Aster Group Limited (202203561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203561

Aster Group Limited

31 March 2023

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 is about the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs to the property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with a housing association which commenced on 28 October 2019. The property is a two bedroom semi-detached house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s systems.
This Service has seen records of various repairs reported by the resident between February and December 2020. It is noted from the evidence that there was some interaction between the landlord and resident regarding these matters and that she requested rehousing due to her growing concerns about the condition of the property.
From the evidence seen, the resident first raised this matter as a formal complaint to the landlord on 8 December 2021. This investigation will therefore focus on events raised and addressed through the complaints process from January 2021.
It is also noted from the evidence that the landlord applied discretion in responding to various other issues including concerns about the original mutual exchange application in 2019. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident previously reported any concerns within a reasonable period of moving into the property. These matters will not form part of this investigation.
This is because resident’s are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The Service notes the resident’s comments regarding her health and the impact caused by the delays during the course of her complaints. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.

Policy and procedural documents

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will repair the structure and exterior of the property (including drains, gutters and external pipes). It will repair and keep in proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation. It will repair reported faults in line with its timescales and award compensation if it does not complete certain repairs on time.
It aims to attend:
1. emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. urgent repairs within five working days .
3. Routine repairs within 20 working days.
It has a legal requirement to inspect all gas appliances and flues within the home that it has installed. Residents are required to allow access every 12 months for the inspection to be carried out and failure to do so will result in court action being taken. Resident’s must allow its officers access to enter the property, after it has given them 24 hours’ notice, to inspect or carry out works to the property.
It has a two stage complaints handling process where it aims to acknowledge complaints received within two working days and:
1. respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days
2. respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
Its compensation policy allows for discretionary payments for a failure of service when a complaint has been received and the failure has been accepted. It will look to provide financial or other settlement in recognition of loss or disadvantage to the resident. All claims for injury or ill health will be dealt with through a personal injury claim in consultation with its insurers and not through its complaints or compensation procedure.

Summary of events

On 13 January 2021, the landlord’s repairs log notes that it recorded reports from the resident regarding her front and back door. She said that they were allowing in air and that she was struggling with heat loss. It noted her concerns about the front door, which she advised let in water, insects and that her letterbox was also missing. Other concerns noted were that she frequently struggled to lock and unlock the door, as the door seemed stiff. It arranged an appointment for 21 April 2021.
On 28 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord expressing her concerns about the repairs in the property. She explained that:
1. her son is allergic to mould and they would not be able to stay in the property due to its continued growth.
2. It was impossible to sleep properly due to noise and the property’s inability to contain heat for long.
3. The unpredictable movement of the house causes the front door to become jammed on certain occasions.
4. She said this was a fire hazard and that it had already been reported to the landlord on many occasions.
5. The issues cannot be fixed long term as she had pointed out that the foundation of the house was problematic, which is evidenced not only by what was happening in the house, but also by the fact that the foundation had had work done on it before and had been pinned.
6. Repairs requested are not completed with covid being used as an excuse.
The landlord responded the same day and advised that it was currently only carrying out emergency repairs due to the national lockdown, but that any repairs raised will be attended to once restrictions were lifted. It said it had taken this decision to protect its staff and customers. It explained that from the information supplied by its surveyor who had visited, it had not identified any issues with the foundation of the house or have any concerns that there could be future problems, or that it had been underpinned previously.
It asked what made her think there had been work on the foundations of the house as it believed the property to be sound and the cracks were not indicative of any problems with the foundation. It advised that applying through the local authority is the most appropriate way to be re-housed. It offered to provide a letter to them in support of the resident’s application.
The resident responded the same day and asked the landlord for an official definition of what it classifies as emergency repairs (implemented due to covid this year). The landlord responded that it was not aware of any list that can be circulated, but that it is partly based on the individual and any vulnerabilities which can be assessed when repairs are raised. It said as a guide it deemed emergency to be:
1. Any defect or situation that has the potential to endanger life or limb, cause major damage to the dwelling or affect a large number of customers.
2. Any defect that puts the health, safety or security of the customer or third party at immediate risk or adversely affects the structure of the property and may well consist initially of make safe only. Normally a single dwelling.
3. Any repair / defect that can wait until the next working day, rather than raising a 24 hour emergency job. Examples include total loss of heating and hot water during winter months and a beeping smoke alarm.
On 2 February 2021, the landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident following its review of the photos provided of mould in the property. It explained that the best way forward was to make arrangements to drop some data loggers to record the temperature and humidity readings in the property the following week. It noted that the resident explained that there was another issue as the gas had been isolated the previous night by the emergency gas service company following a gas leak (potentially a split in the flue). It noted the resident’s concerns of being subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning and making her ill. The landlord noted that it made attempts to explain that arrangements had been raised for its gas engineers to attend within 24 hours, but that the resident stated that she would move out as she was not prepared to stay in an unsafe property and terminated the call.
The emergency gas services company wrote to the resident on 11 March 2021, stating that it was about a telephone call received from her on 4 February 2021. It noted in the letter that a first call operative attended her property on 1 February 2021, following her telephone call to the national gas emergency telephone line to carry out mandatory safety checks. It said the engineer carried out a tightness test, which is used to identify if a leak is present and used a sensitive piece of gas detection equipment and observed that multiple escapes of gas were located. It said the engineer made the property safe by isolating the supply of gas at her meter outlet, left appropriate paperwork and advised her to contact a Gas Safe registered (GSR) engineer to investigate this matter further.
The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 12 March 2021, noted that it had previously visited the resident’s property and found the gas boiler to be working correctly and that it was not producing high levels of carbon monoxide. It deemed it fit for use and reinstated it. It noted that the resident was informed of this, but that she was adamant that its engineer had done something to the boiler flue terminal outside, so she told him to leave. It said despite the assurance provided, that the boiler was back on and safe to use, the resident still believed that the boiler was unsafe and that she had not used it for the last six weeks.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2021 and noted that it was responding to an earlier email from her. It said following its inspection of the boiler on 3 February 2021, it was satisfied that that there were no issues with the gas boiler and that it was found to be working correctly and not producing carbon monoxide. It was deemed safe to use reinstated. It noted that her gas cooker was found to be producing high levels of carbon monoxide, so it was isolated and a warning notice raised.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and asked it to refer to the letter from the emergency gas repairs company which noted “multiple escapes” and not just the cooker issue. She expressed fears about using the boiler and said she was managing fine so far without gas.
The landlord informed the resident on 16 March 2021, that it had decided that it would send another engineer to double check her concerns about the boiler.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord recorded reports received from the resident regarding ongoing issues with her windows. It noted her concerns that two windows in the back bedroom were not sitting correctly on the frames causing draughts to come through even when they were fully closed. An appointment was made for 14 July 2021.
The landlord noted the resident’s reports of condensation and mould on 30 November 2021. It noted that she was unable to use her living due to a bad smell, mould and fungi making her ill. Other concerns noted included subsidence and issues with the boiler.
On 5 December 2021, the landlord’s repair records noted that the resident made an out of hours call reporting that a piece of her boiler had dropped from underneath. It noted that the resident said it contained a warning label and that she was too frightened to touch it. It arranged for an officer to call and reassure the resident and it booked an appointment to inspect the boiler on 6 December 2021.
On 8 December 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. Below is a summary of the issues raised in the correspondence:
1. Complaint about the standard of living in the home which is very poor due to the lack of repairs to the home boiler, windows, front door, which had been inadequate for two years.
2. no acknowledgement of the subsidence which has contributed to the effect on how she uses her home, her mental and physical health and her ability to continue to live there.
3. She had regularly been unable to heat her home due to the 20 year old boiler not being replaced. It had repeatedly broken down over a two year period and needs replacing. Her most recent callout regarding heating resulted in a five day wait and the out of hours emergency service did not turn up nor call back.
4. She has been unable to contain heat in her home due to the lack of seal to the front door and windows due to the subsidence movement in the house, and the fact that every double glazed glass pane is popped.
5. She was infected with fungus from the invisible mould that grows inside the house due to the heating issues, confirmed by the landlord’s surveyor.
6. It had also destroyed her personal belongings and she has had to treat her new pet for the exposure too. She would like compensation for the expenses incurred.
7. She would like repairs carried out to the windows, front and back door, as they were not fit for use and were not secured to the house.,
8. She wants compensation for the loss of her soft furnishings, the inability to use all of her home (living room is regularly smelling of sewage), medications and vet and to be compensated for the two years of distress and trauma of living in a house with dangers and disrepair.
9. She would like a new home free from the growth of mould and fungus because they cannot get rid of the infections whilst living in it or compensated for the loss of her home and tenancy.
10. She was given a false start swapping into the home, which has affected her very negatively.
The landlord’s repairs log noted that the resident reported that her boiler failed the same day. It recorded that she was packed up and ready to move via a mutual exchange, but that it fell through. She reported that there was water at the bottom of every window and that she was insistent that the house was subsiding as there was cracking around the UPVC windows and external doors. It advised her that these were minor movement between the wall & the UPVC.
The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 9 December 2021, noted that it discussed the issues raised by the resident. It noted that the property was built in 2008 so the gas boiler was 13 years old not 20. It said the gas boiler had had a few repairs over the last few years, but that this has been down to the user rather than appliance. It noted that the resident did not like gas and had previously requested an upgrade to electric NSH. It said she was advised that this would not be an option. It further said that its gas engineer attended the previous day along with the landlord’s surveyor. It noted that a minor repair was made and that the boiler was left on and working, but there were other major parts identified that would need replacing going forward. It said its engineer reported that the resident had lost confidence in the gas boiler and that the surveyor was also going to recommend a boiler renewal due to damp. It agreed to renew the boiler and arranged the instalment for 22 December 2021.
The landlord’s complaints team noted that it had a discussion with the resident on 10 December 2021. It sent an email to the relevant staff advising that the resident remained unhappy with the other issues in the property. It noted from its conversation with the resident that she was not happy with the length of time it had taken to renew the boiler and that heat will continue to escape due the previously unresolved issues resulting in high heating costs.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It advised her that her case had been assigned to a principle surveyor. It also set a task on its system to contact the resident by 15 December 2021, and to respond to the complaint by 4 January 2022.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord’s records show the contact centre received a message from the resident stating that she had cancelled her appointments. Its principal surveyor however, stated that he had confirmed arrangements to visit the resident on 5 January 2022 and that he was not aware of any cancellations.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord’s principal surveyor noted that he had spoken to the resident and that she had asked for her complaint to be closed. Its complaints team wrote to the resident the same day for clarification and the resident confirmed that she no longer wished to pursue the complaint as it would be pointless.
The resident responded on 20 January 2022 and asked the landlord to re-instate her original complaint.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord noted that the resident reported that all the windows in the property were letting in huge drafts and that the property was freezing cold all the time even with the heating on. It noted that the resident said the front and back doors let in draught and that the conditions in the property were making her very sick. It arranged appointment to visit the property for 9 February 2022.
On 25 January 2022, the landlord’s complaints team sent an email to the principal surveyor stating that the resident had sent an email asking for her complaint to be continued. The landlord re-opened her original complaint and it amended the response date to 8 February 2022. It also wrote to the resident and notified her that it had appointed a case manager to look into her complaint and respond by 8 February 2022.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s principal surveyor sent an email to the relevant staff stating that he had sent an email to the resident with a view to visit on 4 February 2022.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord’s mechanical engineer wrote to the relevant staff stating:
1. On 3 December 2021 the resident reported carbon monoxide issues and a leak from the boiler. An appointment was booked in for 8 December 2021.
2. On 5 December 2021, the resident raised an out of hours request as the appointment was taking too long, She expressed some concern as there was something that had dropped off the bottom of the boiler. The engineer did not attend but it made arrangements to reassure the resident that it would not be anything serious as it was just a plastic cover that had dropped down. It noted that it was not necessary to attend as the resident had hot water and heating. A planned visit was agreed for 8 December 2021.
3. During the visit of 8 December 2021, the engineer found no carbon monoxide activation and found a slight drip from the water matrix from the boiler. The boiler was working when the engineer arrived and he left the property with the boiler working. The surveyor advised the resident that he would recommend that a new boiler be installed because she had lost confidence in the boiler.
4. On 15 December 2021, the resident asked the landlord to cancel her appointments and that she would re-arrange them when she felt better.
5. During the week commencing 17 January 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advised she wished to re-book the boiler installation. She was offered 2 February 2022 which she accepted.
6. They believe that the boiler had been working throughout and that the resident had been scared and lost confidence in it. Since she moved in, she had only reported minor issues.
The resident wrote to the landlord’s complaints team the same day stating that:
1. She will have a visit from its principal surveyor on 4 February 2022 and noted that some key points of the complaint raised had not been mentioned.
2. She had picked up ringworm fungus upon moving into the property two years ago, which grows in there due to the heating problems.
3. She had not been able to re-home her new pet and it is also now causing a problem for her sons job as he also had the rash for nearly a year thinking it was an allergy.
On 7 February 2022, the complaints team wrote to the resident and requested an extension of the stage one complaint to 21 February 2022.
On 18 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident. Below are the key points in the response:
1. Boiler – It had acted quickly to reports of issues with the boiler which had been working throughout and had been confirmed on various visits. It apologised for its late response to on 3 December 2021, which it should have attended as an emergency repair. It attended on 8 December 2021 and found no concerns but it agreed to replace the boiler after this visit and completed the works on 22 December 2022.
2. Blown double glazed units – During its inspection on 4 February 2022, it was unable to identify any double-glazed units which had blown. It noted that general repairs had been reported by the resident regarding the windows but it found no evidence that any blown units were reported to. It did not agree that there had been a service failure in respect of this.
3. Front door and windows – During its inspection the engineer was able to lock the front door and it did not identify any major draughts around the windows. It agreed to arrange a full service and MOT of the windows and doors at her home. It also asked the contractor to clear the drainage holes which had been covered over in silicone and clear the front door threshold. It agreed that there was a point of possible area of water ingress to the letter box at the time of their visit. It advised the resident to report any issues with the window and front door locks if the issue persisted.
4. Black mould due to inadequate heating – During its visit it was only to able to identify small areas of mould within the property. It advised it would continue to work with her to resolve this. To assist with monitoring the thermal performance of her home, it would ensure that hygrometers and recording sheets were left so she can keep a recording of these for a two-week period. Once it had reviewed this data it will discuss and write to her and provide an analysis of the data recorded. It noted that the resident mentioned during the visit that she heats the property when it’s cold, rather than keeping the property heated throughout the day by the room stat. It advised that heating in this manner will lead to sudden temperature changes causing condensation to form on colder surfaces. It noted that the fan in her bathroom was also switched off at the time of the survey and it advised that this fan should be left on permanently.
5. Actions agreed were:
  1. Overhaul MOT and service of windows,
  2. Overhaul MOT of front door and patio door.
  3. rake out and renew silicon to kitchen window,
  4. renew silicon around kitchen patio door,
  5. clear drainage holes of silicone to front door and ensure threshold is clear of dirt,
  6. new front door letter box, re-bed airbrick, re-point to brick work low level behind gas meter,
  7. trade operative inspection to take floor,
  8. level 1 condensation and mould survey to be booked,
  9. rake out and re-point RHS of patio door.
6. It concluded that there was one service failure in relation to the logging of the gas repair to the boiler and offered £50 compensation for this.
On 1 March 2022, the resident sent her review request to the landlord and also provided a breakdown of costs incurred during her tenancy. The key issues raised in the stage two complaint are noted below:
1. On 4 February 2021, her boiler was declared dangerous by the emergency gas response company but the landlord’s engineer attended and stated that the boiler and flue were fine with no problems contradicting the previous advice. She decided not to use the boiler which meant she had no heating and hot water for weeks.
2. The boiler continued to present problems with heating and hot water even using it minimally, all of which required an engineer to come out due to water leaking from the bottom, which she had to clear up before engineers got there.
3. The flue management kit had been effective, however the neighbouring households gas flue has still not been adjusted to the same measure, with fumes still stretching across the patio area and entering her household in the same manner.
4. Blown double glazed units – She did not accept the landlord’s findings that she did not report any blown units. She reported this repair twice and sent pictures of the water and misting evidence but she did not receive a reply on both occasions. There is also a poor seal regarding sound coming from the back bedroom windows which was not resolved by tightening the handles. This has caused her unnecessary discomfort and stress and anxiety about the safety of her home and its contents, and unnecessary financial costs with regards to energy and potentially contributing to mould and fungus in the house.
5. Front door and windows – During her entire tenancy, she had called contractors to fix the problem with no resolution. She has experienced intermittent inability to lock and unlock the front door and this is because the frame of the door shifts, which results in the jamming of the mechanism into the frame, and the door into the frame itself. She wants the problem rectified as soon as possible.
6. In the first instance back in early 2020, the air vent gaps beneath the front door step to the house were siliconed over by an operative and this is considered a failure. The operative was responding to the report of insects and water coming into the house, and the intermittent inability to lock and unlock the front door entirely.
7. The landlord disregarded evidence of water damage through water leakage coming in from outside and said it is condensation. It did not consider the replacement of the front door and it’s frame as an option to resolve the various problems experienced by the door’s state of disrepair.
8. She reported the letterbox repair on 13 January 2021. It only acknowledged the damage to the letterbox, but not the duration of time it had taken to get this small part of the problem repaired. The broken letterbox, leaking of water, insects, heating, and inability to use her front door and secure her home on an intermittent basis has caused considerable distress to her and her family.
9. Black mould due to inadequate heating and poorly insulated windows/doors – She had shown the landlord some areas which were stained, including the upstairs carpets where subsidence of the house was part indicated, and the small areas in the bathroom in which it was trying to grow in the lesser used room.
10. The landlord should respond to concerns about fungus and subsidence as it had omitted it from its response. These issues have caused her and her family including her pet considerable amount of harm and suffering over a prolonged duration of time.
11. She had had to remove new furnishings damaged by fungus. Without resolution, the exposure to fungus continues, and the potential to lose her tenancy entirely is high..
On 4 March 2022, the resident asked the landlord change her appointment as she was unwell.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two complaint on 8 March 2022 and advised that it would respond by 29 March 2022.
On 11 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding various works pending. It asked her to confirm a suitable date for it to attend and start the following works.
1. re-bed and repoint brickwork
2. overhaul doors, windows and many other repairs and improvements that needed to be carried out, which she was aware of.
The resident responded on 14 March 2022 that appointments were to be cancelled indefinitely, as she was unwell and that she would contact the landlord to rearrange the appointment at a convenient time.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. The key findings are listed below:
1. Heating – A gas engineer attended on 3 February 2021 when the boiler had been capped the night before. The engineer uncapped the gas meter and carried out a full tightness test on the gas pipework and fumes investigation on the boiler and cooker and found that there was no gas leak within the property. The engineer carried out a fume’s investigation on the gas boiler and found the boiler readings acceptable.
2. On inspection of the flue externally, he found a defective flue collar which had no bearing on the results of the boiler test, as the flue was cemented internally.
3. The emergency engineer did not carry out a full and comprehensive check on both appliances, as its own engineer found that the gas cooker was the appliance at fault. As a result, she asked the engineer to leave. The boiler was left working but the cooker was capped. An internal decision was made on the 16 March 2021, to send a different gas engineer on 18 March 2021 to carry out checks on the gas pipework and appliances. The engineer found no performance issues with the gas pipework or the boiler, but they suggested that the external decorative weather collar should be replaced. On 1 April 2021, another gas engineer returned to fit the external flue collar.
4. On 16 July 2021 a gas engineer attended to carry out a fumes investigation following on from a report by the gas emergency services. It noted that the emergency engineer had identified the issue as AR (At Risk), but that if there were fumes entering the property they would have classed the situation as ID (Immediately dangerous). Its engineer could not find any issues with the gas pipework or the gas boiler.
5. Although the resident advised its engineer that the emissions from the boiler entered the extractor fan and kitchen window and also came across the patio, it found no evidence at the time of this happening. It said the boiler was installed to the manufacturers’ instructions but due to her concerns, the engineer ordered a plume management system.
6. The boiler had been installed for approximately 13 years and there had not been an issue previously. It said an appointment to install the plume management kit was booked for 21 July 2021, but the resident cancelled it due to illness. The appointment was rescheduled for 11 August 2021. It said the boiler was serviced on 29 October 2021 and that it had been serviced regularly before that where no issues were identified. It noted that following on from the emergency gas engineer’s visits no major issues were found with the gas supply or the gas boiler, with the exception of the cooker which was isolated by its own engineer. It noted that the emergency gas engineer did not flag up this issue.
7. An engineer attended on 1 December 2021 in response to the resident’s report on 30 November 2021, of intermittent issues with the boiler. He was unable to find a fault with the system and it noted that the resident at this point asked if her heating could be upgraded to electric.
8. An engineer attended the property on 8 December 2021, to investigate concerns in response to the resident’s report of a leak on 3 December 2021. She had called in to report a water leak and that the boiler had been isolated by the suppliers. The engineer found that the gas was not isolated and that there was no paperwork left by the supplier. He found a slight water leak below the boiler on the mains supply, as a surveyor was also on site and he suggested that a new boiler should be installed as she had lost all faith with the gas boiler.
9. Following the conversation, a new boiler installation was booked in for 22 December 2021 but the appointment was cancelled at her request. The resident called in towards the end of January 2022 and an appointment was booked in for 2 February 2022 to replace the boiler.
10. Blown Double Glazed windows – It had checked the repairs history and it was unable to locate any reports after its visit on the 4 February 2022 relating to blown double glazed units. It said blown or misted double glazed units will not affect the security or the thermal performance of the unit and are purely cosmetic. It noted that during the surveyor’s visit he did not identify any blown units, however he did arrange for an MOT and service of the windows and doors. It advised that an appointment date was booked for 13 April 2022 for this work on a 60-day priority, but the resident asked for this to be cancelled. It asked her confirm when she wishes for this work to be undertaken. It further said that it would re-assess the blown units during this visit.
11. Front door lock and draughts – Its records confirm that a number of reports were received from the resident relating to the stiff door lock. It said the most recent report was in April 2021, where the door was still stiff, but secure. When the surveyor visited on the 4th February 2022 the lock was working but it was still slightly stiff. He also looked into the draughts around the doors and windows at the same time. It said a full MOT and service had been booked in as above. Any resulting repairs will be booked in following this visit.
12. It explained that during the inspection of the previous repair carried out to the door, the surveyor noticed that the threshold drainage holes had been filled with mastic, which is unacceptable and should not have been done. It said the surveyor also felt that the draughts were coming from around the letter box and that it would be replaced. It found signs of water penetration here as there was water marks down the door, internally. As a result of the poor workmanship to the door, it upheld this part of the complaint and offered £100 in compensation for the poor repair.
13. Mould within the property – It had looked at the photographs its surveyor had taken and could see minimal amounts of mould on wall surfaces. It had arranged to visit to commence its level 1 damp and mould survey on 30 March 2022, to place hygrometers in the property to record readings, but the resident asked it to cancel the appointment. It subsequently arranged another appointment for 13 April 2022, but recent correspondence with its planning team noted the resident had cancelled this appointment. It had therefore not been unable to confirm a date to return to carry out further investigations regarding the damp and mould within her home. It noted the resident’s request to cancel this appointment indefinitely, but it advised that it was keen to investigate further as the survey would identify whether there is a building defect and what the cause of the mould and fungus is. The resident was advised to make contact with the surveyor to rearrange the appointment.
14. Subsidence – It considered the photographs that it had taken and could see that there were some cracks to both the internal elevations of the property. It said it was not unusual to experience some superficial cracking inside the property, especially if the property is quite new, as this happens when the plaster dries out particularly around the plasterboard leading to some thermal movement. It noted examples of this in the photos and said these were not problematic. It said it however wished to re-assess these cracks, both internally and externally when it undertakes its Level 1 survey. The resident was asked to confirm a convenient date.
15. Compensation for damaged items due to mould and fungus – until it has undertaken a full pathology survey of the property to ascertain what is causing the mould and fungus, it is unable to offer any compensation for damaged items because it has not found a building defect. If following its investigations, it finds that the cause of the mould is as a result of an issue caused by them it will revisit this decision.
16. It is unable to agree that there has been a service failure regarding the damp and mould as a full pathology survey is required and at this point the visible level of mould is minimal. It will investigate further to see whether there is a building defect. It confirmed an offer of £100 for the poor repairs carried out to the door. This was in addition to the £50 it had already been offered at stage one.
17. In relation to the further survey regarding condensation and mould, it would keep this appointment open until 30 March 2022.

Post complaint process

The resident responded the same day upon receiving the response, that she was dissatisfied with the outcome and that she would take the matter further with this Service. The landlord responded to the resident and provided information on the next steps for pursuing her complaint.
On 29 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she would accept the offer of £150 and she provided her bank details. She informed it that compensation offer was not adequate for the issues, so she would escalate the complaint to this Service.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2022 and confirmed four visits for various works including inspection Level 1 survey (condensation and mould), brickwork and electrical works to take place on 27 April 2022.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord’s internal correspondence note that it was unable to gain access for the works and it further discussed the possibility of getting its neighbourhoods team to assist with access. It corresponded with the relevant staff to confirm the appointment once booked, and write to the resident advising that they must allow access for works in the with their tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs log shows it was able to gain access on 1 June and 20 June 2022. It completed the level 1 property inspection and installed data loggers.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

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, 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.

Heating and Boiler Repairs

This Service has seen evidence of actions and steps that the landlord took, regarding various reports made by the resident, concerning the safety and other issues with the boiler over several months. On 3 February 2021, it responded to the resident’s concerns about a gas leak on 2 February 2021, following the gas isolation by the gas emergency response service on 1 February 2021. This is appropriate and in line with its repairs policy for attending to emergency repairs.
The evidence shows that following its inspection of the boiler on 3 February 2021, it had no concerns about its safety and deemed it safe for use with the exception of the cooker which it isolated for emitting high levels of carbon monoxide. The resident however disagreed and said she did not use the boiler for six weeks as she did not feel it was safe. It is clear that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s engineer and that she felt the advice it offered contradicted the findings of the emergency gas response engineer. The landlord is however entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff in how it approaches and resolves repairs.
In response to further concerns raised by the resident about the safety of the boiler, the landlord sent another engineer to inspect it on 18 March 2021. They found no performance issues with the appliance. This demonstrates that the landlord listened to her concerns and took extra precaution to ascertain that there were indeed no issues regarding the boiler and that it was safe to use. The landlord’s actions are considered reasonable. It satisfied itself in responding to the resident’s concerns about the safety of the boiler and deemed it safe to use.
The landlord responded to a further report from the resident that the gas emergency services had attended her property and detected a safety issue on 16 July 2021. It attended her property the same day and determined following an assessment that there were no issues with the gas pipework or the boiler. It decided to replace flue along with a plume kit on 11 August 2021 though it did not deem the works necessary. We consider the landlord’s actions here to be reasonable, as it demonstrated that it was willing to go the extra mile to ensure the resident has peace of mind whilst living in the home.
The landlord’s repair records show that it serviced the boiler on 29 October 2021, in compliance with its repair policy to ensure it is serviced annually. The landlord in its stage two response apologised for its failure to respond on time to the resident’s reports of a water leak and carbon monoxide issues made known to its service on 3 December 2021. It did not attend the property on 8 December 2021 even though the resident had called back on 5 December 2021 expressing her concerns about the delays. This is not appropriate as this was classed as an emergency appointment, which should have been attended within 24 hours. It acknowledged this failure in its stage one response and offered the resident £50 in compensation. This Service is satisfied with the redress offered by the landlord.
The landlord attended on 8 December 2021, and noted that it had found no carbon monoxide issues, but found a slight water leak. It decided at this point to renew the boiler and said that it took this action because the resident had lost faith in the boiler. This showed that the landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and went above the requirements set out in its repairs policy. Although it clarified to the resident that the boiler was 13 years old, installed when the property was built, it showed good practice in agreeing to change the boiler.
The landlord’s overall handling of her reports about repairs to the boiler were reasonable. It responded promptly to reports received from the resident, ensured that any safety concerns were investigated and it completed works on occasion that it did not feel were entirely necessary. It acknowledged when it had failed and offered appropriate redress for this and demonstrated that it learnt from this in the further handling of the complaint and took steps to address the resident’s concerns around losing confidence in the appliance in providing a long term solution to this.

Windows Front and back door locks

The landlord arranged an appointment for 21 April 2021 to investigate the resident’s concerns reported in January 2021, about her doors but it is unclear from the evidence seen if the appointment was attended and if any works were completed. She followed up the matter in an email to the landlord on 28 January 2021, but it responded that it was only carrying out emergency repairs due to the national lockdown. The resident had expressed concerns about intermittent issues she had experienced with entering and exiting the property and that it was a fire hazard. The concerns reported by the resident aligns with the description in its policy of an emergency repair, such as any defect that puts the health, safety or security of the customer or third party at immediate risk or adversely affects the structure of the property. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not class this repair as urgent, at least, to inspect the door and resolve any immediate repairs needed.
Regarding the windows, it arranged appointments to visit the property on 9 February 2021 and on 14 July 2021, in response to reports made by the resident on 21 January and 15 April 2021 respectively. It is unclear from the evidence if the appointments were attended, but the resident did not specifically raise concerns about non-attendance or cancellations. The UK was under national lockdown between January and May 2021 and it had previously explained to the resident that it was only dealing with emergency repairs. It is therefore understandable that it would not have been able to attend these repairs within its normal timescales of 20 working days set out in its repairs policy. The landlord’s actions here are considered reasonable.
The evidence shows that no further reports about the doors and windows were made until 8 December 2021, when the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord. The landlord arranged an inspection of the doors and windows on receiving the complaint, and it determined that there was no fault or major draughts. It however arranged some maintenance works and advised the resident to report any further issues with the doors.
On reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord arranged appointments to investigate the resident’s concerns about her windows and doors. This Service has not been provided records of the works completed and confirmation of the visits, or any evidence that the resident reported any further concerns until December 2021, when she submitted a formal complaint. Since receiving the complaint, the landlord has arranged a survey, agreed works and confirmed appointments with the resident to get these works completed. It also acknowledged in its stage two response that it had previously carried out an unsatisfactory repair to the door in 2020 and it offered £100 for the poor repair. The landlord’s actions are considered appropriate.
The landlord’s overall response to these reports of repairs by the resident is therefore reasonable. It is noted that the resident requested repairs to her doors and windows in January and April 2021, for which the landlord offered appointments to attend to the repairs. There was a long period from the appointment date in April 2021 till December 2021, when the resident made a formal complaint. Whilst we have not seen evidence of actions taken by the landlord or further contact by the resident between this period, it is clear that the landlord responded appropriately when the resident re-visited the matter through her formal complaints.

Subsidence

The evidence shows that the resident had made historical reports about the safety of the property. In response to her email of January 2021, it advised the resident that its surveyor had not identified any issues with the foundation of the property. From the information made available to this Service, the resident did not report any further concerns until 30 November and December 2021, when she submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s complaint policy notes that residents are expected to raise complaints within six months of them becoming aware of an event. It is reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident had no further concerns about this repair, as she did report any concerns about subsidence for many months, until she raised the matter as a formal complaint. In its stage two complaint response, it explained that it is not unusual to experience some superficial cracking inside the property if it is new, but it also arranged an appointment with the resident to conduct a survey to investigate the matter further. The actions taken by the landlord is appropriate.

Damp and Mould

In response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould in February 2021, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to investigate the matter. It advised her on 2 February 2021 that it would need to arrange to drop some data loggers to record the temperature and humidity readings in the property. The landlord noted that the resident did not wish to pursue this option and that she terminated the call. From the information made available to this Service, no further reports or concerns were recorded, by the landlord, from the resident regarding damp or mould until 30 November 2021. It is noted from the evidence that it was unable to pursue its investigation of the damp and mould because the resident did not accept the resolution offered. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns is reasonable.
Following the resident’s reports received in November 2021, it booked an appointment for 8 December 2021 to wash down minor mould on the back bedroom ceiling. It had also since arranged appointments to investigate the condition of the property. Since issuing its stage two response, it has been able to access the resident’s property on 1 June 2021, to investigate the repairs further. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports is therefore considered appropriate. Residents are expected to report repairs to the landlord, in a timely manner as soon as they are aware of it. The evidence shows that the landlord had taken appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould when she re-visited the concern in the latter part of 2021. It is clear from the evidence seen that it was unable to act sooner as the resident did not wish to pursue the matter when it previously suggested a possible remedy. The landlord’s response to this repair is therefore appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the property.

Reasons

The landlord took appropriate steps in addressing the resident’s reports about the outstanding repairs to the property. It undertook works to reassure the resident regarding her safety concerns, even when it did not feel they were necessary.
It made reasonable adjustments outside the parameters of its repairs policy demonstrating that it applied a person centred approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns around the boiler and her loss of confidence in the appliance.
It acknowledged it failed to attend an emergency appointment within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It apologised for this, and demonstrated that it listened to the resident’s concerns when dealing with further complaints and seeking a resolution with resident. It also apologised for a historical unsatisfactory repair. It offered £150 for these failings which this Service considers reasonable redress for the failings identified.

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report and confirm that all repairs agreed have been completed or target dates have been agreed for completion.