Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202204283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204283

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

15 June 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould;
2. request for a transfer;
3. associated complaint, including the amount of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in 2016. The property is a two-bedroom first-floor flat. The resident lives there with her partner and two children.
The landlord has “no known vulnerabilities” recorded for the resident and her household. The Ombudsman has seen correspondence between the resident and the landlord in which she informed it of the impact of the events of this investigation on her mental health. She has also informed it of health conditions that her children have developed, including a cough in May 2022.
The tenancy agreement, which is signed by the landlord and resident, has a section relating to the number of bedrooms in the property and the maximum number of people who can legally live there. This section requires figures to be entered in the spaces provided, but has not been completed. It states that tenants must not allow their home to become overcrowded.
The tenancy agreement also sets out the responsibilities of the landlord and tenant in relation to repairs. It states that the landlord will carry out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs. It also states that tenants must report repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility to it as soon as possible. Tenants are responsible for decorating inside their home and for keeping their home adequately ventilated to avoid causing condensation.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook divides repairs into five categories according to their priority. The landlord will carry out the highest priority repairs (‘emergency’) within two hours, and the lowest priority repairs (‘routine’) within 20 working days. The handbook states that tenants will be given a job number and target completion date when they report a repair. It confirms that plastering and plasterboard repairs are the landlord’s responsibility, but does not provide any information specifically in relation to damp and mould. It notes that the landlord does not insure the contents of tenants’ homes such as furniture, belongings and decoration, and advises tenants to take out their own contents insurance.
The Ombudsman has had sight of a flowchart produced by the landlord which outlines its process for dealing with reports of damp and mould. This is colour coded to show which tasks are completed by its customer service centre, damp advisors, surveyors and contractors. Other than setting out circumstances in which a surveyor’s inspection should be arranged within ten working days, it does not include target timescales. The action taken is determined by a number of factors including the cause of damp, the extent of mould growth, whether the issue is recurrent, and any vulnerability (such as in relation to respiratory health).
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, it will acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours and respond within 15 working days. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will notify the complainant of this, the reasons why, and when it will respond. A complainant may escalate their complaint to stage two within 20 working days of the stage one response, and at stage two, the landlord will carry out a review of the stage one outcome within 20 working days. The stage two review will be carried out by an officer who has not previously been involved in the case.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction where you feel we have got something wrong, such as the standard of service, the way a decision has been made, behaviours or actions or lack of action about the [landlord’s] provision of a service for which it has responsibility”. Complaints must be made within six months of the alleged failure. The policy states that the landlord’s vision is underpinned by five priorities, including “doing things with residents, not to them” and “being ruthlessly financially efficient”. It says that the landlord will deal with each case on its own merits when considering compensation and will usually follow the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported damp and mould issues to it in December 2020, with an appointment scheduled to carry out a mould wash in January 2021. This appointment was rearranged at the resident’s request when she contracted Covid-19 and was required to self-isolate. To the Ombudsman’s knowledge, the resident did not report any further issues with damp and mould in 2021.
On 27 January 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that she was entitled to a two-bedroom property when she was housed, and although her current property had two bedrooms, one of them measured 5.25m2 which she understood did not meet the legal requirement to be classed as a bedroom. She said she was not entitled to apply to the landlord’s housing register as she did not need an extra bedroom, but she had two children who shared the smaller bedroom and described the property as “very overcrowded”. She also told the landlord that she constantly had to get rid of mould, even though she opened windows and had a dehumidifier. She felt the landlord should reclassify the property as a one-bedroom property due to the bedroom size, and should rehouse her appropriately.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and said that it aimed to provide a written response by 17 February 2022. It told the resident it would let her know if it anticipated any delays.
Having received no response or further update, the resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2022. She said she had not received a response to her complaint and would like to know what was happening. She told the landlord that she had had to replace the carpet in her children’s bedroom and had redecorated the room, but the mould kept returning. She also said that there was no storage space in the property, that her children did not have enough space, and that she was concerned about the effect of mould on their health.
In further emails sent on 20 February 2022, the resident told the landlord that when she reported mould previously it sent an operative to spray the walls of her property with mould spray, which she was already doing. However, the mould returned a few days later. It was now forming on other surfaces including her kitchen floor. She said the mould had spread from the wall to her bed, her wallpaper was peeling, and she had had to throw clothes away when they too became mouldy. She repeated her concern for her children’s health and said that she could not afford to keep redecorating and replacing furniture. She told the landlord she felt “trapped” and “stuck”, as she did not meet the criteria to apply for the housing register (ie being overcrowded by at least one bedroom and earning a household income below a certain threshold). She requested to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
Internal emails by the landlord between 21 and 23 February 2022 identified that the resident’s complaint had been mistakenly withdrawn, as the allocated officer had been under the impression that another team was dealing with it.
On 24 February 2022 the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that it did not respond to her complaint by the original deadline and explained that the complaint had been incorrectly withdrawn. This had only become apparent after the resident requested to escalate her complaint. It advised that, while it would not escalate the complaint to stage two, it had reinstated the stage one complaint and would respond by 4 March 2022. If the resident was not satisfied with its stage one response, she retained the right to escalate to stage two.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 4 March 2022, stating that:
1. It was sorry to hear about the problems the resident had reported, and it apologised for its initial delay in responding to her complaint.
2. It had contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, and had subsequently asked a surveyor from its repairs team to inspect the damp and mould in her property and measure the size of the smaller bedroom.
3. Its repairs team would lead on arranging the inspection and carrying out any necessary works relating to damp and mould. The team would update the resident regarding this.
4. Once the inspection had been completed, it would confirm whether the bedroom’s dimensions met the required standards.
5. It had given advice to the resident regarding how she could apply for a housing transfer. Its allocations team would assess her housing situation and confirm whether she was entitled to a bigger property under its housing allocation scheme.
6. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
7. It hoped its response gave the resident some reassurance that her concerns were now being addressed. However, if she was not satisfied with the response, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure within 20 working days.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process on 5 March 2022. She copied her escalation request to her local councillors, and stated that:
1. The landlord had “outlined proposals of what is going to be done without anything actually being done or even giving a date”, so she did not feel that her complaint had been resolved.
2. She worked in healthcare and was concerned about the health risks that were associated with her current living conditions.
3. She felt that a mould wash was only a cosmetic solution, as it meant mould could no longer be seen but the underlying issue remained.
4. She could not afford to continue replacing items that were being damaged by mould, and this was causing her “deep anxiety and stress”.
5. She had previously developed health anxiety following a traumatic incident in her personal life, and her concerns about damp and mould were contributing to and causing her continued mental health issues.
6. Having spoken to the landlord, she was aware that once its surveyor had visited she had the option of applying to join the housing register. However, she was concerned that she would not qualify due to the income criteria. She would like to challenge the landlord’s policy regarding income criteria, as the threshold was significantly higher for a three-bedroom property than for a two-bedroom property.
7. She attached some photos “to show what I am dealing with”.
The same day (5 March 2022), the resident received an email from one of her local councillors. The councillor said they were unclear why the resident thought she was not entitled to a housing transfer, as household income was irrelevant to existing tenants who needed a transfer due to overcrowding or other reasons. They told the resident she was entitled to join the waiting list for a transfer like anyone else, and that her occupation could give her a higher priority as it was counted as a “community contribution”.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord raised a job for its damp and mould team to inspect the resident’s property. The inspection was carried out on 14 March 2022. The surveyor’s notes stated that the level of ventilation in the property was low and there were high levels of airborne moisture created by activities such as cooking, showering and drying clothes indoors. This resulted in condensation and mould. The notes stated that the surveyor had raised a works order to rectify the issue, and that they had given the resident advice regarding ways to improve the level of ventilation. The surveyor provided measurements for each room in the property, with the smaller bedroom measuring 3 metres by 1.8 metres.
The same day (14 March 2022), the resident emailed the landlord and her local councillor. She thanked the councillor for their response regarding housing transfers, and noted that the landlord had not yet acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint to stage two. She advised that the landlord’s surveyor had attended that day to inspect the mould and measure the rooms in the property. The resident said the surveyor had recommended a number of works to be completed, including: replacement of grout on window seals and in the bathroom; stripping and repainting of one bedroom, plus replacement of skirting due to the extent of the damage; and mould wash of several areas, including the second bedroom, which was confirmed to measure 5.25m2. The surveyor had told the resident that her smaller bedroom was only suitable for a single bed and not bunk beds, but she said she did not have a choice as she had two children.
The resident told the landlord she was concerned about the length of time it would take to complete the works, as although she worked from home, she would be unable to do her job while workmen were there due to the confidentiality of her work. She was therefore worried that she would lose the bulk of her earnings during the relevant period. She also expressed concerns about her ability to move furniture due to cramped conditions, and whether the colour of repainted walls would match existing walls. She said she had completed the landlord’s insurance claim form in relation to her bed, which was damaged by mould.
An internal email by the landlord on 28 March 2022 noted that it had received its surveyor’s report in respect of the resident’s property. This confirmed that the resident lived in a two-bedroom three-person property, but that she required a two-bedroom four-person property. While the smaller bedroom met legal size requirements, the resident was overcrowded as she had two children sharing a single bedroom. The email stated that the landlord had sent the resident a housing register application form to complete, so she could join the transfer list for a bigger property.
The same day, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she still had not received an acknowledgement following her request to escalate her complaint three weeks earlier. She also said she had not heard anything in relation to the surveyor’s visit two weeks ago. The landlord responded by sending four emails to the resident on 28 and 29 March 2022. One of these was a copy of the stage one acknowledgement email the resident had received in February 2022. The other three confirmed receipt of the escalation request and apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord said it aimed to respond by 4 April 2022, and would let the resident know if it needed longer.
On 30 March 2022 the resident told the landlord that, after completing a claim form in relation to items damaged by mould as it advised, she had now been informed that damage from mould was not covered by the landlord’s insurance. She asked for some advice on this.
On 5 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said the deadline for its stage two response had been the day before, but she had not received a response or any contact to say that it would be extending the deadline. She had also not received an update following the surveyor’s visit. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage three due to the landlord’s “absolute poor communication” at stages one and two. An internal email by the landlord noted that the complaint response was being finalised but had been delayed. The landlord informed the resident of this on 7 April 2022 and apologised for the delay, saying it now aimed to respond by 12 April 2022.
The landlord also raised jobs for damp works to be completed at the resident’s property on 7 April 2022. The jobs were for a mould wash to be completed; replacement of two extractor fans; and stripping and thermal boarding of one external wall in bedroom two. The jobs were listed as “raised but not appointed”.
The landlord’s record of a phone conversation with the resident on 8 April 2022 states that the resident told the landlord she did not want it to issue its stage two response before the dates of the repairs had been confirmed. She noted that the landlord’s stage one complaint response had referred to works being carried out, but they never took place. She asked the landlord to arrange the necessary appointments on days when she did not work, and to give her advance notice of access so that she could disassemble the bunk beds and move a wardrobe. She was also concerned about insurance as the landlord’s insurers said they would not cover the damage to her bed, and she wanted the landlord to consider awarding compensation to remedy this. Finally, she said that she had not received a housing application form that the landlord said it had sent out.
On 19 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, saying she had agreed not to receive her stage two response until dates had been arranged for the repairs to be carried out, but she had heard nothing more since. She now said that she would like to know the outcome of her complaint. Having received no reply, the resident emailed the landlord again on 25 April 2022. Internal emails by the landlord on 27 and 28 April 2022 noted that the housing forms were sent out “a couple of days ago” and that it was still waiting for works orders to be raised in relation to the mould wash and other repairs.
On 28 April 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone. She said she was concerned that her housing application may be rejected because of the age of her child. She also asked what documents she would need to provide in support of her application. She asked the landlord to confirm that she would not be wasting her time applying, and what the next steps would be if her application was successful. The officer who spoke to the resident did not have the answers to these questions, and so made enquiries internally.
On 2 May 2022 the resident told the landlord she would like to escalate her complaint to stage three, as she had still received no response at stage two. She also said she had pulled her children’s bunk bed away from the wall and had found mould in an area it had not previously appeared. She was concerned that the mould may be causing a cough her son had developed. She provided photos of the mould, noting that it had not been seen by the landlord’s surveyor. She asked the landlord to “confirm my complaint is being escalated and taken seriously”. The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint and emails internally but did not reply.
On 3 May 2022 the resident re-sent her photos to the landlord, stating that the mould next to her children’s bed “looks different to the mould I normally get” and that she was concerned it presented a “real health issue”. She asked the landlord if it was safe for her children to sleep in the room. On 5 May 2022, having received no reply, the resident told the landlord that she had taken her child out of their bed and had been sleeping on a mattress on the floor with them as she was concerned about them “breathing right next to the mould”. She said this was affecting “the quality of my sleep and life and day-to-day activities”.
The landlord replied to the resident on 5 May 2022, apologising for its delays in completing its stage two investigation. It said it could see its stage two responder was working on the case and liaising with relevant departments, but had been unable to update the resident that day due to laptop issues. The resident thanked the landlord for its reply but said she was “struggling to understand how it is taking so long just to get dates booked in”. She said that while she waited for the repairs to be carried out, the mould was spreading, and she had unanswered questions about mould treatments and her housing application. She also said she would appreciate urgent advice in relation to the new area of mould that had appeared and whether it was safe for her children to sleep close to it. She told the landlord that she sought compensation in connection with her damaged possessions, the landlord’s lack of communication, and the length of time it had taken to deal with her complaint.
In an email it sent to the resident on 6 May 2022, the landlord agreed that “this is not an acceptable amount of time to wait” and confirmed that “as part of the final complaint response, compensation will be evaluated and take into consideration the impacts [the situation] has had on you and the damage to household items”. It said it would escalate the resident’s repair case for quick scheduling of dates. In reply to the resident’s question about her children’s safety in close proximity to the mould, the landlord said that its surveyor – who had knowledge and expertise in the field – had not requested a decant while the repairs were being arranged. It also noted the resident’s concern that the solutions proposed may constitute a temporary fix, rather than addressing the root cause of the mould. The resident replied the same day and pointed out that the mould next to her children’s bed was not seen by the surveyor. She said it looked different to other areas of mould upon which the surveyor had based their assessment, and she was aware some mould types could be more dangerous. She then contacted the surveyor directly, reattaching her photo of the mould and asking their opinion.
On 10 May 2022, the landlord made appointments for the resident’s extractor fans to be replaced on 13 May 2022 and for a mould wash to be completed on 24 May 2022. It informed the resident of these appointments and said it would arrange an inspection in order to schedule the appropriate amount of time for replastering. It also told the resident it would call her on 13 May 2022 to confirm that the appointment that day had gone ahead. It then enquired internally regarding other repairs that the resident said should be completed, such as renewal of windowsills.
On 16 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to provide its final complaint response, stating: “This has been a complete shambles but until I receive my response I cannot take it further.” She said that the landlord’s electrician who attended on 13 May 2022 had refused to replace her fans, as they said the existing fans were working and the job was “a waste of time and a cheaper way out of fixing the problem”. The resident said the electrician had told her the issue was that the flats were not insulated when they were built, and this was now causing mould to form in a number of properties. The resident agreed with this and believed the proposed fan replacement was “just a step offered to tick me off your list rather than a true fix”. She noted that no date had yet been given for her sealants to be replaced or for her bedroom wall to be insulated. She said she would be completing a mould wash of her children’s room herself, so the appointment on 24 May 2022 was no longer needed. She also said that she had received no call from the landlord on 13 May 2022 as promised, and that it had given only vague answers to her questions about the housing register.
On 18 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said she had still received no response or acknowledgement of her email on 16 May 2022. She asked the landlord to respond via email, and to send all future correspondence by email as she wanted to have it in writing.
On 20 May 2022 the landlord replied to the resident’s email. It said that its stage two responder continued to work on the case, but in the meantime it was in a position to update the resident regarding two further appointments. It advised that a 90-minute appointment had been made for a decorator to attend and complete a mould wash on 25 May 2022, although if the resident preferred to complete this herself, that was fine. It had also arranged a four-hour appointment on 14 June 2022 for a plasterer to attend; it was awaiting confirmation as to whether this would include the thermal board aspect of the works. It confirmed the findings of the operative who looked at the resident’s fans on 13 May 2022, stating that the walls containing windows and those nearest to the outside of the property needed to be insulated by damp proofing. It said it would seek an update on this too, but was prepared to provide a stage two response before a full programme of works and dates had been agreed as the resident had requested.

The landlord then issued its stage two response on 20 May 2022, stating that:
1. The resident had raised a stage two complaint because her stage one complaint about damp and mould in her children’s bedroom had not been addressed in a timely manner.
2. It apologised for its delay in scheduling the resident’s repairs. It could see that the resident had followed the correct procedure by reporting the repairs to its customer service centre.
3. Repair appointments had now been made for 25 May 2022 and 14 June 2022, although the resident had confirmed that she did not require the appointment on 25 May 2022 as she had carried out a mould wash herself.
4. It confirmed that the resident’s smaller bedroom met the legal requirements in terms of size, but it was overcrowded as the resident had two children sharing a single bedroom. It had sent the resident a housing application form to complete so that she was able to join the transfer list for a bigger property.
5. After taking into consideration everything that had happened and the service the resident had received, it awarded £400 in compensation. It hoped the resident was happy with this resolution.
6. This was its final response, and if the resident was dissatisfied, she could refer her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.
A system note by the landlord on the same day (20 May 2022) stated that its stage two response would be reviewed and redrafted as it was “not comprehensive enough” and did not fully address the resident’s points regarding works planned, rehousing and compensation. A further internal note made on 23 May 2022 stated that the case and response had been reviewed, and that the responder would arrange for a point of contact within the housing team to call the resident and discuss the application process. The landlord subsequently asked the resident for photos of items that she believed had been damaged by mould and damp. The resident responded with photos of her bed, which she said cost over £1,000, as well as items of clothing and net curtains. She said she did not have photos of all items that had been damaged, as she had thrown away some things like clothes and handbags. She also noted that her wallpaper had been damaged by the mould wash. The landlord forwarded the resident’s photos internally on 26 May 2022, commenting that “the bed looks bad”.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord called the resident and left a voicemail advising that it was still reviewing the compensation aspect of her complaint. It noted that its housing team had now contacted her. The resident responded by email and asked the landlord to send her a copy of the housing application form in the post, as she was unable to submit it online without supporting evidence.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2022, stating that:
1. Its resident experience team, who were responsible for overseeing its complaints process, had been asked to review its original stage two response to the resident’s complaint as she did not feel the responder addressed all her points or provided a fully comprehensive response.
2. It was sorry that its original response was not as comprehensive as the resident would have liked. It had reviewed the complaint again and liaised with other officers regarding the outcome.
3. Since the resident raised her stage one complaint, there had been “a lack of communication with almost no empathy shown for your family’s health and living situation”. This level of service was not acceptable and the landlord had learned lessons from the case. It was currently focusing on making “significant improvements in the repairs process”, with “many departments and senior officers” involved. It appreciated how the situation had impacted the resident’s family and it understood how frustrating “this poor experience” had been.
4. The issues reported by the resident had not been resolved by its repairs service. It should not have taken it this long to rectify the issues or address the resident’s concerns.
5. It had tried to ensure that the repairs were completed before its stage two response was finalised, but there had been continued delays. Its aim was to get the best resolution for the resident, and it understood that she could not escalate the case to the Ombudsman without a final response.
6. Following the resident’s request to speak to a senior manager, she had discussed the case with its head of service and advised that items had been damaged by the damp and mould. She had provided photo evidence of some items that were damaged, including the material base of her bed, a jacket, and her bedroom wall.
7. It had reviewed the resident’s request for redecoration. It had set policies around redecoration and ‘making good’, and redecorating a whole room was not a service it was able to offer. It was the responsibility of the resident to redecorate after damp and mould issues had been addressed by its repairs service.
8. It recognised that damage had been caused to the resident’s bedroom and that there was a need for a decorator to complete remedial work. It had therefore factored the bedroom damage into its revised offer of compensation.
9. It accepted that there had been “several delays” with resolving the issues during the resident’s stage one complaint, and delays of over a month in communicating with the resident regarding repairs after the surveyor had attended her property.
10. On 23 May 2022 it asked for a housing officer to call the resident and discuss the process of applying for a larger property, the possible waiting time, and the priority banding she would receive. It sought an update on 27 May 2022 and was informed that the relevant officer would send the resident a housing application. This officer could be contacted in relation to any queries about the application.
11. Taking everything into consideration, it had increased the amount of compensation awarded to £700. This was comprised of £400 for the delays in getting the repair issues resolved and £300 for redecoration of the resident’s children’s bedroom (increased significantly from its guidance of £25 per room). Its compensation offer was in line with its internal compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance.
12. It was unable to offer direct compensation for the resident’s damaged belongings through its complaints process. Instead, it advised residents to claim through their own contents insurance. If the resident did not have contents insurance she could log a claim through its insurance department. It attached a housing liability claim form for the resident to complete.

Post complaint

While the Ombudsman’s investigation focuses on events that took place before the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the following paragraphs summarise the continued issues experienced by the resident in relation to the matters raised in her complaint. The Ombudsman has discretion to take account of these further events in making a determination.
On 31 May 2022 the resident highlighted several things that were missing from the landlord’s final response, including: whether the landlord intended to insulate her walls as an alternative to replacing her fans; whether it would replace the sealant on her windows; and what the appointment on 14 June 2022 would involve. The resident pointed out that she had previously attempted to make a claim through the landlord’s insurance and was told it that its insurance did not cover damage that had been caused over a period of time, such as mould damage. She believed the landlord had accepted liability for the damp and mould issue by saying that the walls were not sufficiently insulated. She also said that compensation of £700 was unacceptable as the situation had gone on for months and the amount offered would not even cover the replacement of her bed.
The resident submitted a housing application to the landlord the same day (31 May 2022). An internal email by the landlord on 1 July 2022 noted that the resident’s family was not considered overcrowded due to the age of her children. A further internal email on 29 September 2022 stated that the resident was adequately housed and so did not qualify to join the housing register, and that she would be informed of this shortly. The resident was informed that her housing application had been rejected on 13 December 2022. The landlord told her on 18 April 2023 that its decision had considered whether she met the criteria for Band 1 priority rehousing, namely: “The applicant’s accommodation is directly contributing to the deterioration of the applicant’s health … and the condition of the property cannot be resolved within a reasonable period of time, usually six months.”
On 14 June 2022 the resident informed this Service that she had previously asked the landlord how it could complete all the necessary work – stripping a wall, inserting a thermal board and replastering – during a four-hour appointment due to take place that day. She said she did not receive a reply until she contacted the landlord’s head officer. The landlord then agreed that the appointment would be a waste of the plasterer’s time and opted to subcontract the work. The subcontractor was due to visit the property with the landlord’s supervisor to assess what work needed to be done, but the landlord’s supervisor was unavailable on the day.
The landlord completed damp and mould repairs at the resident’s property between 22 and 25 October 2022. According to the resident, the repairs took two days longer than expected as the some of the works required were not on the operatives’ quote. After the repairs were completed, the resident was left with a hole in her kitchen wall and was unable to put her furniture back in place as her bedroom radiator had not been refixed to the wall. Two air vents that had been replaced were also not working. The landlord repaired the hole in the resident’s wall and later changed the automatic extractor fans back to manual ones on 15 November 2022; however, following this the kitchen fan made a loud noise. The resident involved her local councillor and on 25 November 2022 the landlord offered her a dehumidifier and £60 per month to cover its running costs.
The landlord’s contractors were due to attend the resident’s property on 29 November 2022 to correct work that had previously been carried out, but did not arrive. Enquiries found that they had misdialled the resident’s phone number when attempting to inform her of the cancellation. An electrician who was due to look at the resident’s fan on 2 December 2022 also did not attend. The resident received a dehumidifier from the landlord on 3 December 2022 but did not immediately receive a reply to her enquiry about when it would start to pay her £60 per month. On 5 December 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the noisy fan had been fixed, but that mould had returned in her front room and had spread to her armchair. On 22 March 2023 she told it that her child had developed eczema and asthma.
On 1 June 2023 the resident advised this Service that she continued to dispute the landlord’s decision to reject her housing application and that she had made a further complaint regarding this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord is liable for damages to the resident’s possessions, or to award damages. This is because only a court can make a binding decision about liability. The resident’s complaint about compensation has therefore been considered in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which the landlord’s complaints policy states that it usually follows.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has informed the landlord on several occasions of an issue with her downstairs neighbour’s ivy growing over her window and preventing her from opening it. She first raised this matter with the landlord on 6 May 2022 and it remained unresolved on 7 November 2022. While the ivy is the subject of a separate complaint, and so not covered by this investigation, the fact that it has reportedly limited the resident’s ability to ventilate her property has been taken into consideration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

When the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord in 2020, it responded appropriately by scheduling an appointment for a mould wash within 20 working days. It then demonstrated flexibility and empathy when the resident contracted Covid-19 and had to rearrange the appointment, providing a new appointment within three weeks and accommodating the resident’s preference for it not to use a stain block treatment. While the issues may have persisted or recurred following the landlord’s visit, there is no evidence that the landlord was aware of this until the resident complained to it in January 2022.
The resident’s communication to the landlord on 27 January 2022 was submitted as a formal complaint, but also amounted to a service request. The landlord’s complaints policy states that “it is assumed that you will have already contacted the team/service to resolve at a local level and they have either not addressed it correctly or not got back to you”. While the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in this regard, carrying out a system check or asking the resident whether she had reported the damp and mould issue may have precluded a lengthy and convoluted process (discussed in more detail below). Indeed, the landlord’s stage two response accepted that the resident had followed the correct procedure in reporting the repair. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered a policy review in connection with this and other aspects of the complaint.
Upon identifying a new report of a damp and mould issue, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to follow its usual process by raising a repair and informing the resident of the job number and target date. If it needed more information from the resident before it could raise a repair, it should have requested this. However, it appears that an inspection was arranged informally through email correspondence, with no job number or target date being allocated, and the repair logs were not updated until after the surveyor’s visit. The landlord’s departure from the process outlined in its repairs handbook resulted in the repair not being progressed until it had provided its stage one complaint response on 4 March 2022. This resulted in a lack of accountability and oversight, poor record keeping, and ultimately in delays in completing the works.
The landlord carried out an inspection of damp and mould in the resident’s property on 14 March 2022. This was four working days after the job was raised on 8 March 2022, but 32 working days after the resident first brought the issue to the landlord’s attention on 27 January 2022, and so exceeded the maximum timeframe for routine repairs set out in the repairs handbook. Inspecting the damp and mould was an appropriate initial course of action in line with the damp and mould flowchart. The landlord’s records indicate that its surveyor gave appropriate advice to the resident about improving ventilation in the property and made detailed notes following the inspection. The surveyor then raised a works order for a number of repairs the day after the inspection, which was reasonable, and followed good practice by giving details of the recommended works to the resident.
Despite the inspection being completed relatively promptly (once raised), the landlord’s delay of seven further months in completing damp and mould repairs in the resident’s property was unacceptable. In addition to the delays, the resident was not kept informed of action the landlord was taking or given realistic estimates of when work would be completed. Information she provided regarding action she had already taken to treat the mould was not adequately documented, resulting in advice and treatments being unnecessarily repeated. There was also evidence of poor internal communication, with different teams and officers reaching different conclusions, and this led to appointments being cancelled or not suitably prepared for. Most importantly, the resident’s personal circumstances – including her work commitments, her health related concerns, and the financial cost of the situation – were not acknowledged or taken sufficiently into account by the landlord. The avoidable distress caused to the resident as a result, as well as the time and trouble she felt the need to invest in chasing replies and repeating information over a ten-month period, has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman notes that the repair logs seen by this Service contain only three entries, with two of these relating to the resident’s report of damp and mould in 2020 and just one relating to her reports in 2022. This does not comprise an accurate record of the issues reported, options explored or action taken, and would be unhelpful in the event of further similar reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer

It is important to note that the Ombudsman investigates complaints about local authorities in their capacity as landlords; complaints about other functions of a local authority, such as its operation of a housing register and allocations scheme, fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, this Service can assess some aspects of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer, such as the information and support it provided.
The resident’s original concern was in relation to the size of her children’s bedroom, which she believed was too small to be legally classed as a bedroom. The landlord responded appropriately to this concern by arranging for its surveyor to measure the bedroom. The surveyor found that the bedroom met legal size requirements, but advised that the property was classed as overcrowded as two children were sharing a bedroom that was intended for single use.
The resident initially told the landlord that she wished to be “rehoused appropriately” if the landlord found that her bedroom was too small. However, despite the bedroom being deemed compliant, her later correspondence made it clear that she still wished to move to a bigger property. The landlord’s stage one complaint response stated that it had given advice to the resident regarding how she could apply for a housing transfer, and that its allocations team would assess whether she was entitled to a bigger property under its scheme. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the process to the resident.
The resident then expressed concern that she would not qualify for a transfer due to the income criteria. Her local councillor, who had been copied into the correspondence, advised that the household income requirement was irrelevant to existing tenants. The councillor also suggested that the resident’s occupation could give her a higher priority. Since the councillor was an elected member rather than an employed member of the landlord’s staff, it would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm its agreement or disagreement with this advice; the landlord was not copied into the councillor’s email, but was included in the resident’s response and so had sight of the advice given.
An internal email by the landlord stated that it had sent the resident a housing register application form to complete on 28 March 2022. The resident told the landlord on 8 April 2022 that she had not received the form. A further internal email indicated that the form was sent to the resident on or around 26 April 2022. It is unclear whether the form was sent twice, with the first copy going astray, or whether it was not in fact sent until almost a month after the landlord documented that it had been sent. If the latter, this delay was unacceptable. However, there is insufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to make a finding in relation to this.
When the resident asked the landlord to confirm whether she would be “wasting her time” making a housing application on 28 April 2022, it was appropriate for the officer to make internal enquiries regarding information that they did not know. However, the officer should have followed up these enquiries and responded to the resident. Their failure to do so meant that the resident did not receive an answer to her question.
The resident told the landlord on 5 and 16 May 2022 that she continued to have unanswered questions in relation to her housing application. Rather than contacting the resident about these, the landlord restated its position in its complaint response on 20 May 2022: that the resident’s property was overcrowded and that it had sent her a housing application form to complete. This was unhelpful and insensitive to the resident’s growing concerns about her family’s housing situation.
As part of the landlord’s review of its original stage two complaint response, it asked for a housing officer to call the resident to discuss the process of applying for a larger property, the possible waiting time, and the priority banding she would receive. This was an example of positive action that could have helped to progress the resident’s application for housing. However, it appears that the action was not followed up, and that instead a housing application was again sent to the resident. Although the resident was advised to contact the officer who had sent the form with any questions, the landlord missed an opportunity to facilitate a discussion between the resident and an appropriately qualified officer. Such a discussion could have addressed, for example, the resident’s obvious concern about submitting an application without supporting evidence.
A housing application that the resident subsequently made was rejected on the grounds that she was not considered overcrowded due to the age of her children. The resident was not informed of this decision until seven months after she made the application, although an internal email by the landlord indicated that the decision had been made after one month. While the landlord (in its capacity as landlord) may not have been responsible for the delay in communicating the decision to the resident, the outcome showed that the resident had received conflicting information as to whether her property was or was not considered to be overcrowded. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the resident’s concerns about whether the landlord intentionally stalled in progressing her housing application and related enquiries in order to avoid meeting the Band 1 criteria for rehousing due to a repair issue that had been unresolved for over six months.
Throughout the landlord’s correspondence with the resident, its references to “two-bedroom three-person properties” versus “two-person four-bedroom properties” and to “single bedrooms” caused confusion, and unfairly raised her hopes of being eligible for a larger property. The landlord missed an opportunity to confirm the maximum number of people who could live in the resident’s property when her tenancy began in 2016, and having not responded to the resident’s specific question on 28 April 2022 about the impact of her child’s age on her housing application, it should have acknowledged that it lacked the expertise to advise on rehousing matters and made a meaningful effort to put her in contact with a colleague in the relevant team who was able to advise. Its confused and protracted response, characterised by delays and misinformation as well as a lack of support, has resulted in a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there is some question as to whether the resident’s complaint of 27 January 2022 met the criteria to be considered as a formal complaint. Although it was submitted using the landlord’s complaint webform, the resident was expressing her dissatisfaction with a decision made by the landlord when it housed her five years earlier, and with an ongoing damp and mould issue that she had not reported for over a year. She was not, therefore, complaining about something she felt the landlord had got wrong or the standard of a service it had provided within the preceding six months. For this reason, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to decline to investigate a formal complaint at that stage, and instead to log two service requests: one to confirm whether the resident’s second bedroom was the required size, and another to carry out damp and mould repairs. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s decision to log a formal complaint, and has examined its compliance with relevant policies and procedures.
The landlord acted in accordance with its corporate complaints policy by acknowledging the resident’s stage one complaint within one working day and providing a target date for its response. When a misunderstanding resulted in the complaint being inadvertently withdrawn, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, provide an explanation for its error, and give a revised response date. The landlord then issued its stage one response by the target date.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that landlords should respond to residents when the answer to their complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to issue its stage one response in a timely way and to include details of its plan of action to address the damp and mould issue, rather than waiting for the repairs to be scheduled before issuing its response.
In view of the information available to the landlord at the time of its stage one response, and the limited opportunity it had had to engage with the matters complained about, it was perhaps premature for it to partially uphold the complaint. At this point, it had not found that its response to the resident’s damp and mould reports or her housing issue was unreasonable. It did not give reasons for partially upholding the complaint and did not offer redress for any service failure that it had found. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord may have wished to recognise the impact of its delayed response on the resident, but this was not made clear, and so the conclusion of the response was confusing. It may also have given the resident false hope in relation to its stage two decision.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 5 March 2022, or her subsequent email chasing this on 14 March 2022. When the resident contacted the landlord again on 28 March 2022, the four emails it sent in response were confusing and indicative of a disorganised approach, with the same information being repeated across three emails. However, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for its delay and providing a target date for its stage two response.
The landlord did not issue its stage two response by the target date of 4 April 2022, and did not contact the resident in advance of the deadline to say that it needed more time to respond. Instead, it informed her on 7 April 2022 – three working days after it was due to respond, and two days after the resident had chased the response – that it required an extension of six days. An extension of this length was not excessive, but the landlord’s failure to update the resident resulted in avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
The resident told the landlord on 8 April 2022 that she did not want it to issue its response until the repair dates had been confirmed. It was appropriate for the landlord to comply with this request, particularly as this ultimately allowed it to provide a more detailed response. Unfortunately, further delays and poor communication led the resident to query the lack of update on 19 April 2022 and to attempt to escalate her complaint further on 2 May 2022. Her reference to “stage three” may have related to a table in the landlord’s complaints policy, which addressed complaints about adults’ and children’s services as well as corporate complaints and included a third stage. Having separate policies, processes or sections for different types of complaint would have made this information clearer; this is reflected in the orders below.
After the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking to receive a final response to her complaint, the landlord should have checked that she now wished to receive its stage two response, and (if so) provided a target date for this. Since it had previously intended to respond by 12 April 2022, it should have been able to coordinate a prompt response that reflected its position at the time. Instead there were further delays – some unavoidable, such as a laptop issue – and the landlord sent emails to the resident on 5 and 6 May 2022 that seemed to act in lieu of a formal response. Its email of 6 May 2022 accepted that the delays in the case were unacceptable, raised the resident’s expectations regarding compensation, and proposed solutions such as escalating the repairs. It was not until 16 May 2022, when the resident restated her request for the landlord to issue its final complaint response, that this was actioned, and a stage two response was provided four days later.
The initial stage two response was brief, repetitive of the stage one response, and contained a number of errors and typos. It incorrectly stated that the resident had made her original complaint on 28 January 2022 and that she had escalated her complaint to stage two because it had not been addressed in a timely manner; in fact, she had given a number of different and specific reasons for escalation. The response also signposted the resident to the Local Government Ombudsman rather than this Service. Although the landlord apologised for its delay in scheduling the resident’s repairs, it did not apologise for its failures in communication and complaint handling, or recognise the impact of these on the resident. It would have been appropriate for the response to acknowledge the resident’s concerns in relation to her family’s health and the significant inconvenience she had experienced, including loss of earnings. No breakdown was provided for the offer of £400 compensation, which was entered on the landlord’s system as a “goodwill” payment. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate transparency and explain its decision making.
The landlord subsequently reviewed its stage two response and produced a revised response, although it is unclear whether it did so as a result of some objection by the resident or of its own accord. The Ombudsman has not had the opportunity to inspect any written record of a request to review the response. While it is positive that the landlord took corrective action to address something it felt it had got wrong, producing a revised response constituted a departure from its policy, and was confusing as the original stage two response had stated that it was “our final response”. It also had the effect of delaying the resident’s access to this Service, albeit by only 11 days, which did not cause significant detriment. It would have been good practice for the landlord to document the resident’s continued dissatisfaction (if this was the case) and its decision to review its response, as this could assist its own reflection and learning from complaints.
The second stage two response was produced by the same member of staff who produced the original stage two response. Although this was not a contravention of policy, as the policy did not provide for multiple stage two responses (and the author of both stage two responses was different to the stage one author), in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was not in the spirit of a fair and open process for the same person to review their own response. The responder’s language reflected their lack of independence, which at times made their review feel overly personal: “You did not feel I addressed all your points”, “I am sorry that the response from me was not as comprehensive as you would have liked.” In addition, the stage two responder’s job title indicated that they were not of the level of seniority that would normally carry out a stage two review. While the policy affords some flexibility in this respect through use of the word “normally”, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider appointing someone independent and of the usual level of seniority to assess whether there were issues with its initial response, if it agreed this was a worthy exercise. This was of particular relevance in view of the resident’s explicit request to discuss the response with a senior manager.
The second stage two response stated that “there has been a lack of communication with almost no empathy shown for your family’s health and living situation” and “it should not have taken [the landlord] this long to rectify the issues raised”. It is unclear whether the landlord was paraphrasing the resident’s concerns or stating these matters as fact. In view of the landlord’s apparent admissions, its subsequent evaluation and comments about lessons learned were appropriate, giving the resident reassurance that it had put measures in place to prevent issues from recurring. The response gave an appropriate level of information regarding action that had been taken to ensure the damp and mould issues were addressed, although action that was requested to support the resident with her housing application was not followed up or fully completed (discussed in more detail above).
Finally, the Ombudsman does not find that the landlord’s increased offer of £700 compensation was proportionate or sufficient. While it was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to its insurer regarding her damaged belongings in the first instance, she had already informed it (more than two months earlier) that she had submitted a claim form to its insurer and was advised that damage from mould was not covered. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s previous communication on this topic resulted in a missed opportunity to consider alternative redress for the resident’s damaged items, which she said cost over £1,000. Having examined the landlord’s internal email correspondence, the Ombudsman notes that compensation of over £2,000, plus redecoration of the resident’s smaller bedroom, was discussed but decided against. Instead the landlord offered the resident an extra £300 to redecorate the bedroom herself. This decision demonstrated that it was willing to depart from its guidance, which recommended £25 per room for redecoration, in some respects but not in others. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord prioritised its aim of “being ruthlessly financially efficient” over the needs and wellbeing of the resident in this case. It also did not offer a remedy that put the resident back in the position she would have been in if it had “done it right in the first place”, when it was in its power to do so. Taking account of all of the above, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
2. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in logging and progressing the resident’s repairs when she reported a damp and mould issue as part of her complaint, despite agreeing that she had followed the correct reporting process. It did not complete the repairs until ten months after it became aware of the issue, with further remedial work then being required. Its record keeping and communication were poor, resulting in advice and actions being repeated, scheduled work not being completed, appointments being missed or not adequately prepared for, and the resident’s concerns and preferences not being taken sufficiently into account.
The landlord gave the resident confusing and contradictory information regarding her eligibility for a housing transfer. While it explained the housing application process and supplied the necessary form, it did not answer the resident’s questions about the process and missed opportunities to provide tailored support.
The landlord accepted the resident’s complaint despite the criteria set out in its policy not appearing to be met. A misunderstanding resulted in the resident’s stage one complaint being withdrawn, with this error not becoming apparent until she attempted to escalate to stage two. The landlord’s reasons for partially upholding the complaint at stage one were unclear. Its first stage two response was initially delayed without explanation and did not address a number of issues raised by the resident. The landlord deviated from its policy by producing a revised stage two response, with the reason for this not being adequately documented. The revised response was produced by the same officer as the original response, who was not of the usual level of seniority. The compensation offered was disproportionately low and did not reflect the extent of the service failure or the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its delays in carrying out repairs and responding to her complaint.
2. Pay the resident £2,200, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its severe maladministration in handling her reports of damp and mould;
  2. £100 for its service failure in handling her request for a transfer;
  3. £400 for its maladministration in handling her complaint;
  4. £500 in contribution towards the actual financial losses she suffered and time and trouble spent pursuing her reports and complaint;
  5. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its delays, poor communication and conflicting information.

If it has already paid the resident the £700 it offered in its final complaint response, this should be deducted from the amount above.

Contact the resident to establish whether she is continuing to experience damp and mould in her property, and if so, arrange a further inspection to identify what works are required. The surveyor who completes any inspection should familiarise themselves with the history of the case in advance of the visit.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its complaints policy and self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s updated complaint handling code within 12 weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the self-assessment and any revised policy must be provided to this Service. When reviewing its policy, the landlord should consider:
1. separating information relating to corporate complaints from information relating to other types of complaint;
2. making provision to ensure that repairs reported as part of a complaint are logged and completed in accordance with its usual process;
3. clarifying the circumstances in which a resident may refer their complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and this Service;
4. setting out the circumstances in which it will award compensation and the factors it will consider in deciding how much compensation to award;
5. reviewing the wording of its priorities, particularly in relation to “being ruthlessly financially efficient”.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews this case in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) and follow-up report (published February 2023).