Accent Housing Limited (202347889)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347889

Accent Housing Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has a sole assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property in 2021 following a mutual exchange. She lives with her 2 young children. The resident and her son have asthma.
4. The resident reported damp and black mould growth to the landlord from 2022. The landlord noted on its records that she was unable to allow access on a morning until her return from dropping off her child at school. In February 2023, it offered the resident its ‘damp and mould kit’ for her to apply. She refused due to her asthma. It logged that a repair was needed to a door causing cold. A series of failed damp and mould attendances by the landlord occurred across March 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident about her ‘refusal’ of the mould treatment and confirmed it would apply the kit. The resident agreed.
5. The landlord completed mould treatment, a repair to a door, and replastering across April and May 2023. It also noted defects to the bedroom window causing draughts. In August 2023, the landlord identified defects to the roof for repair and, in October 2023, repairs needed to the bedroom and living room windows. It completed some works to windows in November 2023. Following contact from the resident’s MP, it inspected the property on 15 November 2023. The landlord found penetrating damp and that external works were needed to address this, including to the roof and the repointing of an external wall.
6. On 27 February 2024, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports about damp and mould. She expressed dissatisfaction about a lack of progress and delay to fixing damp in her home. The landlord completed a repair to a window in March 2024. On 25 March 2024, the landlord received an email from the resident’s health visitor about risks to the health of the family from damp living conditions. The same day, the resident sent photographs to the landlord and called it. It told her it was awaiting a quote. She expressed distress at her housing situation and said that she was suicidal. The landlord arranged to assess her home the next week. It ordered further repairs including to a window, external door, and a mould treatment. Some of these were completed across April 2024.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 April 2024. It summarised a background from October 2023. It apologised for the time it had taken to taken to complete repairs and its lack of contact. It offered her £150 and said it took on learning from the complaint. It promised that its contractor would be in touch to arrange the outstanding roofing works. On 29 April 2024, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. She said that its first stage response had not considered the full relevant background. She raised concern about its communication and that she still had no start date for the roofing works.
8. The following month, the landlord raised further repair jobs to check the roof and chimney, noting ongoing water penetration. The landlord visited the property on 4 June 2024 and updated the resident it was due to erect scaffolding in the next 2 weeks to enable the roofing works. It told her to continue wiping off mould in the meantime and ordered further repairs, including stain block to internal walls. It later booked scaffolding for 17 June 2024. This was rebooked on the day for July 2024 because it attended when the resident was on the school run at 8.19am.
9. On 17 June 2024, the landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It acknowledged a fuller background of her reports of damp back to 2022 and apologised that it did not reflect this at the first stage. It admitted delays and apologised to her for the level of service it provided. It offered an additional £150 compensation. It advised that the roof would be replaced soon, and internal replastering and recordation completed once the external work was done. The complaint handler promised to oversee progress of the works.
10. Following the final complaint response, the landlord completed further works between July to October 2024, including to the roofing in early July 2024. The landlord did not repoint the external wall, deciding instead to apply a brick seal. A number of works have incomplete status on the landlord’s repairs system. These included internal replastering awaiting earlier electrical works ordered in June 2024. The resident continued to report ongoing damp and mould. She provided photographs to the Ombudsman of an external wall showing defective brickwork and rendering, and of an external door with a gap at the bottom. The resident referred her complaint for our investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident said this situation had a negative effect on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the effect on the resident’s health and wellbeing is outside the scope of this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which says we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any failures by the landlord.

Damp and mould

12. The landlord was obliged by section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord was also made responsible by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 for making sure the property was fit for human habitation. The existence of any hazard as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System was a relevant factor to assessing fitness. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm to occupants and include damp and mould growth. Related repair or other remedial action was required within a reasonable period.
13. The landlord failed to complete repairs in line with its legal obligations. As it accepted, the resident had been reporting damp and mouldy living conditions since 2022. While it completed some investigations and works, it failed to complete full and effective works that resolved the issue. It assessed defects to the roofing as a main cause of water penetration. However, these works were outstanding at the point of its final response. In the previous 19 months, the resident and her young family lived with extensive mould growth and damp in multiple rooms of their home. The length of the delay fell far outside of the target time set by the landlord’s repairs policy of 28 calendar days for non-emergency repairs. It represented a failure to complete repairs within a reasonable time or reduce or remove hazards. Considering the extent of delay, this failing was significant.
14. The landlord told the resident that some of the delay to the roofing works was caused by poor weather conditions. The extent of its delay cannot reasonably be explained by the weather. Its records showed that the works were held up for some months by internal approval processes.
15. The landlord told us that it had some problems gaining access to the property. We considered its system notes of the dates recorded as ‘no access’. For the majority of dates, there was no evidence that these attendances happened at a time and date agreed with or notified to the resident in advance. Many of the attendances occurred before 9.30am, whereas the resident had repeatedly informed the landlord that she was unable to allow access before she returned from dropping off her child at school. Even where the landlord made a note on its system about this access requirement, its contractors attended on many occasions earlier than the advised time. It was unreasonable that the landlord relied on those attendances as failings on the part of the resident.
16. For the small number of attendances that the landlord logged as agreed in advance with the resident that did not take place, these were re-arranged with her the same date or within a timely manner. The resident continued to be in frequent contact with the landlord. The effect of any associated delay was extremely short and of little impact to the landlord’s overall 19–month delay to resolving the damp and mould issues between the resident’s November 2022 reports and its June 2024 final response.
17. The landlord made multiple attempts to supply the resident with a ‘damp and mould kit’ including in February to March 2023 (the kit). This was a standard action on the landlord’s repairs system, auto generated on logging her reports of ongoing damp and mould. In some instances, this was attempted before any inspection to assess the cause of damp and while related repairs were outstanding. The landlord’s procedure for dealing with damp and mould required that, in response to a report from a customer and photographs, it was to issue the kit. Only after its customer confirmed 4 weeks later that problem was ongoing after trying the kit, and they gave the landlord more photographs, would it consider a potential inspection.
18. This standard process of the landlord was unreasonable. It delayed assessment of the root cause of damp and therefore any associated works or advice aimed at fixing it. The chemicals supplied in the kit were hazardous. The kit instructions guided the resident to wear protective gloves, goggles, and overalls for safe use. While the landlord’s procedure said that those with respiratory conditions, such as the resident’s asthma, would be supported to apply it, it required the customer to highlight this before it would make this offer. The resident had repeatedly made the landlord aware that she had asthma. However, it continued to try to supply the kit, leading her to have to keep reasserting her health issues. It failed to consider other potential conditions that would make a customer’s self-application unreasonable, for example pregnancy.
19. Of great concern to the Ombudsman, the kit standard process also placed an unreasonable onus on the resident on a matter that fell squarely within the landlord’s legal responsibilities. This was inconsistent with the good practice guidance detailed within our spotlight report on damp and mould. Our report highlighted poor practice patterns that affect landlords’ ability to effectively tackle damp and mould, including an over-reliance on customers.
20. The landlord’s internal procedure guided it to monitor the progress of its repairs to completion. There is no evidence that it adopted this approach outside of its complaint process. While numerous repairs were logged, it often treated these in isolation rather than considering how they interacted with other outstanding works. For example, it repeatedly replastered affected walls when it had noted the need to first fix the cause of water penetration to the area, including plastering recoded as complete in March, May, and December 2023 and April 2024. Many repair jobs were closed down prematurely before works were done, then re-raised, skewing its tracking against target times. It carried out repeat inspections including in November and January 2024, despite repairs ordered on earlier visits being outstanding. The landlord’s failure to provide effective oversight and monitoring added to the delay experienced by the resident.
21. For most of the 19 months reviewed by the Ombudsman, the landlord failed to proactively keep the resident updated on what it was doing to fix damp at her home. She repeatedly chased it for updates in March and October 2023 and January, February, March, and May 2024 in order to be informed. This placed an unfair burden on her and was contrary to the landlord’s repairs policy’s commitment to keep its customers informed “every step of the way”. We requested from the landlord copies of correspondence it had sent to her setting out its findings. The landlord told us that it had no such correspondence recorded. This is of significant concern considering the number of attendances and inspections at her home. It was vital that it kept the resident reasonably informed of the issue identified at her home and assured of a timely plan to fix it. Its failure to do so caused an over-reliance on the resident to make sure she was informed.
22. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould detailed the need for landlords to assess risk and recognise the negative effect of damp living conditions on health and well-being. The photographs given by the resident to the landlord showed extensive mould and damp within living areas and a bedroom. The landlord was aware that the resident and her young child had asthma. However, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the ongoing risk to the resident and her young children from living in damp conditions. The landlord’s sole mitigating measure appeared to be the provision of the kit. There is no evidence it considered other measures, for example a decant when aware of the extent of internal risk. Although it received relevant professional concerns about risks to the family’s health from their health visitor in March 2024, it continued to advise the resident to wipe down mould herself. This failed to show adequate reflection on her personal circumstances and risks.
23. The landlord introduced a new damp, mould, and condensation procedure towards the end of 2023. This process now requires it to complete a risk assessment to inform its next steps. The resident was unable to benefit from the changes made. The landlord’s earlier process did not adequately support it to consider important risks or her personal circumstances.
24. The resident expressed severe mental distress to the landlord about her housing circumstances on 25 March 2024. She told it that she would end her own life due to how she was feeling. The landlord considered whether she had immediate plans and identified it would inspect her home. These steps alone did not show adequate engagement with its safeguarding policy or the potential duties it may have owed to her in line with the Equality Act 2010.
25. There is no evidence that the landlord made further enquiries into the resident’s mental health outside of her immediate plans to allow to it consider any reasonable adjustments appropriate to its services. Considering the severity of the resident’s distress, it is of concern that we saw no evidence that the landlord directed her to mental health services, support services, or made any offer of suitable referrals to any partner organisations.
26. We requested copies of the landlord’s relevant records to inform our investigation, including its inspection reports. The records supplied were very limited for key developments of its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord kept little record of the contact it had with the resident about its attendances at her home. The Ombudsman saw no reports detailing the findings of the multiple inspections the landlord carried out, for example that for 15 November 2023. It recorded only the works identified and, occasionally, a very brief summary. This level of detail was not an appropriate record of key steps in its investigations into a longstanding matter that carried risk of harm. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report highlighted the importance of accurate and robust records. The landlord failed to make or retain appropriate records of its investigations into health-related risks.
27. Other important documents were not supplied, with the landlord stating it was unable to do so. For example, a copy of the tenancy agreement. It is unclear whether this was because it failed to keep this key document or because it does not have reasonable systems allowing it ready access. In either circumstance, this is a failure of reasonable record keeping practice, contrary to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. 
28. The failings in the landlord’s record keeping affected the status updates it was able to provide to the resident and its complaint response. It accepted being unable to work out a full background of its contact with her and, at times, could not provide immediate updates due to information silence on its system.
29. At each stage of its complaint process, the landlord apologised for the level of its service and delay. It admitted having communicated poorly with the resident. It was appropriate that it acknowledged these matters as failings. However, it failed to identify and reflect on the fuller extent of its failings as considered above. Further, although it accepted failings, it did not show the learning that it identified as important or fulfil the promise it made to resolve damp and mould to conclusion. 
30. While the landlord completed further repairs, including to the roof in July 2024, after its final response, others appear outstanding to this date. A number of the repair jobs that it identified as needed to deal with damp and mould at the property still have an incomplete status on its system. These include front door frame repairs and internal replastering after electrical works ordered in June 2024. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that certain works identified by a surveyor as required to effectively resolve water penetration were carried out, for example repointing of the external wall. The resident has supplied photographs to us of her current living conditions and the condition of the main external wall. This evidence is inconsistent with the landlord’s assertion that the matter is resolved. The landlord has continued to supply the kit to the resident. It has continued to attend before 9.30am despite noting her access requirements. 
31. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £300. This figure was disproportionate to the effect of its failings on her, including the extent of its admitted delay. While its compensation policy said that it would consider each customer’s situation on a case-by-case basis, the figure does not show it had regard to the particular level of distress and impact caused to the resident. Its offers did not put matters right for her.
32. The landlord was responsible for serious failings. The resident told us about the seriously negative effect of the landlord’s failings, experienced over an extended period. She described severe distress living with the anxiety of being exposed to mould and damp, considering her vulnerability and the young age of her children. She moved in only the year before her first report of damp. She was upset that she was unable to decorate and the damp conditions stopped her feeling like her house was her home. The landlord’s communication failings meant that she had to repeatedly chase it, adding to her time and trouble. The living conditions seriously impacted her enjoyment of her home. The damp and mould was extensive and across living areas and her bedroom. She encountered unpleasant smells. Mould grew on her belongings, including her child’s pram and toys.
33. Due to the serious level of the landlord’s failings and the level of the effect of these on the resident, the landlord is responsible for severe maladministration in its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
34. The landlord is ordered to apologise to and pay compensation to the resident of £1,000 to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she experienced. This is within the range of awards set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the circumstances for severe maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put matters right is substantial. This is ordered in addition to the £300 it already offered.
35. The Ombudsman also considers it appropriate that the landlord provide additional compensation to recognise the resident’s day to day experience living among damp conditions. This sum represents the loss of enjoyment of her home and is made with reference to the rent payable, as permitted by our remedies guidance. A percentage of 20% of the rent payable across the relevant period is appropriate in view of the rooms affected and the nature of the issue. The period of calculation has been taken to begin 28 days after the resident’s report of 30 November 2022. 
36. The calculations for loss of enjoyment are set out below:

37. Noting the incomplete status of related repair works, the landlord is also ordered to conduct an expert inspection of the property to assess any ongoing damp and mould and carry out any identified works. It is recommended to consider our above findings about it providing the kit as standard in response to damp and mould reports in light of our spotlight report on damp and mould. The landlord is also recommended to assess whether its processes for handling vulnerable customers including those in mental distress support consistent compliance with its legal duties towards them.
38. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its record keeping practices under paragraph 54f of the Scheme in relation to responding to requests for repairs. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the cases already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.
39. The Ombudsman also ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its handling of the assessment of hazards at residents’ properties. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case, and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202312879. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Complaint handling

40. The landlord’s response to the resident at the first stage of its complaint process was delayed. The resident’s complaint was made to the landlord on 27 February 2024 and it provided its stage 1 response 41 working days later on 26 April 2024. This delay fell outside of the 10–working–day stage 1 response timescale required by its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
41. The landlord’s policy said that, in line with the Code, if it needed to extend the time for reply, it would explain this to its customer and provide a clear timeframe for its response. It required that its response would not be more than a further 10 days.
42. The landlord extended its response outside of the possible extension period set by its own policy. It failed to supply copies of its extension emails of 13 and 26 March 2024 to enable us to assess the contents. Its email of 16 April 2024 failed to provide any timeframe to the resident for when it would respond. This left her uncertain as to when she would receive a reply.  
43. There is no evidence that the landlord engaged with the resident to try to agree the extension to 26 April 2024. The Code required that it reach agreement with the resident if it was delayed 10 working days beyond the standard response timescale. It was also to supply the resident with details of how to approach the Ombudsman for assistance. There is no evidence that it followed the requirements of the Code.
44. While the landlord apologised within its extension email for its lack of updates, its first stage complaint response did not address its complaint delay or engagement failings. It did not offer any form of redress to the resident, even a further apology, for its delay and any impact of this service. The landlord was also responsible for a further delay in responding to the resident’s 29 April 2024 final stage complaint after 33 working days on 17 June 2024. It therefore also fell outside the 20-working-day final stage response timescale required by its complaints policy and the Code, and there is no evidence it followed their above requirements to extend this appropriately.
45. The landlord is responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint and an order for £80 compensation is made in that regard. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble from such delays in getting matters resolved.
46. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint handling practice in relation to its staff and contractors’ training needs on its complaints policy and the Code. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case, and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202312879. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a verbal apology to the resident from its chief executive for the failings identified in this report and their effect on her.
    2. Pay the resident the £300 compensation it previously offered if this has not already been paid.
    3. Pay the resident further compensation of £2,450.84. This is made up of:
       1. £1,370.84 for loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home.
       2. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that the resident likely experienced from its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
       3. £80 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that the resident likely experienced from its handling of her complaint.

The ordered compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not be offset against any outstanding arrears.

50. Within 6 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Contact the resident to arrange for an inspection of the property at a time mutually agreed to assess any ongoing damp or mould and what, if any, works, are available to resolve any confirmed damp to a standard that makes the property fit for habitation. The inspection must be completed by a qualified surveyor independent of the landlord and their findings detailed within a written inspection report.
    2. The landlord is ordered to carry out the following steps within 2 weeks of the above:
       1. Agree a schedule of any identified works with the resident. The landlord must consider the impact of disruption to the resident when proposing suitable arrangements, including her particular access requirements. The schedule must include arrangements for making sure the suitable cleanliness of the property at sign off, making good any damage caused to the property during works, interim risk assessments, post–inspection, and a reasonable period of post-monitoring.
       2. Provide a copy of the inspection report and agreed schedule of works to the resident and the Ombudsman.
    3. Incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review of its handling of the assessment of hazards at residents’ properties and of complaints ordered as part of case 202312879.

Recommendations

51. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Consider the findings above relating to the standard providing of a damp and mould kit in response to reports against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould.
    2. Assess whether its processes for handling vulnerable customers, including those in mental distress, support consistent compliance with its Equality Act 2010 duties.