding can only be made by the courts. The Ombudsman cannot award damages in the way a court can when a property is found to be unfit for human habitation or in a state of disrepair. The Ombudsman can, however, award compensation for any distress or inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the way the landlord handled her reports. 

Policies and procedures

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord is required to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the dwelling is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. The landlord must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out repairs in the following timeframes:
    1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
    2. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 days, including follow-on works.
    3. Major works will be completed within 90 days, unless part of a large-scale programme.

Assessment – damp and mould

  1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property on 1 February 2022. She said all outside walls and window sills were covered in mould despite her constantly using a dehumidifier and extractor fans, and opening the windows. She said she believed there were underlying issues with the property.
  2. Following further reports from the resident on 14 February 2022 (which included reference to mould affecting her baby’s health), and from the resident’s MP on 23 February 2022, the landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection. This was a reasonable first step, as the landlord would need to know the cause and extent of any damp, and what works (if any) it needed to arrange. However, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the relevant report or notes from the inspection, or evidence of booking works or updating the resident following that inspection.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 and 3 May 2022 to request an update, and advised that she had had to throw more of her baby’s items away due to mould. The landlord has provided no evidence of responding to the resident’s emails. She then contacted her MP, who contacted the landlord on her behalf on 24 May 2022. The day after receiving contact from the resident’s MP, the landlord provided an update to the resident. It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates until it received contact from her MP.
  4. When the landlord wrote to the resident, it said the operative who inspected the property advised the mould had returned due to a lack of ventilation, and that the ventilation system installed in 2021 needed to be permanently switched on. It said it would arrange for a mould wash. However, the repair records provided to the Ombudsman say that the works raised in March 2022 were cancelled, and that the issues were resolved on 2 March 2022. While it is reasonable to conclude from the detail provided in the letter that an inspection took place, it is apparent that the landlord’s repair records as provided to the Ombudsman are incomplete and contradictory, and this has hampered the Ombudsman’s investigation into this complaint.
  5. The landlord booked a mould wash for 9 June 2022, but then cancelled the appointment as its contractor was double booked. An appointment for 16 June 2022 was then cancelled by the resident on 15 June 2022. The resident asked to rebook the appointment, but the landlord has provided no evidence of taking any further action until she made a complaint on 12 February 2023. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which required the works (including follow-on works) to be completed within 28 days, or standard industry practice.
  6. When responding to the complaint, the landlord identified that nothing had been done to resolve the damp and mould because it had failed to arrange the relevant works. As such, it is apparent that the delays would have been avoided had the landlord appropriately monitored its repairs. The landlord arranged a further inspection in March 2023. In its stage 2 response, it said the operative had not seen any damp or mould, but had not been given access to one of the rooms. The landlord has again not provided the Ombudsman with any copy of the report, so the Ombudsman cannot conclude that a reasonable inspection took place, or that the landlord’s response was in line with any recommendations in the report.
  7. Despite having identified in its stage 1 response that it took no action regarding damp and mould for almost a year, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had acted in line with its policies and processes. This was despite the same complaint handler issuing both responses. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had provided the landlord with medical evidence to show her baby’s breathing difficulties were being affected by damp and mould, and that the delays were ongoing a year after her initial report despite a vulnerable infant living in the property. It is of significant concern that the landlord did not consider this to be out of line with its policies and processes when investigating the complaint at stage 2. The landlord also indicated in its stage 2 response that it would arrange a full property inspection, but has provided no evidence of doing so. As such, it has not shown it learned from the complaint.
  8. After the resident sent the landlord a letter of claim in June 2024, the landlord arranged a survey of the property. The survey report identified that the majority of the mould was not caused by failings on the landlord’s part, but was the result of condensation caused by a lack of ventilation and heating. However, it also identified that some damp in the kitchen and bathroom appeared to be caused by water escaping via defective sealant, and that there was possible water penetration in the bathroom from the guttering. It is unclear whether or not this was also the cause of mould in 2022, or whether these areas were inspected at that time, as the landlord has not provided the inspection reports. While the Ombudsman notes the resident said a surveyor told her there was rising damp in the property, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any survey reports which confirm that, or any evidence of such survey reports being provided to the landlord.
  9. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage. The landlord has provided no evidence to show it took any of those steps. Instead, the records provided indicate that the landlord only responded to the resident’s reports when it was contacted by the resident’s MP, or when it received a complaint.
  10. There was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the issues despite damp and mould being a potential category 1 hazard in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). By the time of the stage 2 response, the landlord had left the resident and her vulnerable children living with a potential category 1 hazard for 15 months, despite reports that her baby’s breathing difficulties were being made worse by mould in the property. This was inappropriate. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp and mould amounts to severe maladministration. It has therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
  11. The landlord has recently carried out a survey of the property, which identified that at least some of the damp and mould was caused by defects which would fall under the landlord’s repair obligations. The landlord has subsequently accepted that there are works it needs to carry out, and that the resident needs to be temporarily decanted for those works to take place. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident is aware of the nature of the works that the landlord intends to carry out. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order in this regard below.
  12. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has referred to having to throw away belongings as a result of worsening damp and mould. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to either signpost the resident to its insurer, or to assess the losses in line with its repairs policy, which says it will consider compensation ‘where Wandle could have reasonably foreseen the need for repair and failed to take action’. As the landlord has not done so, an order has been made below.
  13. The landlord also failed to offer any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. In this case, there were significant delays in taking action to resolve the damp and mould. The resident had to repeatedly chase a response, including involving her MP, and was demonstrably concerned about the effect the mould was having on her baby’s health. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which have a significant impact on a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord was required to issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days, and its stage 2 response within 20 working days. Both responses were delayed. The Ombudsman also notes that both the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were issued by the same person. This was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which says ‘the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1’. It is therefore apparent that the landlord’s complaint handling was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
  2. As a result, the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out the following:
    1. What works it intends to carry out to resolve the damp and mould.
    2. When it intends to carry out those works.
    3. How long it anticipates the works will last.
    4. What arrangements it intends to make for temporary accommodation while those works are carried out, and what assistance it will offer her for the move to temporary accommodation (such as help with moving and storage of belongings).
    5. Details of how she can make a claim on its insurance for items damaged by mould, or a request for evidence for it to assess any damage to her belongings under its policy.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to arrange refresher training for all complaint handling staff to ensure its complaint handling is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in future.
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.