The Severe Maladministration Report on Damp and Mould …. And Possible Implications for the PRS

The Housing Ombudsman Service has just released its latest severe maladministration report. This examines some of the failings of landlords in the social sector as regards damp and mould. In this post we will look at some of the findings of this report and – bearing in mind that the Renters’ Rights Bill could make private landlords subject to a similar regime – look at what the implications could be.

What this report is about – the background

As most will know, the Housing Ombudsman Service is a public body which handles complaints by tenants about registered providers of social housing. When they are found at fault their members can be ordered to pay compensation and take certain actions.

The Ombudsman also publishes reports on the cases which it investigates. Their latest maladministration report looks at problems regarding damp and mould and their landlord members’ failings in dealing with them. Rather than a ‘naming and shaming’ exercise these reports aim to contribute to learning and help members to improve.

Damp and mould has become an increasingly topical issue in recent years, particularly since the 2020 death of two year old Awaab Ishak in a social property with serious, prolonged and unresolved damp and mould issues. Far from being a straightforward building defect damp and mould can have very serious health implications, and particularly for residents who already have health issues. The Ombudsman says this now comprises 50% of its caseload. The advent of Awaab’s Law, which requires social providers to deal with damp and mould in a timely fashion, has brought this further into focus.

The Ombudsman’s report considered all aspects of the damp and mould issues it investigated. It looked at how providers handled and progressed reports and complaints, how it resolved them and particularly their timeliness in handling them. It looked at the impact on residents including the damage to personal property, expense, inconvenience,  distress, safety and health risks. It looked at the redress and compensation provided to residents.

Following on from the broadly positive tone of the report it reported on what providers had done to improve their handling of damp and mould issues, and what could be learned as a result.

Severe maladministration relating to damp and mould – the cases

The report took in around 100 cases of severe maladministration relating to damp and mould and the landlords’ timeliness in dealing with problems. Twenty are covered in some detail with two described as key cases.

In this section we will briefly summarise some of the key points of the main cases. (Full details of each case and the learnings which resulted can be found by referring to the original report.)

Peabody (key case)

The Ombudsman made two severe maladministration determinations. It found issues going on for ‘numerous years’ without effective action. In one case damp and mould was not investigated for four years and in another case two years, while a leak was not rectified for two years. It found poor record keeping relating to the problems themselves and the health concerns the residents had raised.

In one case the Ombudsman upped the £500 compensation offered to just over £8,700.

L&Q (key case)

A case of damp and mould was not dealt with for four years (and remained outstanding at the time of the determination). The Ombudsman said that the landlord’s communication was poor and processes were not adequate. They ordered the landlord to pay £9,000 compensation. They instructed them to review their communication with residents and contractors as well as their approach to damp and mould repairs.

The landlord responded by saying it had implemented a programme of inspecting properties and installing humidity sensors.

The report says that important learning from these key cases is that, complex though it is, landlords must not ‘shy away’ from  tackling the root cause of damp and mould. They must address the impact the issue will have on individual residents, act promptly and keep residents informed. (These are some of key principles behind Awaab’s Law.) Where compensation is paid they must take into account the overall disruption and time taken, as well as the resident’s loss of enjoyment of their home.

Barking and Dagenham Council

Due to the councils’ mishandling of the case, a family were left living with damp and mould in unhealthy conditions and with unusable rooms for five years.

The landlord originally offered £100 compensation which the Ombudsman upped to £4,000.

It recommended that the council should improve its communication and record keeping.

Bromford

After receiving a complaint and photographic evidence the landlord did not visit or investigate it but merely offered advice. It had a repairs policy stating it would only attend non-emergency repairs depending on the ‘availability of appropriate resources’.

The Ombudsman ordered a review of the landlord’s complaints handling, improvements to its staff training and £4,000 compensation.

Clarion

A leak went unresolved for four years. The Ombudsman found the landlord did not consider the vulnerability of a resident with health issues. It lacked records of previous work undertaken. It wrongly advised the resident to make an insurance claim.

The Ombudsman upped the compensation offered from £2,750 to £6,500.

Key learning was that providers must take into account household circumstances and adapt services accordingly.

Croydon Council

The landlord did not conduct a damp and mould inspection until nearly 12 months after the resident’s first complaint. This was despite the resident reporting a leak and numerous requests for an inspection from them.

The council offered £100 compensation but the Ombudsman upped it to over £5,000.

The landlord said it had set up a specialist team to deal with damp and mould issues.

Curo Group

The Ombudsman found the landlord failed to undertake repairs or provide compensation despite acknowledging it was at fault.

The Ombudsman ordered £5,650 compensation instead of the £50 offered. It ordered the landlord to review the case and its failure to address the resident’s concerns and progress the work.

The landlord said it had set up a specialist team to deal with damp and mould issues.

Islington Council

Despite repeated complaints from the resident and involvement from their MP the landlord delayed inspections and repairs, exceeded its own policy timeframes and failed to complete the necessary repairs.

The landlord offered £100 compensation but the Ombudsman ordered £5,000. The landlord was required to inspect the property using an independent damp specialist and provide a written report on necessary works.

Kingston upon Thames Council

The council failed to deal with damp and mould in a timely manner (and work was still outstanding at the time of the determination). It failed to consider the resident’s vulnerability, overcrowding in their home and the repair history of the property.

The Ombudsman ordered £2,750 compensation and told the council to update its repairs policy which dated back to 2017.

The landlord said it had set up a specialist damp and mould team and was implementing improvements with its new contractor.

Lewisham Council

The council left a leaseholder experiencing ‘significant unexplained delays’ over three years. The Ombudsman attributed this to poor record keeping and poor communication. It found that the council’s lack of proactive management caused inconvenience and distress.

The Ombudsman ordered £2,300 compensation.

Longhurst Group

The Ombudsman found that the provider did not act on a reported issue within a reasonable time. It did not communicate well nor prioritise a vulnerable resident. Some repair work was of a poor standard. The local authority intervened but this did not improve the situation.

The Ombudsman ordered £3,960 in compensation and a personal apology from the chief executive. It said the provider should review its practices according to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.

Metropolitan Thames Valley

A tenant reported damp and mould and said they had a severe health issue. However, there was no record that the landlord ever acted on the complaint or visited the property. When the kitchen and bathroom became unusable the resident was moved into a hotel for 15 months. The landlord did not communicate with them about the progress of the repairs.

The £20 compensation originally offered was raised to £6,680 by the Ombudsman who also ordered an apology.

Moat Homes

The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £8,765 for delays in completing repairs, poor communication and record keeping. Significantly it ordered the landlord to identify and work with other residents that may have had a similar experience.

PA Housing

The Ombudsman found the organisation failed to comply with it its own maintenance policy and that its repair service was not flexible to the needs of vulnerable tenants. Alongside compensation it ordered a strategic review taking into account the Spotlight report on damp and mould.

Places for People

A damp and mould issue, involving a possible ceiling collapse, was still not resolved after 49 months despite the health risks to a vulnerable child. The local MP became involved. Once started work was done in batches. The provider was considered in breach of its obligations under the HHSRS.

The landlord offered £450 compensation but the Ombudsman ordered £6,800 and an apology. It said landlords should not rely on the intervention of a third party to resolve a problem.

Sanctuary

The landlord failed to repair penetrating damp for over a year. The Ombudsman found it did not comply with its obligations under the HHSRS. It awarded compensation and stated that landlords must understand their obligations regarding hazards, particularly in light of Awaab’s Law.

Southwark Council

A resident suffered a collapsed lung following a persistent issue with damp and mould in their property. This had been caused by a recurring leak from the apartment above. The problem spanned at least eight years and at one point the provider refused to respond to the complaint.

The Ombudsman awarded £5,000 compensation and required the landlord to update its processes.

Sovereign Network Homes

A resident suffered from persistent issues with damp and mild over a prolonged period. The Ombudsman ruled that the landlord’s responses were ‘inadequate, lacking urgency and effective communication’.

The Ombudsman upped the compensation and ordered the landlord to arrange a surveyor’s inspection to determine the problem and schedule the necessary works.

Swindon Council

A resident experienced serious issues included severe watermarking on walls, peeling wallpaper and black mould. The council said the property was habitable although the lounge was inaccessible for over a year. The landlord had also contacted several contractors to obtain quotes for the work but had failed to follow them up.

The Ombudsman made an order for a full schedule of works to be provided, for these works to be completed, and for the landlord to provide a single point of contact for the resident. It ordered compensation and an apology from the chief executive.

Waltham Forest Council

The council failed to complete damp and mould repairs for two years following a leak from a leasehold flat above. The Ombudsman said it failed in its management and oversight of property surveys, associated reports, appointments, works orders and in its dealings with contractors.

The council was ordered to carry out inspection works and pay £2,075. As well as being critical of its management and oversight the Ombudsman said the landlord should communicate with leaseholders, take legal advice and look to obtain a warrant of entry if issues arise from a property above.

Some findings from the report

In the report the Housing Ombudsman Richard Blakeway outlines a number of common issues which seem to frequently occur in the handling of damp and mould problems:

• Landlords are still struggling with timescales. This is despite policies which require reasonable resolution times dating back as far as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and Housing Act 2004.

• Property visits and inspections are often very limited in number. (In other cases many inspections are undertaken before anything is done.) During this time residents’ living conditions often deteriorate further.

• There can be a disconnect between what repairs are recommended in surveys and the actual schedule of works to be done. The report says: ‘This cycle is completely inadequate in the context of Awaab’s Law.’

• Delays in dealing with these issues can result in greater costs for landlords, both by way of the cost of repairs and they redress they have to pay. It says that this is reflected in the higher levels of compensation ordered in some of the cases. This is especially the case where compensation reflects the rent paid where a property or part of it could not be used. (It points out that as cases vary so much direct comparison of cases may be misleading however.)

• Landlords ‘need to re-evaluate approaches to compensation using these cases’ – to ensure they are fair and reasonable. It says, for example, it is ‘wholly unreasonable’ to offer £150 to a resident who lost both their bedrooms to mould for more than a year.

The report says that it hopes that the explanations of the compensation ordered will assist landlords to make consistent payments that are clear, specific and proportionate and help to prevent cases being escalated.

It adds that addressing the causes of inadequate inspections and delays would also mean that more resources can be put into services rather than in compensating for failings.

Possible implications for the PRS

In normal times the release of a report like this by the Housing Ombudsman would not directly affect private landlords. Although they can join voluntarily private landlords are usually not members of the scheme and so it does not have the power to deal with complaints about them. The Decent Homes Standard does not currently apply to the PRS and neither does the new Awaab’s Law which requires social landlords to deal with damp and mould effectively. Currently dealing with complaints about these issues falls within the remit of local authorities.

However, the upcoming Renters’ Rights Bill could change all this. It proposes extending the Decent Homes Standard and Awaab’s Law to the PRS. It proposes a new Ombudsman to handle complaints. (Although nothing has been decided as yet it has been suggested by some parties that the Housing Ombudsman’s powers could be extended to all private landlords.)

This will potentially have considerable implications for private landlords. It could mean that they will be required to deal with damp and mould in a specific way within specific timeframes. It could mean that tenants will be able to complain about these issues to an official body. It could mean that an Ombudsman will be able to order redress and compensation – possibly at the levels they apply to the social sector.

In other words, we could be looking at a very different complaints and enforcement regime compared to now.

Final thoughts

As many people in the industry will know (and which this report tends to confirm) the social housing sector’s track record in dealing with damp and mould is often not very impressive. There have been some horrific examples, most particularly the death of Awaab Ishak. Sometimes local authorities who expect high standards from private landlords are very lacking in this area themselves.

While there are certainly some bad examples from the private sector too, no good private landlord would knowingly allow their tenants to suffer the damp and mould issues that are depicted in this report. (Although the English Housing Survey suggests housing conditions are better in the social sector than the PRS.) However it seems that under the proposed Renters’ Rights Bill both social and private landlords will be expected to meet the same standards and face the same enforcement measures.

Although it does not directly impact them right now private landlords would be well advised to take note of the findings of this report from the Housing Ombudsman. They should also make sure they are aware of any damp and mould issues in their own properties. And have procedures for dealing with any future problems. In particular they would be well advised to keep up with the progress of the Renters’ Rights Bill and what obligations it might place on them with regards to damp and mould.  

The full report from the Housing Ombudsman Service can be found here: Severe Maladministration Report on Damp and Mould