Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202226924)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226924

The Guinness Partnership Limited

14 November 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy, which ended on 15 January 2023 after she moved out. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident’s has dyslexia.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 27 November 2022 that there was damp and mould around the windows. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 29 November 2022 and treated the mould. It advised the resident on 30 November 2022 to purchase a dehumidifier and keep the window vents open.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 1 December 2022 there was still damp and mould in the property and there was a leak. The landlord arranged for a dehumidifier to be delivered to the resident’s home and raised a job to inspect the damp and repair the leak. The appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident on 5 December 2022. The landlord tried to follow the matter up with the resident on several occasions in December 2022 but was unable to get hold of her.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 15 December 2022 that she was moving out of the property because of the damp and mould. She said there was mould on the walls, ceilings and windows. The landlord confirmed on 5 January 2023 that an inspection had been carried out and the ‘‘mould was bad.’’
  5. The resident made a complaint on 25 January 2023. She said there was mould in the bedrooms and the damp had seeped through the walls that had recently been decorated. She also said her family had to sleep in the living room and noted her possessions had been damaged.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 March 2023 and said:
    1. It completed a mould wash on 29 November 2022.
    2. The resident reported a leak on 1 December 2022 and said there was still damp and mould in her home. It arranged an appointment to visit the resident’s home, but this was cancelled by her.
    3. It responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in accordance with its repair timescales.
    4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but would offer £20 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  7. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 March 2023. She told the landlord on 21 March 2023 that she wanted compensating for her damaged possessions, £200 for gas and electricity and £150 of food vouchers. She noted the landlord had offered her neighbour a similar offer following an inspection of their flat.
  8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 April 2023 and said:
    1. It offered the resident a dehumidifier on 1 December 2022 and arranged to visit her home on 5 December 2022. The resident cancelled the appointment.
    2. The resident told the landlord she was leaving because of the damp and mould. The landlord did not respond to these concerns until 4 January 2023 because of the festive period.
    3. It visited the resident’s home on 5 January 2023 and it was determined no repairs were required given she was moving out the following week.
    4. It would only consider requests for compensation for damaged possessions if it had done something wrong or failed to do something. Given it had not identified any failings in its approach, it could not consider the resident’s request for compensation.
    5. There was a delay in logging the resident’s complaint. This was acknowledged in the stage 1 complaint response.
    6. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint given its communication with her during the complaints process could have been better.
    7. It would increase its offer of compensation from £20 to £40. This was made up of £20 for the delay in logging the stage 1 complaint and £20 for the delay in issuing its response.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant.
  2. The housing records confirm the resident reported there was damp and mould in her property on 27 November 2022. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had a duty to meet its obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building in repair and working order. This includes internal walls and ceilings. It is also responsible for water pipes.
  3. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 29 November 2022 and completed a mould wash. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy which says it will diagnose and resolve issues of damp and mould in a timely manner. The policy also says the landlord may need to carry out further investigations to establish if the damp and mould were caused by a repair for which it was responsible. No timescales are included in the policy for carrying out inspections or completing works.
  4. The landlord also offered the resident advice on keeping her home well-ventilated in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This says it will provide residents with clear, sensitive, practical and accessible advice. There is no evidence, however, that the landlord put monitoring arrangements in place following the completion of the mould wash. This was a failure and contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS and the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould. Having an aftercare programme in place can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the problem again.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2022 and said she could not leave the windows open as she had a baby and did not want the property to get cold. She also said she was struggling to afford the heating and asked the landlord to provide a dehumidifier. The landlord agreed to do this on 1 December 2022 and arranged for it to be delivered on 5 December 2022. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 December 2022 and said there was still damp and mould in the property. She also noted there was a leak. The landlord raised a job to visit the resident’s home to inspect the damp and repair the leak, although it is unclear when the appointment was booked for. The appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident on 5 December 2022. The reasons why she did this are not known. It is evident the landlord tried to follow the matter up with the resident on several occasions in December 2022 but was unable to contact her.
  7. The resident told the landlord on 15 December 2022 that she was going to end her tenancy because of the condition of the property. She said there was condensation on all of the windows and this caused mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to note that it would arrange an inspection, although there is no evidence an appointment was booked at this point. This was a failure and led to delays. This Service expects landlords to complete prompt and sufficient investigations to establish the cause of damp and mould.
  8. There is no evidence the landlord took any action following its visit to the resident’s home on 5 January 2023 when it noted ‘‘the mould was bad.’’ It did not assess whether the property was habitable or if there were any risks to the resident or her baby. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will complete a comprehensive risk assessment if there is recurring damp and mould. Neither did it arrange to carry out any remedial works. This was not appropriate and meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement or the HHSRS.
  9. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether the resident needed to be rehoused temporarily. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will consider such options. This was a failure and meant the resident had to continue living in damp and mouldy conditions until she moved out.
  10. The landlord noted in its final complaint response on 13 April 2023 that no works were ordered following the visit in January 2023 because the resident was moving out. While the landlord noted the resident said she would try and manage the mould until she moved out, it did not provide this Service with any information confirming this to be the case. This was a failure. This Service expects landlords to keep accurate and clear records of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
  11. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould were appropriate. It arranged a mould wash, organised a dehumidifier and tried to contact her when she cancelled the job. It later failed, however, to put monitoring arrangements in place, carryout an assessment or undertake any further remedial works.
  12. Whilst it said this was because the resident agreed to this, the landlord failed to provide any evidence confirming this to be the case. This meant the landlord did not meet its obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement and HHSRS and the resident was left to live in damp and mouldy conditions until she moved out. It also failed to provide details on its insurer.
  13. It is evident the situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. She told the landlord on a number of occasions that she was concerned about the mould and the impact it might have on her baby. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord for which it is ordered to pay the resident £200.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 25 January 2023. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged by the landlord. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy which says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. This was a failure.
  2. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 3 March 2023. This was outside the 10–working day target set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). This was a further failure. The landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint. This was in accordance with its compensation policy and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  3. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 10 March 2023. There is no evidence the complaint was acknowledged. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident on 21 March 2023 and ask her what outcomes she was seeking from her complaint.
  4. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 14 April 2023. This was in accordance with the 20-day working target set out in its complaints policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge it failed to log the stage 1 complaint or offer an explanation for the delay in responding. This demonstrated it learnt from the complaint and wanted to put things right for the resident. It was reasonable for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation from £20 to £40.
  5. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure and there were delays in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It did, however, acknowledge this and offered an apology and compensation for the failure. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position in regard to her request for compensation for her damaged possessions and provide details of its insurer, if appropriate. This must be confirmed in writing to the resident and a copy provided to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the resident the £40 compensation previously offered, if it has not already done so.