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

Teign Housing (202221798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221798

Teign Housing

10 May 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant. The tenancy began on 20 April 2021. The property was a ground floor flat, which was built in 2019. The resident occupied the property with her partner and her child, who was an infant at the time of the complaint.
  2. The landlord said it had no known vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or her partner, however, it was aware that the resident’s daughter regularly experienced respiratory tract infections and coughs. The Ombudsman notes that the resident told the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that she struggled with severe anxiety.
  3. At the time of the complaint, the property was one of several ground floor properties on the same development, that were experiencing issues with damp and mould.
  4. The resident first reported issues with damp and mould about 6 months after she moved in. Dissatisfied with the way the landlord had addressed her reports about this, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 1 September 2022. The resident attributed her child’s ill health to black mould in the property. To remedy the complaint the resident asked the landlord to fix the issue with the damp and mould within 21 days or rehouse her. The resident also asked the landlord to reimburse her for a dehumidifier she had purchased and compensate her for spoiled toys and furniture.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint the following day. The landlord:

a.     Said that it was unable to resolve the issue with damp and mould within 21 days, but it was trying to work through the possible causes. It would attend the property on 16 September 2022, to agree how best to support her.

b.     Set out the action it had taken to date and its findings. It said it would arrange for its specialist damp and mould contractor to carry out a survey and make recommendations.

c.      Asked the resident to provide details of any loss or expenses incurred.

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 September 2022. The landlord said it had completed remedial works on several occasions to combat the issue of damp and mould. But it noted there was no action plan in place, and it accepted that works were not carried out in a timely manner. It was sorry that the resident had needed to chase the landlord for follow–on works. To remedy the complaint, the landlord:

a.     Said it had appointed a project manager to work with the resident and her neighbours, who would agree a plan of works to resolve the issues.

b.     Mentioned it had already arranged to visit the resident to discuss her housing options.

c.      Offered the resident £700 compensation towards losses incurred. It offered an additional £100 in recognition of the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

  1. The resident agreed to the landlord’s offer of compensation on 8 September 2022.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 20 September 2022. The resident said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt that the matter would not have progressed had she not formally complained. The resident was particularly concerned about increased energy costs associated with the landlord’s latest proposal to change the existing kitchen extractor fan to a model that was linked to the mains lights, which needed to be left on 24 hours a day.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 20 September 2022. Separately, the landlord asked the resident to clarify her complaint. The resident told the landlord that she felt the landlord had done nothing prior to the complaint, and that the resolution offered would impact on her financially.
  4. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 7 October 2022. The landlord:

a.     Apologised for reacting slowly to the resident’s original request to attend the property. It accepted that when it did attend, it had not actioned the resident’s concerns in accordance with its procedures. Since the complaint, it had carried out additional staff training in relation to identifying and managing condensation and mould growth.

b.     Said that its specialist damp and mould survey had been carried out on 14 September 2022. In line with recommendations, it had replaced the kitchen extractor fan on 4 October 2022. This fan automatically tracked humidity levels in the room.

c.      Said it had assigned a point of contact, who would attend the property every month for the next 3 months to take readings from the new fan. If mould growth was identified, this would be reported to a senior manager, who would arrange to inspect the property themselves.

  1. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2022. To resolve her complaint the resident wanted the landlord to rehouse her or complete works to remedy the cause of the damp and mould. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was moved by the landlord sometime around 14 July 2023. The resident has reported damp and mould in her new property and has raised a separate complaint.

 Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has consistently referenced the impact of black mould on her child’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, this investigation will consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this situation. If the resident considers that her health or the health of child was affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction, she may wish to discuss her options with an independent legal advisor.
  3. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions between 1 September 2021 and 7 October 2022. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report also references events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive complaint.

 

 

Relevant policies, procedures, and legislation.

  1. The Housing Act 2004, introduced a system for identifying hazards arising from faults or deficiencies in a property which could cause harm, called the housing, health and safety rating system (HHSRS). Under this guidance, damp and mould could amount to a category 1 hazard.
  2. The Home Standard is one of 4 Consumer Standards that registered providers of social housing must comply with. Under the Home Standard, the landlord must ensure that its properties meet the Government’s Decent Homes Guidance and continue to maintain their homes to at least that standard. To be decent, a dwelling should be free from category 1 hazards, and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action unless practicable steps cannot be taken without disproportionate expense or disruption.
  3. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will complete an inspection to correctly diagnose and specify repair works within 5 days of a repair being reported. It will complete all repairs within a maximum of 21 days. If a property becomes unsafe or repair works are required that may make the property unsafe or temporarily uninhabitable, it will provide suitable temporary alternative accommodation for the duration of the work.
  4. The landlord introduced a new damp and mould policy in January 2023. The policy states that reports of damp and mould are triaged and prioritised for inspection. It will attend to any report of proven damp and mould within 21 working days. All cases of damp and mould will be logged and monitored until resolution.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the landlord will consider paying compensation where there has been financial loss, as a result of severe distress or inconvenience following a complaint (up to £250), and where there has been a loss of use of the facilities in the property. However, in regard to loss of use, compensation would only apply from the date the item of repair was overdue for completion, until its satisfactory completion.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

  1. The resident states that mould started growing on the walls and windows of the property in September 2021. At first the resident tried to clean the mould off every week, but this became a challenge as she was looking after her new baby. After this, the mould turned black, and she noticed that her baby was becoming frequently ill.
  2. The resident first raised concerns with the landlord about mould around the windows on 25 October 2021. Although the landlord promptly booked an inspection, this was not scheduled to take place until 22 November 2021, which exceeded the timescale for inspections under the landlord’s repairs policy.
  3. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord does not dispute that it was slow to respond to the resident’s initial report about damp and mould. The landlord showed that it had taken learnings from the complaint by arranging staff training, which was encouraging. 
  4. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor to investigate the resident’s initial reports about damp and mould. On inspection, the landlord’s surveyor remarked that the bathroom did not have any windows and referenced spots of black mould. To resolve this, an order was raised to install a new bathroom fan. To further investigate possible causes of damp in the lounge and bedroom, its repairs contractor was instructed to remove sections of the damp plaster reveal and report back any findings. The landlord’s repairs history shows that the fan was not installed, and the plaster reveals were not removed at the time. The landlord’s lack of oversight over completion of these works prevented it from fully diagnosing the cause of the damp. It also stopped it from arranging follow-on works in a timelier manner.
  5. The resident states that after months of calls but no repairs, the landlord came to look at the mould again in January 2022. It is of concern that the Ombudsman has been unable to verify this from the landlord’s records. This suggests there may be an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
  6. The evidence shows that the resident made another report about unresolved damp and mould on 18 February 2022. The landlord responded by raising an inspection on the same day. However, it has not been possible to determine from the evidence seen, whether this inspection was carried out. The Ombudsman notes that a further damp and mould inspection was raised on 29 March 2022, which it attended on 5 April 2022. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any inspection reports.
  7. The landlord has not provided evidence of the action it took following its inspection on 5 April 2022. However, in communications between the resident and the landlord around this time, the resident referenced the landlord had completed 2 mould treatments. The resident asked the landlord whether there was any more that it could do to prevent the mould from returning. It is unclear from the evidence seen if the landlord responded. However, the landlord’s records between May 2022 and June 2022, show that the landlord:

a.     Fitted a new bathroom fan on 25 May 2022.

b.     Removed the plaster reveals around the patio doors and bedroom windows. On inspection these were found to be built correctly.

c.      Drilled an inspection hole into the brickwork, finding the wall cavity to be dry.

d.     Completed another mould treatment.

  1. The resident states that the landlord’s surveyor suggested that the mould might return again in the winter. However, the resident has explained that the mould returned much earlier than this, and even worse than before. The resident reported this to the landlord in August 2022. The resident also provided the landlord with photographs showing that mould had damaged her furniture and some of her child’s toys.
  2. A letter supporting an application for rehousing was sent to the landlord on 27 August 2022, by a doctor. In this letter the doctor explained that the resident’s child had been struggling with protracted respiratory tract infections and coughs. There was concern that the physical wellbeing of the infant would be difficult to maintain while there was mould in the property. Around the same time, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint, within which she reinforced the impact that the damp and mould was having on the household.
  3. The landlord responded promptly to the substantive issues raised in the resident’s complaint, which is reassuring given the medical opinion given. It is also reassuring that the landlord itself recognised, in internal communications, that it could not just keep on treating the mould. The landlord took the following steps, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were reasonable and proportionate:

a.     Attended the property to speak to the resident, to reinspect the property, and to take some photographs. The landlord’s records make comment that on inspection, that the mould was “substantial”.

b.     It removed some chippings from outside of the property, which it thought may have been blocking air flow through the air bricks.

c.      To identify the cause of the damp and mould, it instructed a specialist contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey.

d.     It made an appointment to meet the resident on 16 September 2022, to assist the resident with her request for rehousing.

e.     It agreed to consider financial reimbursement in recognition of declared loss and expenditure.

  1. The landlord’s internal records reference some concern that the resident’s housekeeping and endeavours to ventilate the property, may have been contributory factors in the build-up of mould in the property. The evidence shows that the landlord was mindful of managing any subsequent conversations with the resident about this, in such a way that it was not inferring blame. This suggests that the landlord had taken into consideration the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021).
  2. Between 6 September 2022 and 12 September 2022, the landlord showed its continued commitment to resolving the matter for the resident:

a.     The landlord appointed a project manager to manage the issues the resident and her neighbours were experiencing with damp and mould.

b.     The landlord carried out an assessment of the build and ventilation in the building. The landlord satisfied itself that there were no issues with the construction of the building.

c.      The landlord offered the resident £700 in recognition of loss and expenses incurred, and an additional £100 in recognition of distress and inconvenience. This was accepted and later paid to the resident.

d.     The landlord also offered to pay for the resident’s sofa and bed to be professionally cleaned once all the works had been completed.

e.     The resident complained that her energy costs had risen over winter, because she had been required to keep her windows open while the heating was on. The landlord agreed to compare her energy usage against the standard usage of a similar property. However, to manage expectations, the landlord pointed out that there “was an expectation that residents ventilate their properties during winter even with the heating on. We generally would expect trickle vents on windows to be left open at all times”.

f.        The specialist damp and mould survey identified condensation to be the likely cause of damage. It commented that there was minimal ventilation throughout the property. In terms of the ventilation that was in place, it suggested that this was not substantial enough to ensure the adequate dispersal of the atmospheric moisture created in the property. The following recommendations were made:

  1. The landlord should improve the ventilation throughout the property by:

(1)  Upgrading the existing kitchen fan with a humidity tracking fan, with an integral moisture tracking sensor.

(2)  Installing a wall mounted positive input ventilation system (PIV).

  1. Guidance should be given to the occupier on practical ways to produce less moisture.
  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner. The landlord attended the property soon after it had received the specialist damp and mould survey report. The landlord explained the findings of the survey to the resident and confirmed that it would be replacing the kitchen fan. The fan was fitted 13 working days later. The landlord also gave the resident practical advice on producing less moisture, which included keeping the kitchen extractor fan switched on. The landlord noted that this was turned off at the time of the inspection. This is evidence of the landlord acting on the specialist advice given. However, the landlord’s justification for not installing a wall mounted PIV, which was also recommended in the report, is unclear from the landlord’s records.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord offered to revisit the situation if the resident experienced further issues with condensation over winter. While the Ombudsman accepts that the property may have been dry at the time of its inspection, the landlord ought to have committed to a period of monitoring to assess the effectiveness of the newly installed fan. In doing so, the landlord could have acted proactively and expediently if condensation did return. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since recognised this as good practice in its new damp and mould policy.
  3. After the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, the landlord promptly met the resident to understand her concerns. In doing so, the landlord was able to re-evaluate the actions it had taken so far. This shows that the landlord was treating the resident’s complaint with the attention it deserved. Ultimately, the landlord remained confident that there were no issues with the structure of the building and the new kitchen extractor fan would assist in controlling moisture levels in the property.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord was sensible to remind the resident of the steps that she herself could take, to help control moisture build up in the property. It is noted that the landlord also appropriately offered to provide the resident with a copy of its damp and condensation leaflet, although this was declined. The landlord encouraged the resident to keep wiping away any condensation, which could cause mould. While this was appropriate advice, the Ombudsman does not underestimate the amount of time and increased effort this was likely to have caused the resident.
  5. The resident’s concern about being asked to keep the extractor fan running continuously for 1 month is understandable, if this meant she was unable to turn off her lights. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s suggestion of removing part of the light bulb, to dim the lights, offered a reasonable solution. But the Ombudsman notes this was only meant to be a temporary measure, following which the landlord intended to return to assess the situation. The evidence shows that the resident was encouraged to contact the landlord before this if she had any new concerns about condensation, so the landlord could re-inspect.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appointed a new single point of contact who would attend the property on a monthly basis over the following 3 months, to review the situation and take readings from the new humidity tracking fan. It was positive that the landlord was endeavouring to test the effectiveness of remedial actions it had taken. It was also encouraging that its senior managers would have oversight of the meter readings and had committed to reinspecting the property themselves if excessive mould returned. This was likely to have offered the resident some reassurance of the landlord’s commitment towards finding a long-term solution. However, the landlord ought to have addressed the resident’s concerns about increased energy costs arising from the new fan. Its failure to address this left part of the resident’s complaint unanswered, which was inappropriate.
  7. When the landlord inspected the property on 3 November 2022, there were no signs of condensation, which was encouraging. The landlord made arrangements to attend the property again in December 2022, to take more readings. The landlord showed that it was keeping lines of communication open, by asking the resident to make contact if any mould returned before then.
  8. Separately, the landlord’s manager proactively rang the resident on 24 November 2022, asking for an update. The resident was able to explain that mould had returned, and her child was ill again. In line with its previous undertaking, its manager arranged to inspect the property on 6 December 2022.
  9. The landlord’s notes from its meeting on 6 December 2022, do not reference the condition of the property or the severity of the mould. However, it is noted that the following actions were agreed:

a.     The landlord’s manager would become the resident’s new single point of contact, which was likely to have helped built trust with the resident.

b.     The landlord would support the resident with her application for rehousing via the local authority, which was in line with the resident’s wishes.

c.      The landlord would provide the resident with a copy of its specialist damp and mould report. It also agreed to provide the resident with a copy of its structural building survey. This shows that the landlord was trying to be transparent.

  1. Following the inspection, the landlord took proportionate steps to address the new mould growth by arranging dehumidifiers and instructing further investigations. In line with good practice, the landlord made an upfront, lump sum payment, to cover the running cost of these dehumidifiers.
  2. The evidence shows that around this time, the landlord took the opportunity to work with its developer, to investigate whether there was a wider issue that was causing similar problems for other flats in other developments. The landlord updated the resident on 19 December 2022 about the action it was taking, which was appropriate. It was encouraging that the landlord was looking beyond the circumstances of the resident’s individual complaint, which was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  3. The evidence shows that from 12 January 2023 onwards, the landlord held internal meetings every few weeks, to agree actions, and review progress made in resolving the substantive issue of complaint. The landlord’s chief executive was also made aware of the landlord’s attempts to find a long-term solution, who thereafter maintained a level of input and oversight over progress made. The landlord’s fresh approach and intense focus on finding a lasting resolution, appears to coincide with the approval of its new damp and mould policy.
  4. On 24 January 2023, the resident asked the landlord to carry out a further mould treatment, which it arranged. She also provided the landlord with a copy of a letter written by a doctor, who described the “significant detrimental impact” caused to the resident and her child’s health, from black mould in the property.
  5. The landlord responded promptly by approving a priority move and writing to the local authority rehousing team, in support of an “urgent and permanent move” via their housing waiting list. The landlord’s actions show that it was giving this new medical evidence the attention it deserved. However, given that the landlord itself had written to the local authority supporting an urgent move, the Ombudsman questions whether it should have also considered offering the resident a temporary decant. This would have been in line with its repairs policy, which stated that “if a property becomes unsafe”, the landlord will provide suitable temporary alternative accommodation while works are being completed.
  6. While there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering the resident a temporary decant at this stage, it did proactively request a full environmental health assessment of the property, from the local authority private sector housing team. It is unusual for a landlord to actively request such an assessment, which might result in an enforcement notice being served upon it. However, in requesting such an assessment, the landlord was able to satisfy itself there were no category 1 hazards in the property. The Ombudsman commends the landlord for adopting this approach.
  7. It is understood that the environmental health officer identified condensation to be the likely cause of the mould in the property, arising from inadequate ventilation. No recommendation was given to change the resident’s priority for rehousing with the local authority following the assessment. However, the landlord was issued with a hazard warning notice, requiring the landlord to “give consideration” to the fitting of child locks to all ground floor flats for ventilation and child safety reasons. The evidence shows that the landlord progressed these works, although there were delays in completing them.
  8. The hazard warning notice also recommended that a suitability qualified ventilation expert review and assess the mechanical ventilation in the property. It should be noted that it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to evaluate whether a particular course of action would have resolved the damp and mould. It is accepted that the landlord was under no obligation to act upon the local authority’s recommendation if it did not agree, but the Ombudsman would have expected to have seen some evidence that the recommendation was considered. The Ombudsman suggests that the local authority’s recommendation should have prompted the landlord to review whether its past decision not to install a PIV was still sound.
  9. Nonetheless, the landlord did raise a new works order on 6 February 2023, to upgrade the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. It is noted that the target date for this work was set for 5 August 2023, but was completed on 25 May 2023. The lack of urgency in completing this work is a concern, given the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord ought to have completed these works in a timelier manner.
  10. Between February 2023 and April 2023, the landlord made 2 direct offers of accommodation, which the resident declined. It continued to meet the resident regularly, to take readings from the dehumidifiers and extractor fans, to discuss the action it had taken, and to propose next steps. However, readings taken from the dehumidifiers over this period indicated that the resident may not have been making full use of the dehumidifiers, despite payments to support their running costs being made. This was unhelpful.
  11. It is understood that additional works to the building were completed in early April 2023. This included works to a neighbouring property, which the landlord had kept vacant so it could investigate and test any remedial action. After works to the vacant property were completed, the resident asked if she could take up a new tenancy there. The landlord agreed. The resident moved into the new property sometime on or around 14 July 2023.
  12. It is of concern to the Ombudsman that the resident has continued to experience issues with damp and mould even after moving. This suggests that the landlord still has more to do to investigate and remedy the issues with damp and mould in the building. The resident has made a separate complaint about this to the landlord.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial reports about damp and mould was poor. It was encouraging that the landlord itself recognised there were failures on its part, for which it apologised. It was positive that the landlord was able to demonstrate that it had taken learnings from the complaint and acted accordingly. While this investigation has identified several areas where the landlord might have done things differently, there was a noticeable improvement in the landlord’s communications and handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould following the resident’s complaint. 
  14. The landlord’s lack of records made it hard for the Ombudsman to determine the severity of the damp and mould in the property. It was also not possible to verify if the mould was intermittent or present throughout the duration of the complaint. The landlord’s failure to evidence its consideration of a PIV on 2 occasions, does not support that the landlord fully explored all recommendations made to it to resolve the issue. There is evidence that the resident reported ongoing issues until such time as she was moved.  
  15. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress and inconvenience that was likely caused to the resident and her family, by the ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property over a period of approximately 20 months. It is also recognised that the complaint was only resolved by the resident moving to alternative permanent accommodation. It is noted that the landlord has already made an offer of compensation, which the resident accepted. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, the amount of compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified during the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  16. Cumulatively, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  17. As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation which reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, by the landlord’s failure to fully resolve recurring issues with damp and mould in the property, taking into account any mitigating factors identified in this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay compensation of £600 directly to the resident, which reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family, by the landlord’s failure to fully resolve ongoing issues with damp and mould in the property. This amount is reduced to £500, if the landlord has already paid the £100 compensation it previously offered the resident at stage 1, for distress and inconvenience. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should re-offer the £700 compensation it previously offered, in recognition of itemised losses and expenditure. The landlord may disregard this recommendation if has already been paid this to the resident.