London Borough of Lambeth — case 202308455

REPORT COMPLAINT 202308455 Lambeth Council 20 December 2024 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s: Response in relation to damp and mould; Response in relation to tree works; Response in relation to fencing works; Handling of the complaints process.

Background The resident holds a secure tenancy for a two-bedroomed flat. She lives there with her three children. Damp and Mould In November 2021 the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord, which she told it was in “most of the rooms”, including her baby’s. Its notes show that she highlighted concerns for the health and safety of her “young child”. The landlord raised an inspection and this was marked as closed four days later. It noted that the resident had “already address[ed] the issue” of damp behind the sofa and chest of drawers in the bedroom.

It noted that air was “not circulating properly”, which had caused the damp, and that the resident had cleaned the mould. The landlord raised a second repair job for a mould wash to its contractor, also in November 2021, and this was marked as closed on 14 February 2022. The contractor noted that it had carried out a mould wash, treated the walls and windows in the living room, bedroom and toilet, and inspected the outside of the building for possible water ingress. It told the landlord it would need an inspection from one of its surveyors “as possible entry points will be [an] ongoing problem”.

The landlord’s records indicate it carried out a damp and mould inspection on 24 May 2022, and it noted that there was “no work to be actioned”, and it had provided the resident with advice about condensation. The landlord’s records indicate it raised a further mould washdown on 16 November 2022, which was marked as ‘complete/cancelled’ on 11 April 2023 with a note stating “mould washdown”. The landlord raised an “urgent” inspection for ‘multiple outstanding repairs’, including mould, radiators and an ‘overgrown tree’, on 4 December 2022, which was marked as closed on 28 April 2023.

The completion notes state that a mould wash and treatment was carried out to the walls, ceilings, and windows in the living room and bedroom, the exterior back wall of the property around the downpipe and balcony above, and that “green mould affecting wall really bad, took photos, problems will be ongoing”. The landlord’s records indicate it raised a mould wash on 10 January 2023, which was then cancelled. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection on 28 March 2023.

It highlighted the following: The humidity reading in the hallway was 56.4, no works were recommended; The humidity reading in the kitchen was 52, and it recommended that the extractor fan was overhauled, cleaned and tested, as well as an overhaul of the windows and trickle vents; The humidity in the living room was 61.8. and there were signs of water ingress by the back door. The downpipe from the flat above was leaking and in need of repair, and it was also recommended that a fungicidal wash was carried out and the windows and trickle vents were overhauled; The humidity in the bathroom was 55.

9. As well as an overhaul of the window and trickle vents, it was recommended that the landlord exercised discretion and carried out works to renew the flooring, tiles, bath panel, silicone around the bath, handbasin and shower rail; The humidity in the WC was 58.8 and it was recommended that the landlord overhaul the window and trickle vents, as well as renew the WC suite and flooring; The humidity in the first bedroom was 60.1 and it was recommended that a fungicidal wash was carried out, that the windows and trickle vents were overhauled, and that the vents on the cupboard doors were enlarged; The humidity in the second bedroom was 53.

8, and the same recommendations were made as for the first bedroom. On 28 March 2023 the landlord raised a repair to renew the downpipe joint between the resident’s flat and the one above. It noted that mesh wire had been tied to the downpipe around the balcony above the resident’s property, which had pulled the pipe out of alignment. A further note, which appeared to be added on 22 November 2023, stated that the “main gutter” was “blocked from the outlet and top section of downpipe causing water to burst out… [and] saturate the wall behind leaving moss to grow”.

The landlord’s contractor noted that it had sent information to the landlord to arrange works. On 30 March 2023 the landlord raised repairs to: Overhaul the window trickle vents in two bedrooms, the living room, bathroom, kitchen, and WC; Replace the ‘louvre’ vents in the bedroom cupboards; Fit a ventilator grille on the external wall; Overhaul the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans; Carry out a mould wash in the bedrooms, living room, and “any other location in property”; Renew the downpipe joint.

The landlord’s records indicate that in response to the above repair jobs: On 1 August 2023 it raised a further repair to the rain water pipe, which was cancelled by its contractor on 8 August 2023; On 25 August 2023 it closed the job for the mould wash, and its contractor noted that a mould wash to the living room ceiling and walls had been done, and that it had observed damp in the living room due to the “defective rain waterpipe”; In response to the job for the ventilator grille, on 6 September 2023 its surveyor noted that the building needed “brick sealing”, and not thermal boarding, because the bricks were porous due to age; Also on 6 September 2023, it closed the jobs for the overhaul of the window trickle vents, the extractor fans, and the replacement of the ‘louvre’ vent in the cupboards.

Its contractor reiterated that while the ventilation was working, to resolve the damp the landlord needed to seal the bricks, and that the down pipe by the back door needed repair. The landlord’s records indicate it carried out a further damp and mould inspection on 7 September 2023, and noted “works completed”. The landlord raised another repair for the rainwater pipe on 11 September 2023, which it marked as completed on 15 September 2023. The landlord marked an inspection for an unspecified leak as cancelled on 18 September 2023.

On 26 October 2023 the landlord recorded another damp and mould inspection as completed. On 19 November 2023 the landlord raised a job to apply thermal boarding to the walls in the living room and a bedroom. Its records show this as “issued” rather than completed. On 20 November 2023 the landlord raised a damp and mould repair, and noted that the resident had advised that there was mould in the bedroom and that there had been three previous inspections by surveyors. It noted that it had not raised another inspection because of this, and instead asked for the mould to be remedied.

The job was marked as complete on 29 November 2023. The resident advised this Service in March 2024 that the landlord had carried out a further mould wash, but the underlying issue had not been resolved. She explained that her belongings had been damaged, she was “constantly having to throw out furniture”, she had noticed silverfish, and suspected that there was rising damp. She explained that all the surveyors who attended had been “satisfied” that her “living conditions” were not the issue, and reiterated that she kept her home well ventilated and clutter free.

The resident shared photos which appeared to show black mould on the ceilings, white mould on shoes, and a brown patch on the carpet. The landlord raised another repair job for a mould wash and thermal boarding on 8 October 2024, which was booked in for 22 October 2024. The resident updated this Service that the landlord’s contractor attended on 22 October 2024 and advised her that the bedroom already had thermal board applied, and she was concerned that applying more thermal boarding would trap moisture and “mask the problem”.

The resident shared photos which appeared to show extensive levels of black mould in the property. The resident explained that she did not want to refuse any work in case the landlord accused her of “restricting” it from carrying out work. The resident also told us that the mould wash had not been booked with her, she had only been aware because she received a text referring to the job. On the matter of temporary accommodation, the landlord says that the resident was offered this, although it is unclear when this was, but “declined the offer”, preferring to stay in the property while the work is carried out.

The resident says that the landlord’s surveyor had recommended that she stay in the property to “oversee the work” and that any temporary accommodation may be outside of London. The resident explained that she needs to be able to access her work and her children’s schools. The resident has explained to us that she is very concerned about the potential health impacts on her children, both from the damp and mould, and from the strong chemicals in the mould washes – for this reason she does not want all rooms to be washed at one time.

The resident has advised us that the landlord did suggest that she exchange her home, but she considers this unrealistic given the condition of the property. Tree The landlord has advised us that the tree was inspected on 27 March 2023. As a result, it raised an order to its contractor to pollard/ prune the tree. Its records note the canopy was within one metre of the building, and the next inspection was scheduled for March 2026. The landlord has advised us that its contractor had a ‘backlog’ of jobs, and after a delay the date for the tree to be pruned was set for 29 April 2024.

The resident has advised that operatives have attended and carried out some activities, but the tree is still in place. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what has been done. Fence and gate The resident reported damaged fencing and that the garden gate did not lock in June 2021. The landlord raised a repair to its contractor, and in November 2021 the job was marked as complete. The landlord raised another repair for the damaged fence on 11 July 2022, which was marked as closed after being passed to its contractor on 19 August 2022 “to renew up to nine metres of fencing”.

The landlord’s records indicate it raised, and then cancelled, a repair to renew the damaged section of fencing to match the existing panels, on 28 March 2023. It raised a further repair to renew the fencing on 30 March 2023. The landlord raised another repair for the fence, with a note that it had “fallen down”, on 11 September 2023. This was marked as cancelled by its contractor, which said it was not responsible for works in residents’ gardens. Another repair was raised by the landlord for the fence and gate, on 22 September 2023.

When the resident complained to the landlord, she explained the repair was outstanding. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it renewed the resident’s fencing on 26 February 2024. As with the tree, the resident has advised us that the landlord’s contractor has attended to take measurements, but has then closed the job without completing it. She has explained that because the garden is not secure, people are trespassing and leaving rubbish. Complaints The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 February 2022.

She told it that: The bathroom sink was still leaking after two repairs had been completed; The bath panel had been damaged after a leak and was in need of replacement, which she said she had raised to the landlord over three years; She had reported draughts from the windows and back door, and an appointment scheduled for 4 February 2022 to inspect this had been missed; She had raised the repair for the fence and gate several times, and experienced several incidents of people climbing over the fence and using her garden as a pathway to get to the neighbouring property, as well as someone trying to steal her daughter’s bike.

She was concerned about her family’s safety; The member of staff who had attended to repair her boiler had been “very rude” and made an “unacceptable mess”. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident, although the date it did this is not clear. It: Said a surveyor would attend on 30 May 2022 to carry out a damp inspection. It asked the resident to “highlight” the leaking sink and damaged bath panel to the surveyor at the visit; Acknowledged that the appointment for the windows had been missed, and said it had asked its contractor to prioritise the rearrangement; Said it would “review” the order that had been closed in relation to the fence and gate repairs, and that it would arrange “further attendance” if it found work to be outstanding; Said a member of its gas compliance team would contact the resident to discuss the resident’s complaint about the staff member who attended the boiler repair; Said it had passed the resident’s request regarding the overgrown tree to its estate team; Apologised for “any frustration, inconvenience and upset” the resident had experienced, and confirmed it upheld her complaint.

It offered the resident £350 “as a gesture of goodwill for the delays in service, a missed appointment, and [her] time and trouble chasing the repair”, which it had credited to the resident’s rent account. On 16 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s internal records show that its staff discussed that she had told it: The issue with the tree had been ongoing for seven years; The surveyor who had inspected the mould said he could not smell mould so the problem “wasn’t ‘that bad’”, told the resident the walls were “soft due to the materials used to fill the walls”, did not use a damp detector, and had advised the resident to use mould remover and wipe the area when mould appears (which she said was “very often”).

The resident said the wallpaper in the front room had peeled off, and had exposed bugs, wet walls, and black mould; The bathroom sink had started leaking again, after being repaired at least twice. She believed it needed replacement; There had been “no progress with fixing the fence”, which the resident had first raised to the landlord in July 2021. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident on 23 March 2023. It: Acknowledged the resident had asked it to address damp and mould, the bathroom sink, the fence, the radiators, and the tree; Said it had scheduled a damp and mould inspection for 20 March 2023 and follow-up works would be decided afterwards; Said its engineer had attended to inspect the radiators on 9 March 2023, and had adjusted the valves; Said that the tree was “the responsibility” of its housing management team, because it was in the resident’s garden, and its senior neighbourhood officer and an arboriculture officer would attend on 27 March 2023 to advise on “appropriate action”; Said that it appreciated the resident’s “frustration in the amount of time it has taken to address [her] concerns” raised in her stage 2 escalation request, and that it trusted that “the actions highlighted above” would provide a resolution to her complaint.

The resident has explained that the landlord responded in a heavy-handed way when she submitted the complaint, with a surveyor asking her why she did not just log a repair instead. The resident found this intimidating. In bringing the complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she would like the landlord to cut back or chop down the tree, provide new fencing and a secure gate to the garden, to rectify the leak from outside, treat the walls for damp inside and outside, and to redecorate the living space.

She would like the landlord to provide her with the timeframes it will complete these works in. Assessment and findings Record-keeping The records the landlord provided to us have not enabled us to confirm with certainty what actions have been completed. The photographs we have seen were mostly provided by the resident. We have included details of the notes made at the time (contemporaneously), where the landlord’s contractors and operatives have explained what actions were taken before a repair was closed, however this was not available to us for several of the repairs.

It was not always clear whether the repairs were completed/ cancelled/ or closed for another reason, from the repairs history provided to us. Similarly, we have included details of the observations made at the damp inspection on 28 March 2023, but have not seen similar details for the other inspections that have been recorded on the property repair history provided to us. Leaking sink, bathroom repairs, and radiator repair These matters were included in the resident’s complaint, and were resolved at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.

They have not been escalated to this Service. We acknowledge that the resident did experience some delays and repeat repairs, and suggest that there is learning to be taken from the resident’s overall experience of repairs the landlord contracted out, which are addressed further below. Damp and mould Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) the landlord has a responsibility to keep the property in repair. This includes ensuring it is free from damp and mould. The landlord’s records indicate that the cause of the damp has been identified as water ingress due to porous bricks.

Its surveyors have several times advised that thermal boarding would not remedy this, and so it is unsatisfactory that this continued to be pursued even in the autumn of 2024. The pictures we have seen do appear to show significant damp around the downpipe to the rear of the property, and it is not clear if this was ever fully repaired. While we do not issue decisions as to whether matters of health have been caused by action/ lack of action from the landlord, being outside the scope of our investigations, we do acknowledge that the resident is very concerned about the wellbeing of her children.

The concerns the resident raised should have prompted the landlord to treat the repairs with more urgency, and it has not demonstrated that it gave appropriate consideration to offering temporary accommodation until the repairs were resolved. The landlord is reminded that the Ombudsman recently published learning from cases involving temporary moves (found here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/2024/09/18/latest-learning-from-severe-maladministration-report/ ) and we urge the landlord to consider the recommendations.

The damp and mould was first reported in November 2021. The landlord’s records show that at first poor air circulation was thought to be the cause, but by February 2022 it had identified potential water ingress. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection in May 2022, which we observe was likely to be in warmer conditions, and did not identify any follow- up work to be done at that point. In November 2022 a mould wash was raised, and in December 2022 it raised an ‘urgent’ inspection.

A further mould wash was raised and then cancelled the next month, and on 28 March 2023 an inspection was carried out. The inspection did not record the landlord’s observations about water ingress, with notes recording the humidity in each room and recommendations made to increase and overhaul the ventilation in the property. Two days later, however, the landlord raised repairs for the downpipe joint, which shows that it was aware there was a problem with water hitting the external wall.

The landlord’s records show it had been advised by its contractor that when it attended in April 2023 to complete a mould wash, it had observed ‘green mould’ on the wall behind the downpipe, and that the damp would be an “ongoing” problem. The landlord was satisfied in September 2023 that it had ensured the ventilation in the property was working as it should, and it had also been advised by its contractor that it needed to ‘seal’ the bricks to prevent water ingress. The landlord’s records show it was aware that damp and mould continued to be a problem after this point, with further mould washes, an inspection, and thermal boarding jobs raised.

However, its records do not show that any action to repair the downpipe was completed, or any consideration was given to the recommendation that it seal the bricks to prevent water ingress. Ultimately, the underlying cause of the damp appears to have been identified in February 2002, and then repeated by various operatives who attended in 2023, but remains unaddressed by the end of 2024. The landlord’s records show several repairs that were raised, and then closed without explanations of why.

Given the length of time the matter has persisted, the repeated delays the resident experienced (even the ‘urgent’ inspection appeared to take several months to be completed), and the severity of the issues reported, it is our opinion that £350 compensation is not a proportionate remedy to the resident’s complaint. We have made orders to address this below. This includes redecoration of the affected areas in the property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to explain to the resident how she can submit claims through its liability insurance process, should she wish to seek damages for her belongings or matters of health.

Tree The landlord’s records indicate that it has a three-yearly cycle to check whether its trees need any works. There were clear delays to the matters the resident raised in her complaint, which the landlord did acknowledge in its complaint response, and which it identified was due to a backlog with its contractor. As the resident reports the problem has not been resolved after attendance from the contractor, it would be reasonable for the landlord to inspect the tree and confirm whether it is now safe, and to advise the resident of when its next inspection will be carried out.

Our expectation is that the landlord should confirm that the tree is not causing any damage to the property, or presenting any other risk. If no risks are found, it is proportionate that it follow its tree policy, and we accept this may mean it leaves the tree in place. If risks are found, it should take appropriate steps to address these. It would be reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident what she should do if the regular inspection is missed or she has any questions after it is carried out.

We have not found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the tree, because it did acknowledge failings in its complaint response and we have not seen evidence that it was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied after its contractor attended. Fence and gate The landlord’s records show that it raised several repairs over the years since the resident first asked for the repairs to the fence and gate in 2021. There is disagreement as to whether this was completed in February 2024.

It has not been possible for us to confirm what has been done, from the evidence we have seen. The landlord’s monitoring of the repairs raised to its contractor did not appear to be sufficient to ensure that they were in hand and progressing. This is a common theme across the repairs in this case, and we recommend it review the resident’s case to see if it can identify any steps it can take to improve this. When taking into consideration the length of time the resident waited for the repairs to be scheduled, even after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued, we find that the landlord’s failure to ensure that it was confident the situation was remedied at stage 2 of its complaint process is significant enough to warrant a finding of service failure.

The landlord should now take appropriate steps to check the work carried out by its contractor, and given the time that has lapsed it would be reasonable for it to complete any works needed to the fence and gate by way of a remedy. Complaints Handling The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s “frustration”, and dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. It promised several inspections by way of resolution. It did not, however, assess the history of the complaint or take appropriate steps to establish whether there had been service failings on its part.

This meant both that it did not identify whether it should apologise to the resident for her experience, or whether there was any learning it could take from it. The landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate a sufficient curiosity in its examination of the repairs history at the property, especially with regard to patterns in the types of repairs being raised and the subsequent handling of these by its contractors. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (found here: https://www.

housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf ) sets out our recommendation that landlords ensure their databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be easily extracted and used to produce insight into patterns, themes and shortfalls, and to reach evidence-based decisions. In this case, the landlord’s records do not suggest that its data on the repairs was stored in such a way that its staff (in either the repairs or the complaints teams) were able to take a holistic view of the pattern in the damp that had been reported, the advice from the staff who attended that thermal boarding would not solve the problem and the downpipe needed repair, and the cumulative impact on the resident of repeated mould washes and lack of follow-up to inspections.

There was a lack of oversight from the complaints team over the actions it promised in its complaint resolution, and if it had taken a more proactive approach it may have avoided some of the further delays the resident experienced after it issued the complaint response. As set out above, the landlord’s offer of compensation was not, in our opinion, proportionate to its failures, and we have made orders to remedy this below. The landlord is reminded that compensation should be paid direct to residents, rather than offset against rent, in line with our guidance on compensation.

We note the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s heavy-handed approach to her complaint. While we cannot establish the facts of the incident, we ask the landlord to ensure that its relevant staff are aware of the importance of residents being able to raise complaints and the positive opportunity they present to remedy the immediate situation and to implement learning or other changes which could prevent failure in future. Determination In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response in relation to damp and mould.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response in relation to tree works. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in relation to fencing works. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaints process. Orders and recommendations Orders Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience she has experienced, and its failure to make appropriate use of its complaints process to resolve the matters she raised to it.

It must provide us with a copy once complete. Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident a total of £850 compensation, made up of: £400 compensation for the distress she has experienced while awaiting the resolution of the damp and mould; £100 compensation for the failures in its complaint handling; £350 it has already paid, including for delays to repairs. Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must arrange for an inspection to be carried out to establish: Whether the property requires brick sealing; Whether the conditions in the property are safely habitable, or it would be appropriate to offer the resident (reasonable and appropriate) temporary accommodation until it is safe; Whether the downpipe still requires repair; Whether the tree requires any work to prevent damage to the property, or other safety risks; Whether additional fence and gate works are required.

It must confirm to the resident what the outcome of its inspection is in writing, and provide us with a copy. It must explain what work it will undertake as a result, with timescales and confirmation of any redecoration that it will carry out. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must appoint a member of staff who acts as the resident’s point of contact until the works are completed. It must confirm to us when it has done this. Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must explain to the resident how she can submit an insurance claim to it, for damage to belongings or matters of health.

It must confirm to us when this is done. Recommendations Given the length of time the matter has persisted, we recommend that the landlord ensure that the affected property walls and ceilings are left plastered and painted/ decorated following any repairs it undertakes in relation to our order at paragraph 82. The resident has explained that she would like the landlord to communicate in writing, so that she has records to refer back to. We recommend that when it has conversations with her, it sends her a written summary of the key advice, promised actions, and relevant timescales.

We recommend that the landlord review the resident’s case, and consider what learning it can take both in terms of its complaints handling, and in relation to its oversight of contracted repairs. We recommend the landlord take steps to ensure that its relevant repairs staff are aware of the importance of residents being able to raise complaints and the positive opportunity they present to remedy the immediate situation and to implement learning or other changes which could prevent failure in future.

The resident has expressed concern that the effects of the damp may be worsened due to her family’s overcrowding in the property. We recommend that the landlord discuss her housing options with her.