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

Longhurst Group Limited (202007558)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007558

Longhurst Group Limited

25 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 18 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It confirmed that it had investigated her reports of mould and condensation on numerous occasions. It said that her bungalow needed to be adequately heated, and ventilated to avoid the build up of condensation, as not doing so could lead to mould. It also said that it had not detected any damp in her property. It explained that the issues she continued to report had “already been looked at, investigated, and found not to be [its] responsibility to rectify”.
  3. On 25 June 2020 the resident reported that rain water was leaking into her property and causing damp. A contractor attended on 7 July to inspect the roof. The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor could “smell damp towards the back of the property in the two back room. Checked roof all fine no issues relating with the damp”.
  4. The resident rang the landlord on 14, and 23 July 2020. The landlord’s call notes show that the resident asked whether its contractor had raised any follow up work to address the damp.
  5. The landlord called the resident on 24 July 2020. Its call notes show that it explained that it would not attend for follow up work as it had “already shown the issue to be condensation and style of living”, and not damp. It explained ways to reduce condensation, and offered to send her a leaflet with further information.
  6. On 2, 3, and 15 September 2020 the resident rang the landlord to report damp. The landlord advised her that its contractor would attend on 1 October.
  7. The resident rang the landlord on 1 October 2020. The landlord’s call notes show that she confirmed that the contractor had attended that day. She explained that the contractor had said that there was damp everywhere. The landlord advised her that its contractor had left a note on its system which said: “I cannot see any damp, checked every room”.
  8. The resident contacted Environmental Services on 8 October 2020 to report damp. They visited the property on 16 October. Their records show that they found the property to be cold, but could not detect damp or mould. They advised the resident to turn on her heating, so her furniture did not feel cold and damp, and to reduce condensation. 
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord over the phone on 19 October 2020. The landlord’s call notes show that she was dissatisfied with its handling of her ongoing issue with damp and mould.
  10. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 10 November 2020. It said that it did not uphold her complaint as there was no evidence of damp or mould in her property. It explained that its contractors had attended multiple times, but had not found any damp or mould. It said that surveyors, and other members of its repairs team had also attended to take damp meter readings (it is unclear when exactly), but could not find any damp present. It reiterated Environmental Services’ findings. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 November 2020. She explained that a contractor had attended on 7 July and said he could smell damp. It is unclear what the remainder of her complaint was about.
  12. On 23 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident in writing that her complaint did not meet its criteria for a stage two investigation. It explained that her property was cold, and had condensation, but that there was no sign of damp or mould. It concluded by explaining how she could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s website has a page concerning mould and condensation. It sets out that the resident is responsible for ensuring their property is free from condensation and mould. It also says that if a resident believes they have damp rather than condensation, they should contact it. The landlord would then be expected to investigate such reports to determine what the issue was, and who would be responsible for it.
  2. There appears to be no dispute that there was condensation in the resident’s bungalow. The landlord explained to her on 18 June 2020 that condensation would consequently lead to mould and damp. It therefore advised her to heat, and ventilate her bungalow to reduce the build up.
  3. The landlord attended on 7 July 2020 to assess the resident’s roof, and noted that it could smell damp. It attended again on 1 October, and concluded that there was no damp present. Environmental Services also attended on 16 October. They did not detect damp or mould, but advised the resident of the importance of heating her home to reduce condensation.
  4. Despite multiple investigations, the landlord had not identified any evidence to show that there was a damp or mould problem. In the absence of such evidence, there were limited steps it could take to resolve the resident’s complaint. As explained above in paragraph 14, the resident is responsible for keeping her property free from condensation, and mould. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised her about how to reduce condensation. It managed her expectations about who was responsible for the issue, and as such its actions, and responses were reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord explained that it had not identified damp or mould in her home. It offered her relevant and pragmatic advice on how to reduce the build up of condensation.