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

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council (202011128)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011128

Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

21 June 2021


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:
  1. the landlord’s response to resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.
  2. events after the final complaint response of 16 October 2020.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Events after the final complaint response of 16 October 2020

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. The resident reported that she was experiencing further issues with damp and mould in early 2021. This was after the landlord’s final complaint response of October 2020, and it does not appear that, at that time, the landlord was aware of any further issues.
  3. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and formally respond to the further issues. Because the events after October 2020 have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, they will not be considered as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident became the leaseholder of her property, which is a ground floor flat, in January 2018. A drain/manhole cover is situated outside of the resident’s property.
  2. In October 2018, the resident employed an independent surveyor to inspect damp and mould in her kitchen, bathroom, third room and cupboards. She noticed that the flooring in her property was beginning to lift due to damp. This Service has not had sight of the report from this visit, but, in the resident’s email to the landlord of 22 May 2019, she confirmed that the surveyor suggested that the damp and mould may be due to condensation. The resident disagreed with this, due to the extent of damage to her property, and reported the issue to the landlord, which sent its own surveyor.
  3. On 16 November 2018 the landlord completed an inspection of the property.  In its inspection report it noted mould patches in the resident’s cupboards. The landlord noted that the resident said that her surveyor recommended a camera survey of the property’s drain. The landlord confirmed that it would request this, and advised the resident about fitting a ventilation system in the property.
  4. On 7 December 2018 the landlord visited and noted that it inspected the property’s drainage and found no blockages. However, it noted that “at some point someone has put paint down the drain which could cause blockages”. It recommended a full de-scale of the drains, but there is no evidence that this was carried out at the time.
  5. On 15 March 2019 the landlord completed a CCTV survey of the drains. It noted that it found “heavy build–up of lime scale and fat” and again recommended de-scaling, which was completed on 18 March 2019.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 May 2019. She described the damp and mould problems she had been experiencing as:

“a lot of mould but mainly on the right hand side of the building in our kitchen, bathroom and 3rd Storage room and our walk in cupboards and was creating a very bad smell of damp in the whole flat. We also noticed the flooring in the bathroom and kitchen and some of the hallway and living room was beginning to lift and shift due to the dampness and pipes lined with black mould. Also our stored clothes and shoes got very badly mouldy and some garments had to be thrown out.”

  1. She advised “I also had a family member present on the same day who used to be a plumbing and drainage expert who strongly advised that [the landlord] arrange for the drains outside the flat to be checked as we did not believe that it was condensation but something else causing damage to our flat.” The resident said that, in early 2019, she had called the landlord, who “informed me that they finally had proceeded with the check of the drains outside the flat and it was established that the cause of the issues in our flat were due to the outside drains being damaged and blocked due to someone pouring paint down the drain”. She said she called back a week later and was told that the pipes had been descaled. The resident remained unhappy, however, because she had incurred expenses dealing with the damp and mould problems, including having to have the bathroom flooring replaced.
  2. The landlord responded on 29 May 2019. It explained that it had checked with its insurance team about liability (which was presumably in relation to the resident’s belief that the paint in the drains had led to the damp problem). It said it had concluded, from an insurance perspective, that it would not be responsible for damages caused by actions of an unknown third party. It suggested that the resident approach her home contents insurers.
  3. On 12 November 2019 the resident asked the landlord to complete a thorough investigation “from top to bottom of the building” as the damp was still present.
  4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction, on 26 November 2019, with the landlord’s handling of the issue. She said that, when it told her that the descaling had been completed, the landlord said it would give her a copy of the CCTV footage, but it had not. The resident reiterated her request for a thorough inspection to the property, drains and walls surrounding the flat.  
  5. The landlord subsequently logged a complaint for the resident and called her on 6 December 2019. It left a voicemail to arrange an appointment.
  6. The landlord visited the property again in January 2020. Its notes from 3 January 2020 say “first had to clear blockage to and clean manhole then carried out cctv survey to internal soil stack found mild build up of lime scale which could be de-scaled/jetted out but all tenants from the first floor up would need to be notified and home” The landlord’s notes explain that the de-scale was not completed at the time because it could not arrange for all residents to be home.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 5 February 2020. It said that it unblocked the drain on 8 January 2020 and carried out a CCTV survey, and no further works were required. The landlord said that the damp and mould the resident experienced was a result of the blocked drain, which was resolved.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 April 2020. She was unhappy that she was not provided with CCTV footage or proof of the works she was told were completed in early 2019, and that the damp and mould continued until the landlord unblocked the drain on 8 January 2020. She was also unhappy that she was told that it was condensation causing the problems, and was told to seek compensation from her insurers. She asked the landlord for compensation for damage caused to her property and personal belongings by the damp and mould.
  9. The landlord attended the property on 23 April 2020. In its internal emails of 24 April 2020 it said that it found no evidence of any blockage or leaking from the manhole cover, which was secure. It concluded that there were no issues with the drainage next to the property, but suggested that it review the findings of the operative who cleared the blockage for any other issues. The landlord also found an old CCTV survey of the property’s drainage from before the resident moved in, which showed this to be clear. The landlord internally suggested that the resident investigate whether there were any leaks to the internal pipework under her bath.
  10. On 27 April 2020 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. It said that the previous complaint response did not provide sufficient detail about the work it had completed, and it wished to continue to investigate to find the root cause of the problem. It asked the resident to arrange a tradesman to remove her bath panels and check for any plumbing leaks, leaving the panels off until the landlord could attend; provide photos of the area under the bath; and provide a copy of the surveyor’s report from October 2018. The landlord said that, once the government restrictions were lifted, it would attend to take moisture readings of the floor structure under the bath, and the bin store adjacent to the property (to check whether moisture was present). It would keep the complaint open until this could be done.
  11. The resident responded to the landlord, on 7 May 2020. She said she had not received a detailed report or copy of the CCTV survey to the drains. She queried the relevance or extent of some of landlord’s inspection plans, and whether the landlord would pay for the work it had asked her to do to the bath. She said she had already sent the landlord the 2018 survey report and explained she was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to resolve the damp and mould problem, especially as she believed the landlord had told her in early 2019 that the problems had been resolved.
  12. The landlord’s internal emails from 12 May 2020 show that the CCTV survey and report were too large to send to the resident, but could be made available for the resident to view at its office.  They also note that it was the resident’s responsibility to remove the bath panels and inspect the area (as the leaseholder), and that “It is evident that the bathroom suite not only has been changed but the layout has been altered which would require the drain connection and other services to be manipulated to make connection to our services.”
  13. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 May 2020. It explained that it could “make the CCTV footage available for you to view at our office when they re-open to the public following lockdown”. It explained that it was planning to focus its investigations on the bathroom as it was the easiest place to view the subfloor within the property. The findings there would determine the extent of the investigations to follow; however, the resident would be required to make the subfloors accessible for the landlord to inspect and test. The landlord said that it was “hoping someone in the property would be able to remove the panel and take the necessary photos to allow us to make some further investigations whilst waiting for lockdown to be lifted”.
  14. The landlord said that “it is not usual practice for our surveyors to inspect leaseholder properties without clear evidence of a defect within the property, the report you have provided to us does not support your claims of a damp issue, this is reported as condensation and therefore is your responsibility to undertake measures to minimise this within your home.” However, as the matter had been ongoing for some time, the landlord said that it would instruct its surveyor to undertake these internal investigations. Alternatively, the resident could arrange for a further damp specialist to attend to check for an alternative cause, and take readings as required. The landlord explained that it visited on 23 April 2020 to inspect the outside of the block, and confirmed the drains were clear and free running. There were no physical signs of water damage, only condensation mould, but it wished to carry out internal investigations to see if there were any further causes for the problems the resident reported.
  15. On 15 June 2020 the landlord advised the resident that, due to coronavirus restrictions, it had no further updates at the time.
  16. On 30 June 2020 the landlord said it could now inspect the property, and asked when it could attend. There was further correspondence regarding the visit, and, on 28 July 2020, the resident agreed for the landlord to visit. She said she had already carried out remedial work to the property. She confirmed that since the drains were cleared on 8 January 2020, the damp and mould issues were resolved.
  17. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 2 September 2020. Afterwards, the landlord and resident liaised regarding her invoices for tradesmen completing remedial work in her home.
  18. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 16 October 2020, it confirmed that it attended the resident’s property but there were no areas of floor available for testing, the bath panel was not removed, and it was not provided with photos of the bath. The landlord confirmed that there were no visible signs of damp/mould throughout the flat.
  19. The landlord said that the surveyor’s report of 24 October 2018, provided by the resident, noted that the bathroom and kitchen were suffering from condensation, that penetrating dampness was affecting the bathroom, and this appeared to be due to possible defective plumbing and drainage. The report recommended that this be attended to, and the adjacent timbers exposed for inspection purposes. The landlord was not aware if the resident did this, but explained that there was no evidence of any defect within the soil stack or main drain, and it inspected and cleared any blockages to the main drain within a reasonable timeframe after becoming aware of them. It explained that it could not be held responsible for the occurrence of blockages caused by the actions of other residents of the block, if these caused ingress of water into the resident’s property. The landlord said that it was possible that other resident’s pouring paint down the drain caused blockages to connections from pipework within the resident’s flat to the soil stack, and these connections were the resident’s responsibility. The landlord concluded that it would not consider compensating the resident for damage to her home and, as there had not been a recurrence of mould growth or water ingress since the main drain had been cleared in January 2020, no further works were required.

Assessment and findings

  1. In line with the resident’s lease of the property, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building. It is the landlord’s obligation to renew, keep in good repair and condition, and maintain all gutters, sewers, drains, and all pipes soil stacks serving the premises in common with any other property up to the point of connection with the main supply.  The leaseholder’s handbook confirms that the resident is responsible for any repairs or maintenance inside her property. This includes ceilings and floorboards or flooring (but not ceiling or floor joists); decoration; sanitary fixtures and fittings; and tanks, pipes, plumbing, wiring, drains and so on which provide water, gas and electricity to the resident’s home only.
  2. The leaseholder’s handbook also advises that there are other charges and services relating to a leaseholders which are not covered by the conditions of their lease, but that they are responsible for. This includes contents insurance.
  3. The resident instructed an independent surveyor to assess the damp and mould in her home, but was unhappy with their suggestion that the issue was a result of condensation. Subsequently, the resident asked the landlord to attend. The landlord did attend in November 2018, and advised the resident regarding ventilating the property. Where the resident suggested that the issues she experienced could be related to the external drainage, the landlord carried out inspections to the building’s drainage on: 7 December 2018, 15 March 2019, 8 January 2020, and 23 April 2020. It completed works to de-scale the drainage on 18 March 2019. These actions were proportionate and pragmatic efforts by the landlord to investigate and attempt to resolve the problem, as requested by the resident, in line with its obligations detailed in the lease.
  4. During her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the landlord did not complete the works to de-scale the drains in early 2019, as she was informed, after she was told about the paint in the drains. She asked for compensation for the damage caused by damp and mould in her property. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord did attend in March 2019, and completed the required works to the drains. It offered to make the CCTV survey from the time available for the resident to watch in its offices. Because the landlord did complete the required work, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that damage to the resident’s belongings were a result of any service failure, it was reasonable, and in line with its leaseholder’s handbook, for the landlord to not offer compensation and direct the resident to her insurers.
  5. There is no evidence that there was a blockage to drains caused by paint. Based on the repair records, the landlord did not conclude this, only that it was a possibility. The landlord’s repair records do not support its statement at stage one that it fixed the damp and mould issues by unblocking a drain on 8 January 2020. The repair record from January 2020 implies that the blockage was to the manhole and not the pipes. Therefore, it is not clear why the landlord said that a blockage had been causing the problem, and had now been cleared.
  6. Although the resident said that the landlord’s visit in January 2020 appeared to have resolved the issue with the damp and mould, the cause of the problem was still unclear.  The landlord’s communication with the resident at stage one of the complaint about the works carried out to the drains, and its views on the damp and mould, was unclear and did not provide enough detail. However, the landlord acknowledged this, provided detail about its previous actions and findings, and sought to further investigate the cause of the damp and mould at stage two. It offered to inspect underneath the resident’s bath, and to take damp readings of the floor. This was reasonable considering the landlord would usually only investigate the interior of a leaseholder property if there was a fault that lay with the structure of the building. However, the evidence the landlord asked for about the bath was not provided.
  7. Ultimately, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports by completing inspections, clearing the drains, and offering to inspect the interior of the property. The problem of damp and mould appeared to have been resolved at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response, and there was no further action for it to take. Because there is no evidence that the damp and mould reported by the resident was the result of a service failure by the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to claim from her home contents insurance for the damage to her property and belongings.


Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to resolve damp and mould.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports by completing inspections, clearing the drains, and offering to inspect the interior of the property. Because there was no evidence that the damp and mould was the result of a service failure by the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to claim from her home contents insurance for the damage to her property and belongings.