Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited (202014550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014550

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

24 June 2021

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 complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 26 October 2020 to report that there was continuous severe damp and mould in her living room. She said that she had spent money on a dehumidifier which was collecting litres of water after just a few hours and that she cleaned the property constantly with special damp cleaning products. She added that she had to replace her sofa as the damp had ruined it.
On 10 November 2020, a surveyor attended the property following the resident’s reports of damp and mould and reported the following:
1. It was noted that the resident was using a portable clothes dryer in the kitchen which was leading to high moisture levels throughout the property. The resident was advised to close the kitchen door, open the window and use the kitchen extractor fan when using the dryer. She was also told to wipe down the windows if condensation was forming and keep the trickle vents open on each window.
2. The resident was also advised to always use pan lids and only use the minimum amount of water needed when cooking, to run the cold water before the hot water when bathing to reduce the amount of steam in the room, to never dry clothes on radiators and to dry washing outdoors or in the bathroom with windows open and the extractor fan on.
3. The landlord took moisture readings and found that there was a high level of humidity in the property, indicating that the damp was due to condensation. As a result of its findings, a work order was raised to upgrade the resident’s bathroom fan to a humidistat control fan, which was not solely controlled by the light switch and would regulate based on the humidity in the room.
The landlord’s records show that a contractor attended the property on 9 December 2020 and refurbished the two extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen.
On 9 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and copied her local MP into the email. She asked for a complaint to be raised and explained the following:
1. She did not feel that the surveyor who had attended on 10 November 2020 had completed a thorough inspection and expressed dissatisfaction that the damp had been blamed on her lifestyle. She confirmed that the only ventilation in her property, other than extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, were the windows. She could not keep the windows open at night as she lived on the ground floor.
2. She confirmed that she did not experience damp in the kitchen or bathroom but the surveyor had decided that the extractor fans in these rooms needed replacing. She had asked what could be done if the new extractor fans did not resolve the damp issue and had been told that there was “not much more” the landlord could do. She asked for a different surveyor to attend the property.
3. She expressed dissatisfaction that when she had called on 1 December 2020, the landlord had not been able to find the surveyors report and that she had not been informed about the course of action to be taken. She was also dissatisfied that a contractor who attended the property on 9 December 2020 reported that the extractor fans were in working order and did not need to be replaced. She asked the landlord to confirm the next course of action.
4. She explained that the walls in her living room and bedrooms were affected by damp and that this was ruining her soft furnishings. She also said that there was a large amount of condensation and mould around the windows in the property and the walls under the windowsills had damp patches. She said that she felt she was not taken seriously by the landlord and stated that the issues were affecting her family’s physical and mental health.
The resident’s MP sent an email to the landlord on 10 December 2020 and asked it to consider the resident’s concerns regarding damp and lack of ventilation in her property.
The landlord responded to the resident on 11 December 2020 and confirmed that it had asked a surveyor to make contact and arrange an appointment. It noted that this appointment might not be until January 2021. It asked the resident to make contact if she had not heard from the surveyor by 16 December 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 December 2020 and said that she did not accept January as an adequate timeframe and expressed dissatisfaction that she had not heard from the surveyor. She sent a further email the following day to confirm that an operative had attended on 16 December 2020 to inspect the wall and ceiling. She said that the operative informed her that the damage to her wall had been caused and exacerbated by the continuous damp issue. She expressed concern that these issues were now affecting the internal structure of the property.
The landlord responded on 17 December 2020 and confirmed that it had requested information from the surveyor team and said that it would confirm the outcome of the surveyor’s report from the visit on 16 December and provide a response. The resident responded on the same day and explained that she was confused by the landlord’s response. She said that the operative who had attended on 16 December 2020 was not a surveyor and the only surveyor visit had been on 10 November 2020.
The landlord provided a response to the resident on 17 December 2020. It noted that the surveyor who had visited the resident on 16 December 2020 had spoken to her at length. It continued to set out the surveyor’s findings and said that the surveyor who visited on 10 November 2020 had left the same report. It explained that the property did not have damp and there was no danger in the property, with no damage to the structure. It confirmed that there was condensation and advised the resident to cease using the portable clothes dryer, to wipe down all condensation on the windows, not to dry clothes on the radiators and to ensure pan lids were used when cooking. It said that the surveyor was going to arrange for an upgraded bathroom fan to be fitted which would react to the level of humidity in the property.
The landlord acknowledged the MP enquiry on 18 December 2020 and said that it would arrange for the repairs to be investigated.
On 23 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and said that it had answered her question in full and that there was nothing more it could do. It said that it had advised her very clearly, professionals had visited the property and their reports had been clear. It had reviewed the reports, asked for more information from the operatives about the damp in the property. It was satisfied that there was nothing more it could do. It confirmed that it was in the process of responding to the resident’s MP and that this was its final response to the complaint.
The landlord responded directly to the resident’s MP on 23 December 2020 and outlined the information it had provided to the resident on 17 December 2020.
The resident’s MP sent a further email to the landlord on 13 January 2021. The asked the landlord to confirm who attended the property on 16 December 2020 and the details of the surveyor report from this date. The MP explained that the resident was confused and worried as she did not believe that the operative who attended was at the property long enough to conduct a full survey.
The landlord responded to the MP on 11 February 2021 and apologised that the resident was not satisfied with the survey completed on 10 November 2020 by its surveyor. It confirmed that the issues the resident was experiencing were due to condensation and that she was provided with information on how to reduce this. It added that it had refurbished both extractor fans in the property to ensure they were working correctly. It had hoped to upgrade the bathroom fan but its operative had identified that it was not possible to fit this type of fan in the resident’s bathroom. It explained that the resident should follow the advice it had given, and if the condensation did not improve within a few months then the resident should let it know directly.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding family’s health conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her or her family’s health has been affected by the actions of the landlord or its contractors. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident would be responsible for preventing condensation and cleaning the windows and extractor fans. The landlord would be responsible for maintaining the structure of the property, including the plaster, as well as any ventilators or airbricks.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a surveyor to inspect the property following the resident’s report of ongoing damp on 26 October 2020. Having identified condensation to be the main cause of damp in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with advice on reducing this as the prevention of condensation was the resident’s responsibility. Although it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider whether there are any minor adaptations to the property such as fitting extractor fans or window vents which could be done to help reduce condensation.
It was reasonable for the landlord to look at the possibility of upgrading the extractor fans in the property. It is noted that the extractor fans were refurbished rather than upgraded on 9 December 2020 as the humidistat fans could not be installed in the bathroom. This was reasonable as this upgrade would be considered an improvement rather than a repair and the landlord would not be obliged to carry out this action. This is because the landlord is required to maintain the property but it is not required to carry out improvements.

Record keeping

In her complaint on 9 December 2020, the resident asked for a second surveyor to visit the property as the damp was still apparent following the surveyor’s recommendations on 10 November 2020 and she did not feel that the first surveyor’s visit took into consideration the possibility of structural damp and lack of ventilation in the property. Following this request, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for another survey on the basis that the damp was ongoing and the landlord should look at whether anything else could be done to help resolve the issue.
It is not disputed that an operative attended the resident’s property on 16 December 2020. The landlord has said that this was a second surveyor’s visit, however, the resident maintains that the contractor who attended said that they were not a surveyor, she also has expressed concern that this individual stayed for only a few minutes which was not enough time to fully inspect the property.
In conducting investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the incidents complained about to identify what took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint, including evidence of any surveyors’ visits. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as records of the contractor’s visit to the property on 16 December 2020 and details of the second survey on this date.
We would expect the landlord to have provided evidence of the second surveyor’s report to show that this was carried out as described or explained why it could not do so. This information would have allowed our investigation to check the landlord’s investigation findings and explanations. In the absence of such records, we cannot say that the evidence supports the landlord’s explanations of the actions it took and the decisions it made. The omission to provide this information was a service failure by the landlord as it impacts the Ombudsman’s overall assessment of its response to the resident’s concerns. It evidences poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
Due to the lack of evidence provided, we cannot confirm whether a survey was carried out on 16 December 2020. Even if the survey did take place on this date, it would be of limited use if the landlord cannot provide a record of it to either the Ombudsman or the resident. The purpose of the survey was to assess the damp at the resident’s property but this assessment is not valid if the results cannot be shared with all interested parties. As such, there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property and its record keeping. The landlord has not provided evidence of any action it has taken following the resident’s complaint on 9 December 2020 and has not demonstrated that it has considered the resident’s further concerns about structural damp and lack of ventilation in the property.
In view of this, the landlord should arrange a further damp survey of the property and provide a copy of the surveyor’s report to both the Ombudsman and the resident. The landlord should also offer the resident compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide information about the visit on 16 December 2020. It is recommended that the landlord consider the issues around record keeping identified in this investigation, and why it did not or could not provide the information it was asked for. If procedural or systemic causes are found it should consider how to ensure such problems do not arise again.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it has a two–stage complaints process. At stage one, the complaint should be acknowledged within two working days. The resident should be advised of the timescale for response, the name and contact details of the investigator, and given a unique case reference number. A response should be issued within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint can be escalated to stage two. At stage two, the review should be conducted by the director responsible for the service in question and the landlord should provide a written response within 20 working days.
There has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. In this case, the landlord has failed to register the resident’s complaint and has not acted in accordance with its complaints policy. Whilst the landlord has taken steps to respond to the resident and her MP, the resident’s complaint email was directed to the landlord on 9 December 2020 and should have been dealt with as such.
The landlord has not provided a satisfactory explanation why it did not follow its complaints policy. Furthermore, all correspondence between the resident and the landlord regarding her complaint was handled by a single member of staff. By not following its two-stage process, the landlord did not allow for a review at a more senior level (e.g. Director), which may have brought a wider perspective and level of expertise to the complaint. This could have also ensured full consideration of both sides of the complaint and an opportunity to learn from outcomes.
The landlord has also failed to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint including her concerns about potential structural damp and her questions about the visit on 16 December 2020. The evidence shows that on 13 January 2021, the resident’s MP asked specifically about the second survey on 16 December 2020, however, the landlord did not refer to this in its response. This was not appropriate as it did not attempt to respond to questions it had been asked as part of the complaint.
The landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused due to errors in its complaint handling. It should also complete a case review of this complaint to establish points of learning and provide its findings to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

It was reasonable for the landlord to initially give advice to the resident about preventing condensation in her property as condensation would be the resident’s responsibility to manage, in line with the Tenancy Agreement. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that shows that a second survey was completed as agreed and it had investigated the resident’s further concerns about the ongoing damp in her property.
The landlord has not fully addressed the complaint in its correspondence with the resident and her MP and has failed to act in line with its complaints policy. By failing to follow its two-stage complaint process, the landlord has not effectively reviewed its initial response or fully considered the questions which had been asked.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused because of its unsatisfactory record keeping and handling of the associated complaint.
2. The landlord is to complete a further damp survey of the property. A copy of the surveyor’s report should be sent to both the Ombudsman and the resident.
Within eight weeks, the landlord is to complete a case review of this complaint to identify points of learning. A copy of this should be sent to both the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers the issues around record keeping identified in this investigation to determine why it did not, or could not, provide the information it was asked for. If procedural or systemic causes are found it should consider how to correct these issues to ensure such problems do not arise again.