A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202340173)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340173

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

20 February 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint handling.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
4. The resident complained to the landlord. It is unclear when this was. She said she had previously reported damp and mould in her home. She explained this had damaged her belongings and impacted her son’s health. She asked it to resolve the issues and pay compensation for her damaged items.
5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 January 2023. It upheld her complaint and apologised for the service she received. It said it would complete outstanding repairs by 3 March 2023. It gave her a key point of contact to oversee the repairs. It offered her £225 compensation for the delayed repairs, poor communication and the distress and inconvenience caused. It gave details of how to raise a liability claim for her damaged belongings.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023. She said it had not responded to her on 3 occasions about the issues within the property. She said its service was “terrible” and she felt ignored. She was unhappy that it had not completed any repairs despite confirming it would.
7. On 13 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its delayed response. It:
   1. Inspected the property following her first report of damp and mould in December 2023. It identified works required to the passive and trickle vents. It would complete these works and also install an extractor unit on 13 April 2023.
   2. Explained its key point of contact had constantly talked with her during this time.
   3. Would post-inspect the works and revisit in 2 to 3 months to check the success of the works.
   4. Offered a further £75 compensation to her. This was for its poor communication and delayed repairs.
   5. Repeated its advice about making a liability claim for her damaged belongings.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the ongoing damp and mould in the property. The complaint became one we could investigate on 8 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

9. The resident said that the landlord’s response to the damp and mould impacted her and her child’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something impacted a resident’s health or not.
10. If the resident wished to, she could seek independent advice regarding this. She may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. She should enquire with the landlord about this if she wishes. We will, however, consider whether the issues caused any distress or inconvenience.
11. Similarly, the resident asked us to award compensation for her damaged belongings. We cannot make liability decisions or determine whether a landlord has been negligent. As such, we do not order compensation for damage to belongings. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns that were raised by the landlord. In doing so, we have considered whether the response was in line with the landlord’s policies and procedures.
12. The resident continued to experience issues with damp and mould after the complaints process ended. For fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and try to put things right. The resident can raise a new complaint with the landlord if needed.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.

13. Our spotlight report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords. This includes that landlords should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.” It is imperative that landlords do not leave residents with damp and mould for an extended period. If it does not deal with damp and mould at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident. It can also lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
14. We asked the landlord to provide its repair records and evidence related to the resident’s complaint. It provided a document which was not accessible. We asked the landlord for it to resend this in a readable format, however it did not do so. We therefore do not know what works it completed, whether it met its timescales set out in its repair policy, or the outcome of any repairs. As such, we cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of the repairs.
15. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it said the resident first reported damp and mould in December 2022. It said it inspected the property and noted works required to the passive vents and window trickle vents. It is unclear when it did the inspection. It committed to complete these works, and to install an extractor unit, by 3 March 2023. However, it did not do this.
16. The landlord has also not provided us with a copy of its inspection report. We therefore cannot assess whether it completed a full investigation into all possible causes of the damp and mould. This is a failing.
17. The stage 2 response explained the landlord would start the works on 13 April 2023. It is unclear why this delay occurred. Nevertheless, a delay of 4 months between the report and the scheduled works was not appropriate. Especially given its repairs policy states it will complete “standard” routine works within 20 working days. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that it later completed these works. This is a failing.
18. The landlord agreed to post-inspect the works after completing the repairs. It also committed to checking the property again after 2 to 3 months. Due to the lack of records provided, there is no evidence to show it did this. We therefore cannot assess whether it learnt from its mistakes and put things right for the resident.
19. Additionally, the landlord should have considered interim measures to manage the damp and mould. We expect landlords to complete a mould wash as a timely action to ease the visible signs of mould and minimise the resident’s discomfort. However, there is no evidence that it did this during the reports or at the time of the complaints. The landlord’s lack of action was therefore not appropriate.
20. It is concerning that throughout the reports, the resident told the landlord their health was suffering. Neither the resident or landlord could definitively conclude that the health issues were due to the damp and mould. However, this should reasonably have prompted the landlord to make further enquiries with her and to assess any health and safety risks. Its failure to do so was not appropriate. It therefore missed opportunities to offer support to her or prioritise repairs as needed.
21. There is no evidence to show that the landlord regularly communicated with the resident regarding the issues and how it would resolve them. The landlord has not provided any communication logs or records of contact attempts made to the resident during this time. We therefore cannot conclude that it did so. This is a record keeping failure. Instead, it is evident the resident asked for updates on 3 occasions during the complaints process. By not communicating updates to her, it understandably caused her avoidable distress and inconvenience.
22. The landlord apologised for its poor communication within its final complaint response. It also noted that the person given as a key point of contact remained in “constant” communication with the resident. The resident disputes this and we have not seen evidence to show that this happened. This is a failing.
23. Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge failings in its communication and the delays in completing repairs. However, there is no evidence to show that it later did the works it agreed to do or improved its communication with her. Additionally, it cannot evidence that it supported the resident given her concerns that the issues impacted their health. It therefore missed opportunities to learn from its mistakes and put things right. The resident told us that she cannot use her bedroom due to the ongoing damp and mould. She instead sleeps in her living room.
24. Considering the above, the landlord’s total offer of £300 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. It should pay a further £650 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. This is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident. The resident has told us that the damp and mould issues remain ongoing. We have made relevant orders to address this.

The associated complaint handling.

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must then respond within 10 working days of the date of its acknowledgement. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days.
26. The landlord has not provided evidence of when the resident made her complaint, despite our requests for this. This is a record keeping failure. We therefore cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately within the timescales set out in the Code.
27. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day. It advised it would check whether it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 or review it again at stage 1. This response was not appropriate. The Code states if the resident remains dissatisfied, it must progress the complaint to stage 2. The only exception would be if it met an exclusion ground. By not escalating the complaint after her request, the landlord did not act in line with the Code.
28. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint again on 13 March 2023. It said it would respond by 10 April 2023. It later provided its stage 2 response on 13 April 2023. This took 25 working days, which was 5 working days more than the timescales set out in the Code. The landlord’s handling of her escalation request understandably caused avoidable delays. It meant she had to wait longer than necessary for a response to her concerns. This was not appropriate.
29. During the complaint, the resident said the mould and damp damaged her belongings. The landlord gave her details of how to make a liability claim to its insurance team if she wished to. This advice was appropriate and also in line with its compensation policy. It could have also advised her to make a claim on her own contents insurance if she had this.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge any failures with its complaint handling in its complaint responses. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge what had gone wrong and to try to put things right. Given our findings, it should pay the resident £75 compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failings we have identified. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which caused a short-term impact.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.
33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

34. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples within this.
    2. Pay the £300 compensation offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay a further £725 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
       1. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould.
       2. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    4. Complete a damp and mould survey of the property. A member of its senior management or a surveyor should complete this to find a full diagnosis of possible causes. It should then write to the resident to confirm its findings and an action plan for any required repairs. This should be in writing and include appointment dates and details of the works required. It should provide a specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering weekly updates until it completes the required repairs.
35. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.