London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202110801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110801

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 May 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:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks.
2. The associated damp and mould in their home.
3. Reports of blockages to the kitchen and bathroom sinks.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a fixed term assured shorthold tenant from October 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom flat owned by the landlord which is a housing association. During the events in this case the resident told the landlord about various health issues which she felt were being caused or aggravated by the damp and mould in her home.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for keeping installations for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating in working order, and repairing the fixtures and fittings it provides. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for minor repairs including blockages.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.
The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. Its policy at the time when the events in this case started said that residents were responsible for minor condensation issues including treating mould. However, its revised policy, effective from 6 April 2021, says that condensation and mould are the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould is properly investigated. The aim is to tackle the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring. The landlord will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit and provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue. The landlord will then raise orders.
The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which recommended that landlords strengthen their approach to tackling damp and mould issues and improve communication with residents. It is available at Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. It says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has a separate compensation policy which provides for discretionary compensation to be paid where there has been service failure.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown came into effect from 5 November 2020. Restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, but there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. Although schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
During the covid-19 pandemic the landlord operated interim service delivery arrangements. From 31 March 2020 it operated a critical and emergency only repair service responding, by appointment, to issues such as loss of heating, hot water or power, or where there was a risk of harm to a person or property. The landlord did not carry out routine repairs during the period when government restrictions were in place.

Summary of events

The first national lockdown had started on 23 March 2020 and the resident reported that her bathroom smelt damp and musty on 24 March 2020. The landlord raised an order with its contractor to check for a leak in the underfloor heating which was marked as completed on 20 April 2020. However, on 21 April 2020 the resident contacted the landlord saying that the contractors had said they could not deal with the problem. The landlord’s records say that the resident would request a plumber when lockdown restrictions were lifted.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 June 2020 about the leak. The landlord contacted its contractor which said that it had not found a leak when it had attended in April 2020, but had found mould under the bathroom floor covering. The evidence suggests the landlord attempted to call the resident to advise that it would arrange a mould wash when lockdown restrictions were lifted but was unable to reach her. It is not clear whether the landlord left a message but the resident contacted it for an update on 12 June 2020, when the landlord told her that the contractor said it had not found a leak. The landlord’s records say that the resident would call back when lockdown restrictions were lifted.
Most lockdown restrictions were lifted on 4 July 2020 and landlord’s were able to carry out repairs but had to follow covid-19 safe working practices. However, repair backlogs and issues with material supplies continued to affect their service delivery.
On 7 September 2020 the resident reported that water was leaking into her hall damaging the floor and wall. The landlord raised an order with its repair team which is marked as completed on 11 September 2020. A follow on order was raised with the landlord’s specialist contractor on 14 September 2020 to assess the damp and mould and the landlord also sent the resident links to relevant advice on its website. The resident telephoned the landlord on 21 September 2020 saying that damp and mould were still present and, whilst she knew the repairs could not be booked yet, she did not want the landlord to thing she was ignoring repairs that were needed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 October 2020 saying that skirting boards were coming away following the leak. The landlord advised that the repair was not critical and could not be progressed at that time. On 5 October 2020 the landlord chased its damp contractor which advised that the resident had not been at home when it attended and it would arrange another appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 October 2020 because the contractor had not contacted her to arrange the damp and mould assessment and the landlord chased the contractor, but no evidence has been seen that it responded.
The landlord’s specialist contractor carried out the damp and mould assessment on 15 October 2020. The contractor’s report noted the cause of the damp being a previous leak which had flooded the property but been repaired, that the bathroom floor was still damp and water damaged, and that mould was evident on walls. It included photographs which showed mould on the walls of the hallway, bathroom, bedrooms and storage cupboard, some of which was close to electrical sockets, and measurements of the damp and mould patches. The photographs also showed damp and mould staining on the hall floor. The report recommended that the mould be cleaned off and the walls treated, and that the bathroom floor be repaired. It also said that the resident had been advised regarding clutter in the hall cupboards preventing airflow, not covering radiators and cleaning mould away promptly.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 28 October 2020 because she had not been contacted to arrange an appointment for the mould removal and the landlord chased the contractor. She said that the mould was all over the walls and the smell was dreadful. A further national lockdown started on 5 November 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours repair service on 9 November 2020 reporting that her sink was overflowing and she could not unblock it. It was attended by the out of hours service and follow on work carried out on 10 November 2020 including attending to a leak found under the sink.
The mould removal and wall treatment was also done on 10 November 2020. The contractor took photographs before and after the work which show that the mould was removed. The landlord raised a follow on order with its internal repairs team on 16 November 2020 due to the contractor reporting that the bathroom floor was still damp and suspecting this was due to a leak. The order is marked as completed on the same day.
The second lockdown ended on 2 December 2020. On 7 December 2020 the landlord raised a critical order with its internal repairs team to attend to rotten floorboards in the hall. The order was cancelled and it is not clear from the evidence seen why this was.
The third national lockdown started on 6 January 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 January 2021 saying that the bathroom floorboards were black and mouldy following the leak. She said that she had been unable to lay new vinyl because the floor was too damaged. The landlord raised an order the same day which was cancelled later that day. A further order raised on 21 January 2021 is marked as completed the same day but it is not clear what work was done.
The Government started phased easing of covid-19 restrictions from 8 March 2021 and most legal restrictions were lifted by 19 July 2021.
On 26 May 2021 the resident reported that her hall wall was “soft” explaining that she had fallen against it and caused a dent. She said that she thought the previous leak had weakened it but did not think there was still a leak as the floor was dry. The landlord asked the resident to send photographs.
The resident reported damp walls again on 14 June 2021 explaining that a leak had been repaired and she had redecorated, but now her walls were turning orange and were smelly. The landlord raised an order with its damp contractor to investigate, which is marked as completed on 26 August 2021, and sent the resident links to advice on preventing damp and mould.
On 18 June 2021 the resident reported that she had become locked in her bathroom due to damp causing the door to swell. She said that she had to break the door to get out. The landlord raised an order with its internal contractor which is marked as completed on 26 July 2021.
The landlord’s damp contractor visited on 21 June 2021 completing a follow up assessment report. The reported noted there was “possible water ingress from a possible leak underneath the bathroom” and that mould was visible in the hall, bedroom, boiler cupboard and storage cupboards. The damp level meter reading was higher than on the visit of 15 October 2020 which suggests that moisture levels were higher than before. The report recommended that the leak be located and repaired, the mould be removed and walls treated, and that the hall wall and bathroom floor be repaired. The report also noted that the resident had been advised on how to clean the mould when it appeared and how to contain moisture when drying clothes in the flat. It is not clear from the evidence seen when the landlord received this report.
On 1 July 2021 the resident reported that her front door was difficult to open because it had swollen and that there were cracks on an internal wall. She said she thought both were due to the suspected leak and ongoing damp. The landlord raised an order with its internal contractor regarding the door which is marked as completed on 6 August 2021 but advised that nothing could be done about the wall until the damp was resolved.
The landlord raised an order with its heating contractor on 2 July 2021 to investigate a leak suspected from the bathroom or underfloor heating causing mould. It is not clear from the evidence seen what led to this order being raised but it is marked as completed on 9 July 2021. On 12 July 2021 the landlord chased its damp contractor asking for the recommendations from its “first visit” and whether a follow up appointment was needed.
The resident emailed a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 July 2021 which has not been by this Service. However, the landlord’s records say that the complaint was about the unacceptable length of time it had taken to complete repairs and poor workmanship which had resulted in the resident having damp and mould since the previous year. The landlord raised an order with its internal contractor on 19 July 2021 to investigate a possible leak affecting the electrics and a separate order with its electrical contractor which are both marked as completed the same day. The electrical contractor advised the landlord that a heating specialist was needed to assess leaks from the underfloor heating.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 July 2021 asking to move because she felt the repair issues were causing her health to deteriorate. She said that her doctors had suggested she ask to move. The resident’s call was transferred to the landlord’s housing team but no evidence has been seen in respect of the call outcome.
On 27 July 2021 the landlord raised an order with its heating contactor to attend to a leak to the underfloor heating which was marked as no access being gained on 2 August 2021.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident’s complaint on 28 July 2021 saying that it was investigating the source of the suspected leaks causing the damp and mould. It said once this was resolved it would arrange for the mould to be treated and the bathroom floor to be inspected, and that it would monitor the damp and mould over the next 12 months. The resident contacted the landlord later that day asking to be decanted and saying that she would withhold rent until her repairs were resolved.
The evidence shows that the landlord raised nine orders with various contractors between 28 July 2021 and 16 August 2021 to try to resolve the cause of the leak, damp, and mould. It also shows that the resident contacted the landlord at least four times chasing progress and advising of missed appointments. On 6 August 2021 the landlord’s surveyor visited in connection to a reported leak at a neighbouring flat and the resident showed them the damp and mould issues in her home. The surveyor advised that no decant was needed at that stage.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2021 saying that she was not satisfied with the outcome so far. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 26 August 2021 asking it to contact the resident regarding her repairs and complaint. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint escalation on 27 August 2021 and contacted her on 8 September 2021. The evidence shows that the resident told the landlord that both her son and she had breathing issues which she felt were being aggravated by the damp and mould. She said that she wanted to move and was given advice on the options available to her.
The evidence seen shows that the damp contractor attended to remove mould on 13 September 2021 and photographs show the mould was removed. There was no reference in the report of concerns that there was still a leak but it noted that the “house still smells strongly of damp”. Orders were raised with the internal contractor on 21 September 2021 to replaster the hall and replace the bath panel.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 September 2021 saying that the mould had not been removed properly and the damp smell was unbearable. She said that no one was responding to her contacts and asked for the complaint officer to call her back.
On 27 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that her GP had been treating her for fluid on her lungs for eight weeks and her condition was not improving. She said that her GP had asked about her living conditions and felt that the damp may be the cause of her health issue.
On 29 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to chase progress on her repairs and the evidence shows that the landlord tried to telephone the resident and then emailed her on 1 October 2021. The landlord advised that the bath panel would be replaced on 14 October 2021 and the plastering would be done on 21 October 2021. The evidence also shows that the resident telephoned the landlord at least three times between 1 October 2021 and 1 November 2021 asking for someone to call her back. No evidence has been seen that those calls were returned by the landlord. The landlord subsequently rescheduled the repair appointments for the bath panel to 12 November 2021 and plastering work to 30 November 2021.
The landlord raised a further order on 3 November 2021 to paint the bathroom and hallway due to a leak from the communal area which is marked as completed the same day.
This Service emailed the landlord on 3 November 2021 advising that the resident had not received a response to her complaint escalation and that the landlord should provide its response within 20 working days. The landlord sent a second acknowledgement that the resident’s complaint was at stage two of its process on 8 November 2021.
On 18 November 2021 the resident reported that her sink was blocked and she was unable to clear it. The landlord raised an order with its internal contractor which was attended on 29 November 2021 resulting in a further order being raised to unblock the main drains to the block which was attended sometime in December 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 2 December 2021 saying that it was taking longer than anticipated to investigate her complaint and it would respond by 16 December 2021.
Between 6 December 2021 and 8 December 2021, the landlord raised further orders with its contractors to repair skirting boards, attend to mould in the bedroom, living room and laundry, and clear sink blockages. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2021 saying that an appointment for the previous day to repair the hall wall had been missed and she had taken time off work. The appointment was subsequently rebooked for 2 February 2022 and then brought forward to 10 January 2022.
The landlord’s damp contractor attended on 15 December 2021 to remove mould from the bedrooms, hallway, living room, boiler cupboard and storage cupboards and treat the walls. Photographs seen show the mould was removed from those areas.
The landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 16 December 2021. It said that it:
1. Was sorry for the delay in dealing with her stage two complaint which was due to an increased volume of work.
2. Had responded to her complaint at stage one of its process on 28 July 2020 and spoken with her on 8 November 2021, 22 November 2021, and 15 December 2021 as part of the stage two review of her complaint.
3. Acknowledged there had been damp and mould issues for roughly two years following a leak and that this had caused other repair issues.
4. Although the mould had been treated, it remained an issue until the leak had been finally resolved “a couple of months ago”.
5. Had arranged for the main drains to be cleared on 20 December 2021 to resolve the recurring blockages to her sinks.
6. Had attended on 30 November 2021 to repair the hall wall but she had to leave for work so the repair had not been done. It had been rescheduled for 10 January 2022.
7. Apologised for missing an appointment on 13 December 2021 to carry out painting work. The decorating had been rescheduled for 2 February 2022.
8. Had not yet received the damp contractor’s report following its visit on 15 December 2021 and would contact her if further repairs were recommended.
9. Concluded that it had taken several months for the leak to be rectified and other repairs to be done and this was partly due to the government’s restrictions during the covid-19 pandemic and the backlog of repairs that had built up.
10. Could not deal with her request for damages caused by the leak and mould issues. It provided contact details for its insurance team should the resident wish to make a claim.
11. Had not found any evidence to support her assertion that its staff members had advised her to stop paying rent and was pleased that her direct debit payments had continued.
12. Offered £410 compensation in recognition of its services failures in handling her repair requests and £80 for its late response to her stage two complaint.
The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord several times between 5 January 2022 and 14 January 2022 to chase progress, return missed calls and arrange appointments. The landlord raised a further order with its damp contractor on 14 January 2022 to inspect and report back on the leak and damp in the bathroom which is marked as “complete no action” on 20 January 2022. The landlord and its damp contractor exchanged several emails on 21 January 2022 which suggest some confusion about whether there were any outstanding orders and resulted in the orders being updated.
In the meantime, the resident had emailed the landlord on 10 January 2022 to say she did not accept the compensation offer and the landlord responded the same day asking the resident to explain the reason for her decision. She emailed again on 23 January 2022 again saying that she rejected the compensation offer. The landlord responded saying that she had exhausted its complaint process and should contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 February 2022 saying she was dissatisfied with the decorating work done that day. She had thought that most of the rooms would be decorated but only the bedroom and hall had been painted. The resident also emailed the landlord stating that she disagreed with its stage two response and had rejected the compensation offer as it was not sufficient to cover her additional costs and time she had missed from work. She asked that the compensation amount be reconsidered when the repairs had all been completed. The landlord responded confirming it understood her request and asking the resident to send photographs of the further painting needed. The evidence suggests that the resident was reluctant to send photographs as she felt the landlord should know the areas concerned already.
On 7 March 2022 the resident sent the landlord an email with attached photographs saying that most of the mould had been removed but it remained in the laundry room. She also sent photographs of the bathroom floor saying it had been repaired previously but was damaged again due to the delay in the leak being fixed. The landlord responded saying it would arrange for a surveyor to visit and would escalate the request for further decorating work.
The landlord’s surveyor visited on 9 March 2022 and the landlord raised a further order to check for a leak under the bath on 12 March 2022 which was completed on 17 March 2022. The landlord’s records show a small leak had been found from the bath waste trap. The evidence suggests that the landlord also intended to overhaul ventilation and carry out further decorating work and that the resident asked for ongoing issues with the sink blockages to be added to the list of work to be done.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 9 May 2022 to chase her complaint and outstanding repairs. The resident advised that no leak had been found under the bath but the sinks were blocking. The surveyor said he was meeting a contractor on site to explain the work needed and agree and appointment with the resident. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 June 2022 to check on progress and the landlord advised that the contractor would attend to all the outstanding issues and an appointment would be agreed with her.
The evidence seen suggests that the surveyor visited with a contractor on 15 June 2022, requested a quote for the work needed and that subsequently orders were raised to redecorate, fit bathroom flooring and a shower screen.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 6 July 2022 saying that work had started two weeks previously but was not complete. She said that there had been several inspections as well as missed and cancelled appointments. The resident said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlords handling of her repairs and complaint.
On 28 March 2023 the resident confirmed to us that there had been no further issues with damp and mould since the leak had been repaired the previous year. However, she said that several appointments for follow on work had been missed, including a time when she had taken ten days off work to enable access and no work was carried out. The resident said that the bathroom floor had been replaced earlier in March 2023.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all circumstances of the case. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or calculate or award damages and we cannot establish whether the damp and mould caused any health issues.

Handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

The landlord first investigated a leak in the resident’s bathroom in March 2020 after she had reported her bathroom smelling damp. Between March 2020 and March 2022, the resident and contractors reported leaks in the bathroom on at least 18 occasions. Over the same period, the resident reported at least four other leaks affecting her home. The evidence shows the landlord responded to each report in isolation and there is no evidence that it recognised the frequency of reports, recurrence of the same issues or the overall period that the resident was affected.
Although the repair orders relating to leaks are marked as completed, it is not clear from the landlord’s records what work, if any, was carried out on each occasion. As such, it is not clear whether there was a single leak in the bathroom which was not rectified despite several attempts or different leaks arising at different times. Regardless of this, it is evident that there were issues with leaks in the resident’s home for two years. The evidence seen suggests there may be wider issues with leaks in the block as a communal repair order raised on 14 March 2022 says, “bathroom and heating leaks are an issue in this block” another communal repair order refers to “leaks due to poor construction”.
It is also unclear what work was carried out in respect of other repairs arising from the leaks in the resident’s home. For example, the order raised on 21 January 2021 to repair the bathroom floor was marked as completed but the landlord raised subsequent orders for the bathroom floor. It is not clear whether further damage was caused from a continuing or subsequent leaks or that the floor was not effectively repaired in January 2021. The landlord should review its record keeping ensuring it is clear what work has been done when a repair order is marked as complete.
Although covid-19 restrictions and subsequent repair backlogs affected the landlord’s service delivery during 2020 and 2021, this does not explain why it took the landlord two years to resolve the leak, despite attending multiple times, including when restrictions were in place.
Even after the leak, damp and mould were resolved there were further delays with the follow on work needed to repair the damaged walls and floors and redecorate. The bathroom floor was finally replaced in March 2023 which was a further year after the leaks, damp and mould had been resolved. The affect of covid-19 restrictions does not explain the delays from July 2021 onwards.
The resident explained to us that, after the leak had been repaired on the first occasion, her decorations and floor coverings had been damaged in the bathroom and hallway. She said that she had paid for her home to be fully redecorated and vinyl flooring to be fitted throughout and that she had wanted to claim the reimbursement of those costs through the landlord’s complaint process. The resident confirmed that the landlord had ultimately redecorated her home and replaced the vinyl flooring in the bathroom in March 2023 but had not replaced the vinyl in the hallway despite saying it would do so. The evidence suggests that the landlord had considered replacing the hallway vinyl if it was necessary but the outcome of this is not clear from the evidence seen.
The multiple leaks and associated damp and mould affected the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home over the three year period when she had to make multiple reports, arrange access for repairs and take time off work. The delay was inappropriate and amounts to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In this case the landlord did ultimately resolve the disrepair issues but it took two years for it to finally resolve the leaks and a further year to complete follow on work. The landlord offered £410 compensation for its service failures in handling the disrepair including lack of communication and inconvenience to the resident. This is not sufficient redress considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the period. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £790for the disruption to the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home.

Handling of the associated damp and mould

The landlord’s healthy homes programme should result in effective resolution of damp and mould issues, and the landlord’s policy revision from April 2021 shows it recognises its responsibilities. Both measures were in place before the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was published suggesting the landlord’s approach was more proactive than some. However, the landlord’s approach did not resolve the issues effectively in this case because the landlord had not resolved the leaks causing the damp and mould as set out above.
The healthy homes approach to damp and mould is good practice in respect of a comprehensive assessment of the issues. The damp meter readings, photographs of issues and measurements of mould patches should enable the landlord to monitor improvement or deterioration following initial treatment and it balances giving advice to residents whilst ensuring the landlord meets its responsibilities. It is also encouraging to see from this case that the landlord’s practice changed following its policy revision. For example, the damp and mould assessment done on 15 October 2020 had noted that the resident had not been cleaning off the mould which was in line with the landlord’s policy at the time but subsequent assessments did not refer to this.
However, the evidence suggests a reactive approach where the landlord responded when the resident contacted it but did not appear to be proactively managing the case to ensure assessments, mould treatment and other repairs were carried out, and the cause of the damp and mould resolved. For example, the landlord ordered the initial damp and mould assessment on 14 September 2020 and chased the contractor 17 working days later after contact from the resident on 7 October 2020. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have chased this sooner.
Further, none of the healthy homes assessments recommended providing dehumidifiers to speed up the removal of excess moisture and there is no evidence that the landlord considered this either. The landlord should consider the provision of dehumidifiers as part of its treatment of damp and mould.
There were delays in the treatment of the mould, for example, the mould was first removed on 10 November 2020 which was almost two months after the landlord had ordered the initial assessment. The mould was removed for a second time on 13 September 2021 which was almost three months after the second assessment had been done. The landlord chased the contractor for its recommendations 15 working days (from 21 June 2021 to 12 July 2021) after the second assessment had been done which suggests there were also delays in the assessment reports being provided to the landlord.
This case suggests weakness in the healthy homes approach where damp and mould is caused by a leak which would need to be rectified by a different contractor. The assessment on 15 October 2020 noted the cause to the damp being a previous leak which the resident said had been repaired. No evidence has been seen that the contractor or landlord checked this or looked for other leaks at the time. It would have been reasonable for this to have been done, given the healthy homes aims to tackle the root causes of damp and mould, and prevent recurrence. Subsequently, the damp contractor found the bathroom floor to be still damp when it attended to remove the mould on 10 November 2020 resulting in the landlord raising another order for it to be located and repaired. Similarly, there was a delay in orders being raised to locate and repair the suspected leak after the second assessment visit on 21 June 2021. This lack of co-ordination delayed the cause of the damp and mould being resolved and meant the issues persisted.
Despite the previous damp and mould issues, there is no evidence that the landlord referred to the previous assessment that had been done either when instructing the contractor to do a further assessment or after the second one had been done. Indeed, when the landlord chased its contractor for the recommendations from its assessment carried out on 21 June 2021, it referred to it as the contractor’s “first visit” when in fact it was its second. This means the landlord missed the opportunity to consider the increased moisture levels and changes in the mould growth.
No evidence has been seen that landlord considered the resident’s health concerns or her requests to move due to the disrepair. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done so given that the resident told the landlord of her health concerns on at least three occasions from 26 July 2021, and asked to move on three occasions. Further the evidence shows that the mould growth was extensive, affecting multiple rooms including bedrooms, at times.
The surveyor’s advice that no decant was needed following their visit on 6 August 2021 does not appear to have been based on an assessment of the risk of harm to the resident and there is nothing to suggest that the surveyor was aware of the background to the case or the resident’s health concerns. Given the landlord’s responsibilities for mitigating the risk of hazards to health under the HHRS, the landlord should review its process to ensure that risks to residents are considered when deciding its response to damp and mould.
Despite the various orders raised regarding leaks, and the landlord attending to the damp and mould on at least three occasions, the damp and mould persisted for almost two years (from 24 March 2020 to 7 March 2022), until the leak had been resolved. This delay was inappropriate and amounts to severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated damp and mould.
As noted in paragraph 65, the landlord offered £410 compensation for its service failures in handling the disrepair including lack of communication and inconvenience to the resident. This is not sufficient redress considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over the two year period. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £3264 compensation which has been calculated as a proportion of the rent charge over the period and £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
An order has been made for the landlord to review its healthy homes approach to ensure it improves oversight of damp and mould cases, manages them proactively considering the risk of harm to residents, and ensures that repairs are carried out within appropriate timescales. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to improve its record keeping in respect of repairs to ensure it has clear records of work carried out when an order is marked as completed.

Handling of reports of blockages

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for minor repairs including clearing blockages. The evidence shows that the landlord attended to clear blockages within the resident’s flat twice when she was unable to resolve the issue herself which was reasonable given that it had no obligation to do so.
The evidence also suggests that the landlord attended to clear the block drainage in December 2021. This was appropriate as the landlord has repairing responsibility for communal drainage.
Although the resident told us she continues to have periodic blockages in her flat, she said that she is attending to them herself when they arise. This is in line with her responsibilities under the tenancy agreement. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blockages in her home.
However, the evidence shows that there were eight blockages affecting the resident’s flat noted by the landlord between 9 November 2020 and 9 May 2022. Further, on 4 July 2022, the landlord noted six other flats being affected by blockages which could suggest wider issues with communal drainage. The landlord should consider whether it needs to investigate this further, given the other plumbing issues in the block.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord took some appropriate steps when it received the resident’s complaint on 19 July 2021. It logged the complaint, promptly took steps to resolve the immediate issue of a suspected leak affecting electrics and chased its contractor for further information regarding the follow on work from the damp and mould assessment. The landlord provided its response within its 10 working day timescale, setting out its understanding of the issues and the action it would take.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the previous healthy homes assessments, extent of the mould growth or period that the resident had been affected. This was a missed opportunity to comprehensively assess the issues which might have resulted in resolution sooner.
Further, the evidence shows that the action promised was not taken resulting in the resident escalating her complaint on 20 August 2021. There were then delays in the landlord progressing her complaint to stage two causing the resident to chase progress and contact the Ombudsman for assistance. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord twice to ask it to respond to the resident’s complaint escalation.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 December 2021, 84 working days after the resident’s escalation request. Although the landlord apologised for the delay and explained the reason was due to an increased volume of work, the time taken to respond was not reasonable and was contrary to the landlord’s policy and the timescales set in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
As with its stage one response, the landlord acknowledge its service failings in respect of the repair delays and missed appointments and set out the action it would take to put things right. However, there were further delays and the timescales the landlord had committed to were not met.
The landlord’s response told the resident it could not consider any award for damage to her belongings through its complaints process and directed her to its insurance team should she wish to make a claim. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s compensation policy says that it “will” consider paying compensation where “our negligence with carrying out day-to-day repairs has caused damage to the customer’s home and/or belongings”. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did consider compensating the resident for her damaged belongings.
Further, the compensation policy also says that regarding claims for damage caused to customer belongings “we will refer the issue to the insurance team” and “claims against our insurance policy must by registered by us within 28 days of the event”. As such it was inappropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue any claim for damages directly with the insurance team, and it should have referred the issue to the insurance team itself. It is also noted that, due to the delay in the landlord sending its stage two response, the stated timescale for registering a claim against its insurance policy had already expired when the resident received this advice. This meant the resident did not have an opportunity to make a claim.
As set out in paragraph 62, the landlord did subsequently redecorate the resident’s home and replace the vinyl flooring in the bathroom but did not replace the vinyl flooring in the hallway.
There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it did not deal with her request for compensation appropriately and took too long to respond to her complaint at stage two of its process. It also missed opportunities to resolve the disrepair through its complaint process and there is no evidence of any learning by the landlord from this case.
Although the landlord offered £80 compensation for delay in giving its stage two response, this was not sufficient redress considering distress and inconvenience to the resident and the loss of her opportunity to pursue a claim for her damaged flooring. No evidence has been seen to quantify the losses claimed by the resident and, in any event, the Ombudsman is not able to consider damages in the way that an insurance company would. However, orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £320 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, and loss of the opportunity to claim damages, and £100 compensation for the damage to the hall flooring.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks.
2. The associated damp and mould in their home.
3. Complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of blockages to the kitchen and bathroom sinks.

Reasons

Despite attending multiple times, it took two years for the landlord to resolve the leak causing the damp and mould and a further year to complete the follow on repairs. This undermined the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home for three years.
Despite the mould being removed and walls being treated on several occasions, damp and mould persisted for two years which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord did not assess the risks to the resident and did not respond adequately to her concerns about the impact on her health and her requests to move.
The landlord did not deal with the resident’s request for compensation in line with its policy and took too long to respond to her complaint at stage two. This resulted in the resident being unable to pursue a claim for damages through the landlord’s insurance policy.
The landlord complied with its repairing obligations in responding to the resident’s reports of blockages to her sinks.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the shortcomings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation totalling £5,964 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified. The compensation must be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £490 previously offered through its complaint process if it has not already paid this.
  2. £790 for the disruption to the resident’s quiet enjoyment of her home due to its handling of her reports of leaks.
  3. £3264 for the two year period that the resident’s home was affected by damp and mould.
  4. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  5. £320 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  6. £100 for the damage to the resident’s flooring.
3. Review its healthy homes approach, considering the failings highlighted in this case, to ensure it:
  1. Maintains oversight of damp and mould cases.
  2. Considers the risk of harm to residents and takes appropriate action to mitigate those risks.
  3. Considers providing dehumidifiers to speed up removal of excess moisture.
  4. Proactively manages cases to ensure repairs are completed within appropriate timescales.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. improve its record keeping in respect of repairs to ensure it has clear records of work carried out when an order is marked as completed.
2. Considers investigating the cause of the frequent sink, bath and communal drain blockages further.