London Borough of Hounslow (202201697)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201697

Hounslow Council

16 September 2022

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in his living room.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord has advised that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, however, the resident has advised that he is considered vulnerable due to health conditions.
3. The resident initially reported to the landlord that his property was cold even when using the heating in December 2020 and that there was no loft insulation. A work order was raised at the time although the records show that this appointment was cancelled due to Covid-19 and it is unclear if works were carried out. The resident raised concerns about damp in his lounge in February 2021. Between March and April 2021 several inspections took place to identify the cause of the damp. In May 2021 repairs to clear out and renew the vents within the property took place in an attempt to resolve the issue. In June 2021, efforts were made to see whether the damp was coming from behind the resident’s chimney. In August 2021 it was established that there was a back boiler behind the chimney which had not been disconnected from the water supply in 2018 when the property was empty before the resident moved in, which resulted in damp penetration.
4. The resident asked for a complaint to be raised in September 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the lack of progress regarding his reports of damp and mould. He had been told that repairs would begin in August 2021, but nothing had been done since. He added that a member of staff had said they had contracted Covid-19 and had threatened to come to the property if the resident did not believe them which he did not feel was appropriate. He sent further correspondence in October 2021 as he had not received a response.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that the allegations made against a staff member would be investigated in confidence and as such it would not be able to share the outcome of the investigation with the resident. It acknowledged that the back boiler should have been removed in 2018 when the property was void and apologised that this had not been done. It said that due to the complexity of the works required to remove the back boiler from the chimney and the potential presence of asbestos the work needed to be outsourced to a specialist company. It also acknowledged and apologised that the resident was not updated on the progress of the works.
6. The chimney was opened in December 2021 and no back boiler was found. Operatives established that there was no water or dampness behind the chimney and it was re-fixed and plastered later the same month. The resident escalated his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the lack of progress and the landlord’s misdiagnosis of the issue. He added that the landlord had shown no consideration of his vulnerabilities and that the issues had affected his health conditions. He also felt he had been discriminated against by the landlord.
7. In response, the landlord acknowledged that a clear diagnosis of the damp was still outstanding despite several visits. It apologised for the lack of progress and that the remedial works previously attempted had not resolved the issues. It also admitted that it should have been more proactive following the resident’s reports of the issues in April 2021. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologized for any inconvenience caused. It confirmed that following an inspection in January 2022 it would be instructing a damp specialist to complete an assessment of the property.
8. In February 2022, an extensive damp assessment of the property was completed over five days. It confirmed that there was no evidence of rising or structural damp within the property. It established that the cause of the issue was likely to be low temperature levels within the property. The data loggers showed that the heating was only on for a few hours each evening and the resident was advised to set his thermostat to 20 degrees to allow the property to reach an ambient temperature which would prevent the cold temperatures and help dry damp within the walls. The landlord confirmed that a further survey would be completed in the early summer months to see if the damp conditions had improved following its advice. A further damp survey was carried out by an independent company in June 2022. Operatives identified moderate to high levels of damp and salt contamination in the walls indicating that the damp proofing of the property was not working sufficiently. They recommended a damp proofing treatment to the walls and re-plastering.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his reports and the lack of progress. He felt that he had been discriminated against and the landlord had shown a lack of concern for his wellbeing and vulnerabilities. He wanted the landlord to resolve the damp issues within his property and provide suitable living conditions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has advised that he felt that the landlord had discriminated against him. In accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense, as this is a legal term which is better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff and to his reports of damp within his property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his lounge.

11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the structure of the property, including internal walls, floors and roofs. Residents are advice to report issues with damp in the property and the landlord would be expected to inspect the property to determine the cause of the issue. Issues such as condensation are usually the resident’s responsibility to prevent, however, the landlord would be responsible for resolving defects in the property which may be contributing to damp and mould. The landlord is expected to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. in some cases, this may take longer where specialist investigation or equipment is required. The landlord would be expected to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of such works.
12. In this case, it is not disputed that the resident has experienced damp in his lounge for a significant length of time and the issues had not been resolved as of June 2022. The landlord initially responded appropriately by inspecting the property in March 2021 following the resident’s reports. Further inspections were required to ascertain the cause of the damp and work was initially undertaken in May 2021 to renew the vents within the property to improve the ventilation. This did not resolve the issues and further investigation was required as the walls in the lounge were found to be damp at a low level. At this stage, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have carried out a comprehensive damp survey to ascertain the cause of the damp as there had been multiple inspections, the cause of the damp had not been identified and the remedial works had not been successful.
13. Following this, there was a lack of progression and the landlord misdiagnosed the damp issue to be caused by a back boiler behind the resident’s fireplace. There was a delay between August and December 2021 in carrying out work to open the fireplace due to the need to outsource the work to specialist contractors in view of potential asbestos in the area. Whilst this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident, who needed to spend time and trouble pursuing his concerns. The landlord apologised that the back boiler had not been removed during the void period before the resident moved in and that this was now causing damp penetration into the property. Ultimately this was incorrect and once the fireplace was opened in December 2021, no back boiler was found.
14. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its properties and repairs undertaken and should have known whether there was a back boiler. In the property We cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions at this stage were appropriate as it has not provided records which it relied upon when determining that there was a back boiler behind the fireplace. This caused a further avoidable delay in the progression of the works and whilst the landlord acknowledged the lack of progress, it failed to acknowledge its misdiagnosis of the issue, explain why this failure had occurred or apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused to the resident within its complaint responses.
15. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a damp assessment of the property in February 2022 as the cause of the damp was still undiagnosed, however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered this at an earlier date to prevent any delay or inconvenience to the resident. The assessment found that the property was subject to cold temperatures which was the likely cause of the damp build-up within the lounge. The landlord acted appropriately by sending the report to the resident and advising him to keep the heating on at a stable temperature in order to prevent damp build up and help dry the damp walls. Whilst this advice was appropriate, it is best practice for landlord’s to offer advice on reducing damp when a resident first reports issues alongside carrying out investigative works. There is no evidence that the resident was provided with this advice from the outset.
16. In addition, whilst the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors in coming to this conclusion, it should have taken the report into consideration alongside the resident’s previous reports that the property was cold despite using the heating due to a lack of insulation. There is no evidence to suggest that works were carried out when the resident reported this issue in December 2020 or that the insulation of the property was checked in response to the resident’s reports of damp which would have been appropriate as this may have been contributing to the cold temperatures within the property. it may have also been appropriate for the landlord to have offered dehumidifiers to the resident in view of the ongoing damp issues. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming that it would reattend in summer months to survey the issue. This is reasonable in order to determine whether the issue was seasonal. It appears to have acted in line with this by completing a further survey in June 2022 which identified that the damp proof course was not working satisfactorily and recommended damp proofing work and plastering with salt resistant plaster. It is unclear if this work had gone ahead and the landlord would be expected to carry out any remedial works as recommended by the damp specialists unless it has a good explanation why it cannot practically follow the recommendations.
17. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord, if it was making reasonable efforts to identify the cause of the problem and resolveit.. However, as stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’. The resident needed to pursue updates on a regular basis which is likely to have caused additional inconvenience. The landlord has acknowledged that there was a lack of progress in diagnosing the issue and apologised that the remedial works carried out had not resolved the problem, it has also acknowledged that it should have been more pro-active in its approach in order to find a resolution
18. In addition, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a staff member who he alleges had said that they would visit his property whilst being exposed to Covid-19 if the resident did not believe them. The landlord initially advised that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and would be investigating his allegations internally. It explained that staff investigations were held in confidence and it would not be able to share the outcome of any investigations with the resident. It was reasonable that the landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters related as this was related to employment which would be confidential. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated his allegations 9without compromising confidentiality) by commenting on whether it had found any wrong-doing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate was said. The landlord failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s allegations which was likely to have caused distress to the resident as it remains unclear as to whether his allegations had been investigated.
19. It is noted that the resident has advised he has health conditions and considers himself ‘vulnerable’, The landlord does not appear to have any records of the resident’s vulnerabilities, however, as his concerns were raised as part of his initial complaint in September 2021, the landlord should have questioned this and gained knowledge of his vulnerabilities to see whether any adjustments were needed to its service in view of this. The resident has not provided specific information regarding his vulnerabilities and the Ombudsman cannot establish what impact the damp in the property may have had on his health. It is recommended that the landlord discusses any vulnerabilities with the resident and updates its records accordingly.
20. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the lack of progress regarding the damp issues within the resident’s property, it has not offered any suitable redress to the resident and it is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted in this case. In view of the failures identified, the landlord is to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing a resolution to the damp issues within his property and his staff conduct complaint. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) which states that amounts between £250-£700 are considered appropriate in instances of considerable service failure or maladministration but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. For example, a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in his living room.

Orders

22. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are taken within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused and time and trouble spent by the resident as a result of the delays in diagnosing the issues within the property, the misdiagnosis of the damp issues, poor communication by the landlord and its failure to provide an adequate response to his concerns regarding staff conduct.
    2. The landlord is to write to both the resident and the Ombudsman regarding follow-on works recommended following a damp survey in June 2022 and confirm a schedule for the works to be completed if these have not already been completed. It should also confirm in writing when works are completed and a plan of action moving forward.
    3. The landlord is to review the resident’s concerns about a lack of insulation in the loft and carry out remedial works accordingly if required.

 Recommendations

23. It is recommended that the landlord communicates with the resident and updates its records regarding any vulnerabilities within his household if it has not already done so.
24. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of the resident’s concerns to establish points of learning in order to prevent similar service failings in the future.