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

London Borough of Redbridge (202011626)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011626

London Borough of Redbridge

20 May 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:
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace windows.
  4. The landlord’s handling of events after its final complaint response of 7 January 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.

Handling of events after its final complaint response of 7 January 2020

  1. In complaining to this Service, the resident has referred to the landlord’s handling of events after its final complaint response of 7 January 2020. The resident raised another complaint, which the landlord responded to at stage one of its complaints procedure in December 2020. The landlord has informed this Service that the resident did not ask to escalate this complaint, which it advised she could do in its response.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which have not exhausted the member landlord’s complaints procedure. Because of that, this investigation centres on events leading up to the landlord’s January 2020 complaint response. Issues arising after that period must exhaust all stages of the landlord’s complaints process before the Ombudsman can consider them.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord raised a repair work order on 22 August 2019, for the lock mechanism to the resident’s kitchen window. This was completed on the same day.
  2. On 12 November 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that there was black mould in her home. She had tried to keep it ventilated, but had trouble keeping it warm. The resident asked the landlord to investigate the property’s structure, the insulation in the attic, the outside walls, the “old, not fit for purpose” back windows, and the size of the radiators. 
  3. On 16 November 2019, the landlord arranged a survey of the property.
  4. The landlord’s contractor responded to the complaint on 19 November 2019. It confirmed that it had instructed a specialist contractor to complete a damp survey, and arranged to inspect the windows and radiators; however, the landlord would need to comment on the loft insulation.
  5. The survey was completed on 21 November 2019, and the landlord received the inspection report on 25 November 2019. The report found no evidence of rising or penetrating damp at the time of inspection, but there was evidence of condensation to the windows. It noted that there were no trickle vents fitted to the windows, apart from that in the first-floor bathroom. The surveyor concluded that the problem of condensation was exacerbated by the resident drying clothes on the radiators, and a lack of ventilation. The surveyor said the resident was informed of this and had agreed to look for other ways to dry her clothes. No remedial damp–proofing works were recommended.
  6. On 5 December 2019, the landlord’s contractor updated the resident and confirmed that it had inspected the windows and radiators, and its damp contractor had completed a full survey of the property. It explained the survey outcome, and also that that it had recommended that the windows and rear doors be replaced. Subsequent to these recommendations, the landlord would carry out a stock condition survey that financial year. The contractor explained that if the resident wanted address this matter further, she would need to contact the landlord’s asset team. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had asked that the windows be resolved before the new radiators were installed, and so it had closed a work order for the works to replace the existing radiators with larger ones.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 December 2019. She said she was unhappy with the survey’s finding that the damp and mould was due to her drying clothes inside. The resident said that the landlord agreed to upsize the radiators in her daughter’s room and her living room; however, the operative did not seem interested. Finally, the resident said she had been told to contact the landlord’s asset team regarding new windows but did not know how to do this.
  8. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response on 7 January 2020. It referred to a visit it had made to the resident on 17 December 2019 to see the problems first–hand. It had concluded that the windows were in good condition and did not need replacing, and the property was in a good state of repair, with no immediately apparent sources of external water penetration to the front or rear elevations, or internal rooms. It acknowledged there was condensation and associated mould growth in some rooms, which needed a deep clean and then daily cleaning by the resident. The landlord said it would arrange for mould treatment (deep clean) and discuss redecoration options with the resident. It provided her with advice, and an information leaflet explaining how to reduce condensation and the likelihood of the mould returning. The landlord advised that this was its final response, and the resident could refer her complaint to this Service, if she remained unhappy.
  9. The resident replied on 8 January 2020. She queried which rooms the landlord intended to carry out a deep mould clean in and disputed its decision about the windows. In reply, the landlord reiterated that it did not believe the windows needed replacing and said that the mould and condensation the resident experienced was directly linked to lifestyle.
  10. On 27 February 2020, the landlord completed a mould clean to the resident’s hallway ceiling, bathroom and three bedrooms. It also redecorated the three bedrooms.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident the landlord’s tenant. The terms and conditions of her tenancy agreement say that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building, including window frames. It also says that the resident is responsible for decorating inside her property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs handbook expands on the landlord and resident’s obligations, explaining that the landlord is responsible for window frames and external sills, “misty window units in normal circumstances, only as part of a programme of works”, window ironmongery, window vents, and draught proofing to windows. This explains that, in line with the decent home standard, a property is decent if essential elements (including windows) are in a suitable condition for its age. The landlord may replace external parts such as windows when it has programmes and funding to cover these works. Finally, the repairs handbook provides information on how residents can avoid and manage condensation, such as not drying clothes on radiators.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.

  1. The landlord’s repairs handbook explains that everyday activities can create moisture in a property, which can lead to condensation. Residents are expected to properly ventilate and heat their property so that damp does not build up. There are some actions which residents can do to reduce the likelihood of condensation, such as avoiding drying clothes indoors where possible.  The advice given to the resident by the landlord was in line with its published guidance on the issue.
  2. In general, landlords should fix a damp or mould issue if it is caused by a repair problem or affecting a resident’s health and safety. It is usually necessary for a landlord to instruct an appropriate professional to identify the cause of damp if this is not immediately obvious. The landlord would then need to consider any recommendations made by a damp expert and take action if necessary.
  3. In this case, the landlord instructed a survey of the property by a damp expert. The expert identified some lifestyle factors contributing to condensation in the property, such as the resident drying clothes on radiators within the property and advised the resident accordingly. No recommendations for remedial works were made, and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinions of its staff and contractors. Because of that, the landlord’s actions to investigate and address the cause of damp and mould, were reasonable.
  4. In the absence of clear structural or repair issues causing the damp, the landlord would not be expected to conduct remedial works. Nonetheless, it carried out a mould wash and decorative works, and provided the resident with advice on how to prevent a future buildup of mould. These actions were reasonable, in the circumstances that no specific repair or structural issues had been found.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to replace windows.

  1. As the landlord is responsible for the repair of windows in the property, it has an obligation to inspect the windows when a problem is reported and undertake any required repairs. In this case, the landlord attended to inspect the windows on two occasions, with the first visit being carried out by its contractor on 28 November 2019, and the second carried out by its own staff on 17 December 2019. As explained above, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its staff and contractors, when deciding whether works were required to the windows.
  2. In this case, the findings of the inspections carried out were inconsistent. The contractor informed the resident on 5 December 2019 that the windows needed replacing, but on 7 January 2020, the landlord told the resident that they didn’t.  This understandably would have caused confusion and distress to the resident, who continued to report problems with the windows.
  3. Given the inconsistency of the results of the two inspections, the landlord should have explained why it had decided to go against its contractors recommendations. The decision was the landlord’s to make, but, in the context of the resident’s concerns about the windows, it was incumbent on the landlord to address and explain why it had reached different conclusions. This would both ensure that the correct outcome was achieved, and reassure the resident. No evidence has been provided of the landlord doing so.

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 reports of damp and mould in her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to replace the windows in her property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the cause of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property, and it acted appropriately based on the damp expert’s findings.
  2. The findings of the two inspections of the windows in the property differed, and the landlord should have sought further clarification in its investigations, in line with good practice, which would have reassured the resident on whether the windows needed replacing.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 for the frustration and inconvenience she will have experienced from the conflicting reports about her windows.
  2. This payment should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.