Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202222325)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222325

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

28 March 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, including its handling of a decant.
2. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident was the joint tenant under an assured tenancy with her ex-partner. She had left the property in 2013. Her ex-partner (“P”) had left the property sometime in 2020-2022. The tenants’ son, who will be referred to as “D” in this report, moved in, or moved back in, in August 2022.

Legal and policy framework

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of a property including the roof, drains, gutters, external pipes and chimneys.
Under section 9a of the same act, the landlord has an obligation for the property to be habitable in relation to freedom from damp.
Under the decant policy, where tenants were placed in hotel accommodation, they will receive £20 per person to cover breakfast and dinner expenses.

Chronology

The landlord issued possession proceedings on a date in early 2022. According to the landlord’s housing officer, P attended several hearings and reported there was damp and mould in the property. The housing officer had offered to raise repairs on numerous occasions. P declined an inspection prior to then as he had wished to resolve the possession proceedings. The proceedings were concluded with a suspended possession order in or around August 2022. A housing officer of the landlord attended the property on 12 August 2022. The landlord wrote to D on 15 August 2022 confirming repairs would be carried out to the kitchen window and a contractor would attend to inspect the main front door.
On 23 August 2022, D reported that the taps in the bathroom sink no longer worked and the extractor fan in the kitchen was broken. He had only just moved back to the flat two days previously. The taps and window repair was completed on 30 and 31 August 2022.
The repair records showed that the landlord raised the works for the repair of the extractor fan which was repaired on 12 August 2022. They also showed that on 30 August 2022, jobs to repair drains backing up in the outside area and leaks to the bathroom and kitchen sink were completed.
On 5 September 2022, D reported that P was staying away from the property as the mould was making him ill and D’s asthma had manifested since his return to the property.
The landlord wrote to D on 22 September 2022 that its surveyor had been trying to contact D and P since 7 September 2022. The surveyor attended the property on 27 September 2022.
On 30 September 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she was not living in the property. She reported that the hot water and heating were not working. The landlord replied that a repairs job had been raised.
On 1 October 2022, the resident reported that she had tried to clean the mould which was affecting D’s health. His bedroom and possessions were damp. The heating was not working. She asked for the outcome of the survey of 27 September 2022. She referred to P’s mental health.
On 3 October 2022, the housing officer noted internally that she had attended the property “numerous times” during lockdown but no one answered the door and the gate was padlocked. On the same day, D asked the landlord to only communicate with him as his father had “terrible communication skills” and had been working away.
On 7 October 2022, an independent surveyor wrote to the landlord asking it to commence the procedure to decant the resident. The works were too extensive to carry out with the occupants in situ. The flooring and furniture required removal, as well as damp clothing, rubbish and unused items. All rooms in the property showed high humidity. The windows and kitchen required replacing. Windows appeared to “never” to have been opened as they were “jammed shut”, covered in cobwebs and green mould. Further investigation was required. External steps leading to high-level damp areas could be affecting residual damp ingress. The property had not been maintained as the heating had not been turned on “for many years” or “a long period of time” as evidenced by cobwebs in the radiators. The lack of heating had caused deterioration of the windows which were uneconomical to repair. The resident’s clothes had become mouldy. It was such an “unhealthy environment” that the surveyor suggested D did not enter the smaller bedroom. The property would need to be cleared. The internal walls were showing high damp meter readings. This “maybe purely” be caused by the lack of heating in the property. D reported that the issue had been ongoing for 10 years or more, but had not been reported and P had moved out, partially due to the extremely damp bedroom. The heating was not in use and the walls flooring and furniture were now saturated. A decant was required for a period of 6 months if there were to be major works and 3 months as a minimum.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord noted that P had not been contactable and suffered from mental health issues during lockdown. He had also rejected the idea of repairs at times as he felt he could complete these on his own.
On the same day, the surveyor further commented that the bedroom area had “excessive” mouldy clothes, black mould on all the walls and cobwebs on the windows. At that stage, he thought it “prudent” to decant D until a more thorough investigation took place, given the condition of the furniture, flooring and belongings retaining moisture. The works would “not facilitate two residents” to stay in situ whilst works progressed.
The landlord wrote to D on 10 October 2022 that, as extensive works were required, he would have to be decanted. Throughout this period, D and the resident continued to chase for an update and the landlord’s housing officer responded stating she was chasing the surveyor. The resident emphasised her son’s anxiety.
On 31 October 2022, the surveyor wrote that there was no immediate need to decant as long as D agreed.
On the same day, the resident stated that she wanted to make a complaint. She expressed concerns about the effects of the mould with the uncertainty of the situation on her son’s physical and mental health.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord updated D as follows:
1. Old clothes and furniture would need to be removed as they were extremely mouldy. It would then provide a dehumidifier to be kept on for two weeks and the effect reviewed. The external areas would need to be cleared for a more in-depth survey.
2. The decant was not urgent as long as he was okay with the works being actioned. It invited him to let it know if he was unable to take those “actions”.
On 4 November 2022, D asked for help with removals and whether the kitchen and bathroom would be upgraded. He considered that it might not be feasible to remain when flooring was removed. One the same day, the resident wrote that the clearance could be carried out quickly so as to get the dehumidifiers in place. She asked for a copy of the decant policy.
On 15 November 2022, the resident sent photos of the wiring of the living room light. She asked about an up-to-date electrical installation condition report (EICR). The landlord raised a job to address the lights the same day.
The resident continued to chase and the landlord to respond.
On 17 November 2022, the resident requested the surveyor’s report of 27 September 2022 and chased for the EICR, surveyor report and decant policy.
On 18 November 2022, the resident reported that an electrician attended but said the wires were not exposed. She had sent pictures of what looked like burn marks on the ceiling where the wiring underneath had got too hot. The housing officer replied on the same day that the works had been re–raised and stated that surveyors did not generally share their reports with tenants.
On 18 November 2022, the housing officer made internal enquiries about the EICR. She wrote to the resident, offered to call her and provided her with the decant policy. The kitchen and bathroom replacement were included in the planned works programme for 2023/24. She provided the report regarding the light fixtures. Works to the lights were “completed” but due to the extensive damp, the works could not rectify the exposed sockets. The surveyor confirmed that he had ordered the dehumidifier which was to arrive imminently.
On 21 November 2022, internally, the landlord noted that the EICR was “very overdue” as P had not allowed access. She updated the resident that the EIRC would be booked in for 3 weeks’ time.
On 23 November 2022, the resident said she wanted to raise a “formal” complaint with regards to the damp and mould in the flat and not having an up–to–date EICR in place. She also sent photos as evidence.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had logged a formal complaint and would respond within 10 working days.
The job to repair to make safe living room light fixture was completed on 28 November 2022 and the EICR inspection was booked for 8 December 2022.
On 5 December 2022, the local authority environmental officer (EHO) made enquiries about whether there were to be major works to the property. It was to visit in 14 days to see how matters were progressing. The local authority had received “previous complaints” about the property.
On the same day, the resident reported that the dehumidifiers arrived 24 November 2022. She subsequently asked to escalate the complaint. The landlord replied on 12 December 2022 that it would not escalate until it had replied at Stage 1 of the process.
On 21 December 2022 a job was raised to decant D. The dehumidifier needed to be in place for a few weeks at least to dry out the area/bedroom as much as possible.
Also on 21 December 2022, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It set out the chronology of events. It offered compensation amounting to £200 comprising as follows:
  1. £50 for the delay to the complaint response.
  2. £50 towards the costs of running of the dehumidifier.
  3. £100 “Due to this there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident”.
The next day, the resident asked to escalate the complaint to Stage 2. Her reasons were the delay to the complaint response and the issues had not been resolved. The landlord had not replied to emails and calls. She and D wanted to be decanted whilst works were completed. The dehumidifiers had been in the flat for over 4 weeks. She had not received the EICR certificate and works for the electrics have not been carried out. The damp and mould had caused damage to the property.
On 29 December 2022, the landlord’s insurers, wrote that the costs of the 1–bedroom decant had been approved but not of a 2–bedroom flat.
According to an internal note of 3 January 2023, there had been a leak in the kitchen which had not been reported “for years”. The mould was had not been reported for 8 years.
On the same day, the resident reported that she and D had “moved out” just before the new year and were booked into the decant flat until 12 January 2023. She said they needed a 2-bedroom property.
The surveyor’s report dated 10 January 2023 (summarised below) stated as follows:
1. 64 (summarised below) issues had been identified.
2. The further findings were not necessarily fully conclusive or inclusive of the full scope of works.
The electrical contractor wrote to the landlord on 12 January 2023 to report that the EICR could not be completed due to the condition of the property.
The surveyor wrote on 12 January 2023 following his survey as follows:
1. It had identified multiple possible sources for the water ingress including through a wall due to a possible leaking gutter.
2. The property required investigation for any structural damage, a drainage survey and footpath. Front main steps (to upper flats) required waterproofing and was maybe a major factor in cold bridging to a small room. It appeared no person had lived in the room for many years.
3. There were signs of failed concrete pavements, failed render plinth, possible collapsed drains and leaks from guttering.
4. The heating system had rusted through and had possibly been previously leaking under the floor.
5. The “non-reporting” of issues by the resident(s) and the subsequent lack of repairs to this property had added to the damp/humidity/water ingress issues over time which now required major works to rectify.
6. D had stated there had been no request for repairs before this case.
On 17 January 2023, the landlord updated the resident with a timescale of 12 weeks for the works. The resident had confirmed she and D were “staying with each other”. It was decanting her to a 2-bedroom property once one became available. She would have to option to remain there permanently. It would assist with moving costs. It would reimburse parking costs. She was entitled to £20 compensation per day, per person for food and drinks costs. The delays to the complaint response would be recognised within the response. It would update on the start date for the works as well as the nature of the exact works.
On 24 January 2023, the resident declined to move to another locality. The landlord extended the stay for one more week.
On 1 February 2023, the parties agreed to extend time for its Stage 2 response in order to include the decant, to 28 February 2023.
On 6 February 2023, the resident accepted an offer of a decant property. The landlord purchased a cooker for the decant, offering a choice of gas or electric, and provided flooring. The landlord also agreed to the resident’s request for notice before moving and to move on a particular day.
On 13 February 2023, the surveyor stated it was waiting for D’s belongings to be moved for the works to start.
On 27 February 2023, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
1. It referred to the resident’s complaint dated 3 January 2023.
2. It went over the chronology. D was informed that his housing officer would be away and cover was being provided by the team.
3. Long term lack of occupancy and lack of ambient heating in the property contributed to the severity of the mould.
4. It offered support from its partner agency.
5. D was initially to decant on 10 October 2022 but a decant was no longer needed. On 29 December 2022, its “emergency service” placed the resident in a 1–bedroom serviced apartment. The resident had refused three offers of alternative accommodation, due to their location. The offers were based on availability in the areas.
6. It offered £950 in compensation as follows:
  1. £400 for the delay to the delivery of the dehumidifiers until December 2022.
  2. £100 for the initial offer of a 1-bedroom property.
  3. £250 for the lack of a “robust” update and confusion regarding the initial decant decision.
  4. £100 for the lack of communication and clarity over the decant.
  5. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
7. It would pay the energy costs for the dehumidifiers and parking. It required receipts except for the dehumidifiers. It did not reimburse the cost of food where it had provided kitchen facilities.
8. It would provide a full schedule of works with timescales.
9. The summary of its offer referred to “Poor Communication (general)” and was followed by a blank.
On 7 March 2023, the landlord advised that the carpet and other items it had provided had been installed the previous week. It agreed, in response to the resident’s requests, that the resident could move on 13 March 2023 and it had requested a “late check out” from the decant. It also extended the works start to 13 March 2023 to accommodate the resident and D moving their possessions.
On 18 May 2023, the resident agreed to move to the property on 20 May 2023. The minor snagging works were to be completed once she and D were in the flat. She enquired about a repair to the window lock and she chased the cleaners. On the same day a repair to faulty locks was raised and completed on 8 June 2023.
On 28 May 2023, the resident sent a snagging list, including the washing machine not fitting back in, locks on windows missing and some windows being painted in. The front door mechanism was loose and the door frame was coming away. The drain was blocked up with mud and “flooded” the previous week when it rained. The outside stairs leading to the above flats had not been repaired.
According to the repair records, the door frame was repaired on the same day and the drains on 16 June 2023, the stuck window was repaired on 8 June 2023 and the locks were repaired on 29 June 2023.
On 27 June 2023, the resident chased for rubbish to be removed and works to the garden includng lopping a tree.
According to the repair records, the following jobs were raised:
1. On 9 July 2023, to isolate a leak from under the kitchen sink. No access was provided.
2. On 11 July 2023, kitchen sink leak from the washing machine.
3. On 17 July 2023, blocked drains.
4. On 21 and 25 July 2023, operatives attended to the kitchen sink leak, the door frame, and loose front door lock mechanism.
On 24 August 2023, the resident requested to be contacted regarding mould in the kitchen cupboard that she said she had reported, a request to remove a tree, the steps outside the house and compensation for the loss of furnishings due to the damp. The garden had been cleared. She reported a “new tree” growing at the front of the house in a crack in the “stairs”.
On 31 August 2023, the landlord wrote it was arranging for a surveyor to visit.
The resident continued to chase. She reported damp in all the rooms. She wanted compensation for damaged furniture and clothing.
On 13 October 2023, the resident wrote asking for an update following the landlord’s visit on 18 September 2023 to look at “on-going” damp problems in the flat caused by the external outside steps and trees. She wanted the same bathroom flooring as before, namely tiles and the kitchen floor had previously had parquet flooring. She reported that a bathroom sink tap was loose. She also reported the doorbell was not working.
Internal notes of 14 November 2023 set out as follows:
1. The front communal steps had not been asphalted as intended on the original schedule of works. It was suspected that there was water ingress through these steps causing extra cold in the front bedroom. A repair was raised to repair and asphalt the entire flight of steps.
2. There were no obvious signs of damp on the walls apart from some mould in the kitchen cupboard backing, smells of damp in the rear room gas meter cupboard and a wet patch on the kitchen wall. The wet patch on the kitchen wall could have been due to a “buried” uninsulated pipe not related to original damp works.
3. It would get a separate independent specialist damp report from a contractor to give an extensive report with air moisture readings and wall temperature readings.
4. Some minor black spot mould above a skirting board in the front room was condensation. Clothes were drying on a rack when he visited and the resident confirmed she used the radiators to dry clothes on occasion. The front bedroom designated condensation trickle fan was turned off and the bathroom door was open. A dark basement flat with poor natural daylight, meant that any extra moisture would readily form condensation and therefore mould.
5. It was suspected that the flat had been decorated too soon after extensive rendering and with a vinyl matt type paint that may well have trapped moisture and delayed the drying process. It would drop off a dehumidifier off to speed up the drying process.
6. Brand new polysafe anti–slip sheet vinyl flooring was fitted as standard safety requirements in the bathroom and kitchen.
7. A contractor was in place to cut back the tree in rear garden and remove the front garden tree.
8. The issue of the doorbell was not raised.
According to the repair records, on 15 November 2023, a job was raised regarding the entryphone and to provide a dehumidifier. A job was also raised to inspect the damp and mould issues within 10 working days and complete the damp and mould checklist.
A damp inspection dated 1 December 2023 stated as follows:
1. The pattern and levels of moisture readings obtained generally, with an electronic moisture meter, were quite normal for a property of this age and type of construction.
2. High readings were noted on a section of wall in the kitchen. The area was isolated and from the thermal image taken shows that there may be some piping/plumbing within the fabric of the wall. It recommended further investigation.
3. All readings taken in the room and large bedroom were “fully within an acceptable range”.
4. However, condensation and mould appeared to be an issue in the large bedroom. It recommended the installation of a heat recovery ventilation unit, as in the smaller bedroom.
5. Overall, it found no fault with regards to damp other than in the kitchen area. All readings taken throughout were within an acceptable range. The only issue was condensation and mould in the large bedroom and the kitchen cabinets. The damp proof work undertaken within this property was in good order. However, inadequate ventilation was an issue.
On 7 December 2023, a job was raised to asphalt the main steps communal over the front bedroom.
On 4 December 2023, the resident submitted an “invoice” for over £10,262.05. It accepted the offer of £950 made on 27 February 2023 and the previous offer of £50 for energy costs. It asked for £20 per person a day for three people for the decant and 8% interest and £50 for the delayed supply of the dehumidifier. She did not attach receipts for furniture or items damaged by the damp and mould in the flat but attached car parking receipts amounting to £49.
On 15 December 2023, an internal email noted that there was no rising damp. It had advised the resident that there was no mould. The landlord considered tanking a wall as a “belt and braces” approach but would first raise a job to replace the mouldy base unit backing in the kitchen. The resident declined the offer of a dehumidifier.
Internally the landlord noted on 19 December 2023 that the works to the front main communal steps that were intended to have been done originally were now completed. This left the investigation into the persistent small damp patch which was due to be carried out in the new year.
On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident that it would raise a payment once the “Ombudsman case” was “completed”. The next day, the resident replied that she was entitled to the compensation despite the outcome of the Ombudsman.
On 21 February 2024, the landlord wrote that it offered £1,310 comprising as follows:
1. Compensation offer for delayed dehumidifier £400.
2. Poor communication £250.
3. Delay in responding to the damp and mould £100.
4. Offer of 1 bedroom accommodation £100.
5. Delay to the complaint response £100.
6. Running costs of the dehumidifier £50.
7. Parking costs whilst decanted £60.
8. Misinformation about entitlement to decant payment per household member £150.
9. Delay in paying these sums £100.
10. It would pay reasonable removal and storage costs.
11. It requested a breakdown of the items damaged by the damp and mould, their ages and replacement costs together with photographs the resident reported having.
  1. £100 in relation for the lack of communication and clarity over the decant offered at Stage 2 on 27 February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

It was not disputed that the property suffered from severe damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged on several occasions that there had been significant delays in carrying out works and handling matters such as the decant and communication. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord and actions it took to put things right, resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; b. Put things right; and c. Learn from outcomes.
The resident accepted the offer of £950 made on 27 February 2023 and £50 for the energy costs of the humidifier. She also added a further £50 for the delay to the delivery but the landlord had already included that in its offer, at £400. The issue was that the resident wished to claim £20 a day for herself, P and D. As the resident has referred this complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman will consider the fairness of the landlord’s offer.
The resident and D reported that the conditions of the property had affected D’s physical and mental health. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely to be better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities and the cumulative impact of any failings on them when responding to complaints.
The evidence showed that the issues in the property had been long-standing. However, while the history of this case will be taken into account, the Ombudsman will not investigate the longer history of the damp and mould in the property. This is because there was evidence that the issues were not reported for some considerable time and no complaint had been raised prior to that of the resident. Although the local authority referred to previous reports about the condition of the property, there was no evidence of dates. Evidence showed that the causes of the damp and mould were multifactorial, including that D had not occupied or heated the property for some time. While the evidence indicated that P did not report the issues, the landlord would have been aware that there was no valid EICR, having which in place was a statutory obligation and, moreover, a landlord has an obligation to inspect the condition of its properties.
The resident also has a statutory, if not contractual, obligation to provide access for repairs which a landlord can seek to enforce, if necessary. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord did not make greater efforts to seek access in order to check the condition of the property and to obtain an EICR. The landlord, where deemed to be a public body, must also weigh up its duty to consider a resident’s rights to quiet enjoyment and their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, given the length of time without a property inspection, it would have been reasonable and appropriate for a landlord to consider taking robust steps to inspect the property and comply with its statutory obligations in relation to repair and safety checks.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration on the basis the landlord did not consider making serious and more concerted attempts to access and inspect the property over a very lengthy period and to carry out its statutory obligations.
The evidence showed that the resident had not been residing at the property since 2013 and appeared to take up occupation at the time of the decant in December 2022. P had been in occupation but had been away largely since during the pandemic. It was indicated that D may have lived in the property previously. It was not clear whether he had been living in the property, possibly as a child, or, if so, for what period. The second bedroom appeared to have been long since unoccupied. D stated that he moved in in August 2021. It is noted that had the landlord taken action sooner, despite the resistance of P, D may not have faced the issues he faced. However, P had not raised a complaint, reported the issues and he had declined an inspection until legal proceedings had been concluded. The resident, whose complaint it is, did not become involved until mid to late 2022. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is not making an order for compensation in relation to the period prior to 12 August 2022 but will consider the period thereafter, once access was agreed and the landlord had visited the property.
The landlord acted promptly in raising the repairs after that visit. The evidence showed that the surveyor began trying to contact D on 7 September 2022, 3-4 weeks after the August inspection. This was an unreasonable delay and nor was it explained. In its complaint response it offered £100 for “a serious failure in service delivery which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience”. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress in respect of this aspect.
A surveyor inspection was arranged for 27 September 2022. The landlord responded to the further reports promptly including the living room light, which it could do no more than make safe, given the condition of the property.
It was reasonable to obtain an inspection by an independent surveyor. There was a period of 2 weeks while the plan was to decant D. The surveyor then reviewed the position when the landlord updated D. While the uncertainty was distressing to D, according to the resident, fault is not attributed to the landlord at the change of course. The landlord acknowledged that it was not sufficiently “robust” in its communication about the change of plan. While it stated that D could report if he was “ok “ with the works being carried out, and if he was unable to effect a clearance, a choice whether to be decanted could have been more explicit, in particular once D expressed doubts about staying once the flooring was removed and the resident requested the decant policy. While it was reasonable for a landlord to rely on the advice of the surveyor, the landlord could have been more robust and offered a decant in any event. Given the impact of the change of course of action was of relative short duration, the Ombudsman finds the offer of £250 in relation to its communication about the decant constituted reasonable redress.
It was reasonable of the landlord to provide a dehumidifier, however there was no evidence that the landlord had considered this at an earlier stage. There was some contradiction in the evidence as to when it was delivered. According to the resident it was delivered on 24 November 2022, hence her frustration that the works did not progress. According to the landlord, it was delivered in December 2022 for which delay the landlord accepted there had been a service failure in delivering the humidifier late. Either way, the works were delayed which was not disputed. The Ombudsman considers that £400 in relation to the delivery of the dehumidifiers was reasonable.
The landlord reasonably agreed to the resident’s request for a decant in December 2022. It was not clear when the landlord was made aware that a two-bedroom property was required as the resident had stated that she was not residing in the property. While there was evidence that a two bedroom had not been approved, it was not clear whether it was the cost of a particular two-bedroom was not approved, or why. The explanation that its initial decision to offer a one-bedroom decant was made on the basis of availability alone was not clear. However, availability of two-bedroom properties in the area the resident wanted was clearly a factor.
The evidence showed that the landlord made a number of offers of two-bedroom properties subsequently. It also extended the initial decant accommodation due to the resident turning down offers and her request for further time before moving. While the resident felt she had good reasons to decline accommodation and for further time, fault is not attributed to the landlord for the further delays. The offers demonstrated that the landlord sought to accommodate the resident’s wishes in relation to the decant.
The landlord accepted the offer of a one-bedroom property was a service failure and it acknowledged there was a lack of clarity and communication about the decant. Weighing up the benefits and downsides of the landlord’s handling, the Ombudsman finds the offer of £100 for having made an offer of a one-bedroom rather than a two-bedroom property and £200 for the subsequent level of communication and clarity regarding the decant was reasonable.
The landlord stated that a surveyor would not share his report as a matter of course but it did not explain its own reasons for not sharing the report. A recommendation will be made in this regard. There was no reason not to provide the decant policy on demand, however the delay was brief. There was a gap in communication when the housing officer was on sick leave but this was taken up by a colleague whom the resident described as “excellent”.
It was also noted that the resident wrote frequently and asked similar questions in succession. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation about managing a resident’s expectations in terms of the frequency and speed of response and making arrangements when a member of staff is on a leave of absence.
The evidence showed that overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for updates although it did not always give concrete replies. This was partly because it was relying on third parties, such as the surveyor. It was slow to respond to requests for the surveyor’s report, the decant policy, and the EICR. The evidence showed that it followed up the request for the EICR internally. The 3-week timescale for a EICR to be carried out was not unreasonable, given it required a specialist contractor. The explanation that the contractor was unable to carry on the inspection under the then property condition, was reasonable.
In terms of the resident’s financial losses, the landlord agreed to pay for the resident’s parking charges, removal and storage costs, and the costs of items damaged by damp and mould, presumably to be assessed. It also provided a cooker and flooring to the decant. This showed it sought to be accommodating. The Ombudsman considers that the offer of £50 for the increase of energy costs was reasonable and could be made without incurring further time and trouble on both sides. The resident’s “invoice” indicates this was not disputed.
The landlord acknowledged that it had initially misinformed the resident that she would be entitled to £20 a day. The landlord’s decision not to provide food and drinks costs where the decant property had kitchen facilities was reasonable and in line with its policy, which the landlord had provided to the resident. The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have offered this as it had made a mistake. In any event, there was no evidence that P was affected by the decant and this was not in the resident’s complaint. Indeed, P appeared to be absent throughout the process. The resident referred to the decant being occupied by herself and D only. While the resident’s frustration is recognised, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £150 in compensation for its miscommunication was proportionate.
The resident raised a number of issues regarding snagging. The repairs were dealt with within a reasonable period. The landlord did not explain why it had not repaired the steps as originally planned. The property was repainted too soon and this caused moisture issues. These issues were foreseeable whereas the hidden kitchen pipe was less clearly so. While there was no evidence of a significant impact, given these were works that should have been carried out, and the serious condition the property was in, it was unreasonable that more care had not been taken.
While the resident reported new damp and mould, the evidence indicated there was only some in a small area. The landlord acted promptly in raising a survey inspection and a damp specialist report. It also acted promptly in rectifying the omission of the works to the steps. The evidence showed there was very little mould and damp and that the works carried out had been satisfactory. While there was some mould, this was as a result of condensation caused by ventilation issues, not water ingress and the landlord addressed it accordingly and arranged to address the damp patch in the kitchen cupboard. As this may be outstanding at the time of this report, the Ombudsman will make an order. There was no evidence that the trees and garden were connected to the condition of the property.
The resident raised a number of other repairs including to the doors and windows, a leak, and the issue of the washing machine. She also commented on the floor coverings. These were not directly related to the resident’s original complaint as they related to the upgrades of the kitchen and bathroom. In any event, there was no indication the resident wished to pursue these matters.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident effectively made a complaint on 31 October 2022 rather than 24 November 2022. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to have treated the resident’s communication of the earlier date as a complaint. It was reasonable that it did not escalate the complaint on 12 December 2022 even though at that date it was overdue, as it had not yet responded at Stage 1. The Ombudsman considers that £50 compensation for the delay from the end of October 2022 to 21 December 2022 was reasonable but will make a recommendation in that regard.
The complaint responses were not clear for example it offered £100 for a “serious failure” but did not specify the period it covered. The Stage 1 did not offer a solution and while if offered compensation, did not abide by the Ombudsman’s complaint resolution principle “to put things right”. However, the landlord was monitoring the progress in any event.
The landlord acknowledged its delay to the Stage 2 response. While the landlord referred to the complaint being dated 3 January 2023, the date of the complaint was October/ November and escalation 21 December 2023. It may have been referring to the date the escalation was received. While minor, the landlord should avoid confusions with any dates.
More importantly, there was some confusion about the amounts it offered leading the landlord to paying the resident less than it originally offered. Stage 1 referred to a failure in general communication but this was followed by a blank space. This should be avoided. Stage 2 did not refer to the £50 offered at Stage 1 for complaint handling. It is assumed that the £100 for distress and inconvenience offered at Stage 1, omitted in the review Stage 2 letter, was the same as the £100 offered for the subsequent decant communication at Stage 2. However, the landlord appeared to substitute that compensation for £100 with the £100 for the lack of communication and clarity over the decant. The landlord should ensure these issues are made clear by using the identical language so it is easier to ascertain what offer is being made. It did not refer to the £50 offered for energy costs however that was rectified in its final response. The Ombudsman will make in order to address this.
It was unreasonable to suggest that the payment of compensation be delayed until this investigation. Again, this was rectified and the landlord made a further and reasonable offer of compensation to rectify this. While overall there were benefits to the complaint handling, the Ombudsman finds service failure due to the inadequate response at Stage 1 and the confusion in its offers of compensation which the Ombudsman will make an order to correct.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord accepted there was damp and mould in the property and it took reasonable steps in response. Where it considered it fell short of its standards, it offered reasonable compensation. However, the Ombudsman finds maladministration, given the landlord had not sought access to the property more robustly, given its implied obligations to inspect the property from time to time to ensure it is in good order, and to comply with its statutory obligations to provide an EICR.
While the landlord communicated with the resident through its complaint handling, the process was confusing and the final offer did not reflect the offers previously made.

Orders

The Ombudsman make the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay to the resident £1,560 in addition to the £1,310 already offered as follows:
2. The amounts offered in its complaint responses if not already paid but not included in its response 21 February 2024 as follows:
  1. £100 in relation for the lack of communication and clarity over the decant offered at Stage 2 on 27 February 2023.
  2. £50 for the complaint delay offered at Stage 1 on 21 December 2022.
  3. £100 in relation to the additional findings made in this report in relation to the complaint handling.
3. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should either lag the hidden pipe in the kitchen cupboard or install tanking, as recommended by the landlord’s surveyor.
4. The landlord should produce a guidance note to remind staff to identify and log any complaint when made and to adhere to policy timescales, and provide a copy of any guidance note to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.
5. The landlord should ensure that it inspects all properties on a periodic basis to check their condition and to ensure that its statutory requirements in relation to EICRs are complied with. It should provide training and additional guidance in particular to address what procedures it should follow where it is unable to gain access to a property to carry out its legal obligations, while bearing in mind the rights of its residents to quiet enjoyment and unlawful interference. The landlord should provide a copy of its guidance as a result of this review to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that all the works are carried out as per its specification and, if not, it provides a reasonable explanation.
2. The landlord should consider managing a resident’s expectations in terms of the frequency and speed of responses and making appropriate arrangements when a member of staff is on a lengthy leave of absence.
3. The landlord should consider whether to proactively offer a decant pending repairs where there is a serious risk that the condition of a property may adversely affect a resident’s health and well-being.
4. The landlord should consider providing to residents outcomes of inspections, in summary form if appropriate.
5. The landlord should review the findings in this report regarding its complaint handling and take steps to ensure they do not reoccur, by way of training and/or guidance to be shared with staff.
The landlord should provide feedback on the above recommendations to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report.