One Manchester Limited (202205834)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205834

One Manchester Limited

13 November 2022

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 how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat. The resident occupied the property between 4 October 2021 and 1 August 2022, and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 December 2021 and requested to raise a complaint relating to the condition of the property. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The property was offered to him as emergency accommodation, but was not hot enough for his requirements as a result of his medical conditions.
   2. The kitchen was in a state of disrepair and “filthy” when he moved in.
   3. There was damp and mould in the property due to high humidity levels.
4. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord replace the kitchen and repair the damage caused by the high humidity, or to be rehoused.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Explained that the property was not offered as emergency accommodation. The property was offered and accepted by the resident, who terminated the tenancy of his previous property and signed a new tenancy for his current property.
   2. Noted that the resident viewed the property on 27 September 2021 and made no reference to the condition of the property when the tenancy was signed on 4 October 2021.
   3. Stated that it had received reports from the resident relating to issues with the kitchen fan, front door, kitchen flooring and kitchen door. These repairs were marked as resolved and had no record of any outstanding repairs.
   4. Confirmed that following a meeting with the resident held on 14 March 2021, it had agreed to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property and for a staff member to discuss what support it could offer the resident to maintain heating. It had also asked an outside agency to contact the resident to offer further support.
6. A landlord surveyor visited the property on 30 March 2021. They informed the landlord that they had found the property to be in “good condition, well-kept and reasonably clean” and found “some condensation which is evident as it had gathered on the windows in the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen”. The surveyor noted that the resident had removed the fuses and taped up the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom which, in their opinion had contributed to the amount of condensation. The surveyor raised work orders to complete a fungicidal mould wash in the bathroom and kitchen, and to add vents to the kitchen doors and cupboards to aid ventilation.
7. At the request of the resident, the landlord arranged to have an independent surveyor inspect the property and received a habitation condition survey report on 24 June 2022. The report found that the property to be in “a reasonable condition with the majority of building elements being in good order” and that “the existing ventilation and heating systems appear to be suitable and sufficient”. The report found “minor areas of mould growth” in the windows, poor insulation at the junctions of the floors and walls, and several minor defects. The report made several recommendations for remedial works to resolve the issues it highlighted. However, no further repair work was arranged while the resident was a tenant in the property. The resident gave notice to the landlord on 19 July 2022 and handed back the keys on 1 August 2022.
8. In referring the case to this Service, on 19 August 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues as the poor condition of the property. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord repay his expenses in running an air purifier and dehumidifier in the property, and the costs of staying in hotels due to the condition of the property. The resident has provided evidence of expenses totalling £1.310.62.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

9. Section 3 of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property including “windows, window catches, windowsills and frames; internal walls, floors and ceilings; and any Energy Efficiency System”.
10. The landlord’s repair policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Appointable” (attend within 20 working days or at a time convenient to the tenant) and “Major” (no timescale given). Appointable repairs are defined by the landlord as a repair that “does not cause or have the potential to cause immediate danger to a person or serious damage to a property”. Major repairs are defined by the landlord as “repairs which may require longer lead in times for supply of specialist items or where statutory consents and approvals may be required’’. In these cases, works would be carried out at a date and time agreed with the customer outside of the 20 day appointable repair category.
11. The repairs policy also sets out the responsibilities the tenant has for the maintenance of their property. This, in part, states that the landlord expects its tenants to “make the lifestyle changes necessary to resolve instances of condensation such as opening windows regularly, not drying washing on radiators or leaving extractor fans switched off. Where condensation is the likely cause of reported dampness, (the landlord) will advise customers of the action they need to take to deal with the problem and prevent further incidences in the first instance”.

Scope of investigation

12. In raising the complaint with the landlord and when bringing the case to this Service, the resident has described the adverse effect on his existing health conditions caused by the condition of the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

13. Once the landlord had been informed by the resident of his concerns with the condition of the property, it had a duty to respond in line with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately to the resident’s reports. In his original complaint, the resident highlighted the condition of the kitchen and stated that the property was offered to him as emergency accommodation. In its stage one response, the landlord summarised the events that led to the resident being offered and accepting the property, and the repair work it had completed since he had moved in.
14. The evidence provided supports the landlord’s position that the property was not offered as emergency accommodation. The tenancy agreement signed by the resident on 4 October 2021 is an assured non-shorthold tenancy granting the resident the occupancy of the property. The agreement does not state that the property was offered to the resident as an emergency or on a temporary basis.
15. The landlord has provided evidence that a new kitchen was installed in the property in May 2012 and was not due for renewal until 2032. Works to bring the kitchen up to the landlord’s lettable standard was marked as completed by the surveyor who inspected the property on 6 August 2021. Based on the advice given to it from its surveyor it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the residents request to replace the kitchen.
16. The resident’s escalation and post-complaint correspondence concerned the damp and mould and his request for his expenses to by covered by the landlord. In the stage two complaint response sent on 21 March 2022, the landlord stated that it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property.
17. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Therefore, once the landlord had been informed by the resident of the presence of mould, it was obligated to inspect the property and raise any necessary repair work to resolve the issue in a timely manner in line with its published policies and procedures.
18. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging an inspection of the property within its 20 working day window for appointable repairs. The surveyor informed the landlord that the property had condensation issues, which the resident had contributed to by disconnecting the extractor fans, and taping up the fans and air vents. The surveyor gave the resident advice on ventilating the property, in line with its repairs policy detailed above. The surveyor also recommended work to remove the mould in the bathroom and kitchen, and to add air vents to improve ventilation and remove consideration. These work orders were raised by the landlord on 31 March 2022.
19. The resident disputed these findings and requested that an independent surveyor inspect the property. The landlord agreed to the request and arranged for a surveyor to visit the property in June 2022. The landlord received the report on 24 June 2022. The report broadly supported the findings of the landlord’s surveyor, noting that the humidity levels recorded did not exceed 46.1% at the time of the inspection placing it in the HHSRS ‘ideal’ category range, but did make further recommendations to improve the insulation in the property.
20. No evidence has been provided which shows that the work recommended by the independent surveyor was raised by the landlord. However, as previously noted, the resident gave notice of leaving the property during the 20 working day window following receipt of the report. It should also be noted that some of the recommended work, including the work to improve insulation, would be considered major repairs and would not have been expected to be completed before the resident had moved out of the property.
21. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. When first informed of the issue, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the property and raised the recommended work within the timescale for appointable repairs. At the request of the resident the landlord then arranged for an inspection of the property by an independent surveyor. It was reasonable that the recommended work from the independent surveyor was not raised by the landlord as the resident moved out of the property shortly after the report was sent.
22. The resident has requested that the landlord reimburse him £1,310.62 for the cost of hotel stays due to the condition of the property and the costs of buying and running a dehumidifier and an air purifier. As part of a previous complaint the resident raised (which is not considered in this report) relating to the condition of electrical devices in the landlord property the resident lived in prior to 4 October 2021, the landlord did agree to cover the costs of the resident staying in a hotel while it investigated the matter.
23. The internal correspondence provided by the landlord stated that on 3 May 2022 it contacted the resident to arrange an appointment and was informed by the resident he was currently staying in a hotel. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 10 May 2022 requesting to be refunded for the cost of this, and previous, hotel stays.
24. There is no evidence that the resident requested reimbursement of his hotel expenses prior to his stays, that the landlord had agreed to this, or that this request was raised as part of the formal complaint. Moreover, both the landlord and the independent surveyor found the property to be in a habitable condition and made no recommendations that would have necessitated the resident to be moved out of the property or required the use of an air purifier or a dehumidifier. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the residents request of reimbursement.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.