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

Estuary Housing Association Limited (202228157)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228157

Estuary Housing Association Limited

28 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, and its handling of follow-on works.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with her husband. In this report, the resident and her husband are interchangeably referred to as the resident.
  2. It is understood that the landlord’s repairs service was delivered through one of its contractors. In this report, the landlord and its repairs contractor will be interchangeably referred to as the landlord.
  3. The resident first reported issues with damp and mould in the property in January 2021. A third-party specialist damp and mould inspection was carried out on 24 March 2021, which identified the cause of damp and recommended remedial action.
  4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 17 May 2022. The resident said that the landlord had inspected the property for damp and mould, but it had not carried out any repairs. The resident said that she could no longer live at the property, as the resident’s partner had developed a cough. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 May 2022.
  5. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 6 June 2022. The landlord:
    1. Apologised for not delivering a service in line with its expected standards.
    2. Said that it could not explain why works were not carried out following the damp and mould inspection in March 2021.
    3. Noted that it had last inspected the property in December 2021. Its surveyor had committed to arranging a further specialist survey, however, there was no record of this being progressed.
    4. Confirmed that works were approved on 25 May 2022.
    5. Said that it had spoken to the surveyor who had attended the property. A moisture reading had been taken and at the time there was no need for a decant.
    6. Offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay, the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter, and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 30 September 2022. The resident said that the landlord had completed the damp and mould works. However, the landlord had not yet completed required follow-on remedial and decorative works. The resident said she was without heating in the bedroom, as the wall needed to be redecorated before the radiator could be rehung. Its contractor had been due to attend the property after 1pm on 29 September 2022. Its contractor had attended at 12:30pm when no-one was at home. The resident was dissatisfied because she was no closer to having the work completed. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
  7. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 21 October 2022. The landlord:
    1. Noted that the damp works were completed at the end of July 2022. It had awarded £100 compensation for the delay and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family at stage 1 of its complaint process.
    2. Noted that its contractor had made an appointment for 19 October 2022, to finish work in the bedroom and complete coving and plastering repairs. It apologised that its contractor had cancelled this appointment at short notice.
    3. Agreed that it was “unacceptable” that the resident had waited since the end of July 2022 for remedial works to start.
    4. Set out a new timeline for completing the outstanding decorative works and fitting the radiator.
    5. Recognised that it should have communicated better with the resident. It offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the delay, the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter, and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2023, as she felt that her substantive complaint was unresolved. The resident clarified on 15 May 2024, that the landlord had completed the damp, mould, and follow-on works in the property. However, she had since reported new issues with damp and mould.

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. During the complaint the resident mentioned her increasing health and wellbeing concerns to the landlord, arising from the presence of unresolved damp and mould in the property. 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 that of her family, was affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction, she may wish to discuss her options with an independent legal advisor.
  3. Paragraph 42a of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  4. The resident has explained to the Ombudsman that she reported new concerns about damp and mould to the landlord in January 2023, which remain unresolved. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has not had the opportunity to consider the resident’s further dissatisfaction about this as a formal complaint. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould from January 2023 onwards will fall outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her new reports about damp and mould, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
  5. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 17 May 2021 and 21 October 2022, concerning the substantive matters of complaint raised by the resident, and which were considered by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 of its internal complaint process. This being 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted. However, this report will reference events outside of this timeframe, where relevant to the resolution of the substantive matters of complaint.

 

 

Relevant policies, procedures and legislation

  1. The landlord had a statutory obligation under Section 11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord was also required to keep any installations that it owned, controlled, or that indirectly served the property, in repair and in working order. Under this Act, repairs should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the timescale for completing routine works is 20 working days. The policy does not set out its expected timescale for completing complex or major works.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that redress may be offered where there has been a failure to deliver a service. The landlord may offer a financial or non-monetary remedy, such as a gift voucher.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of follow-on works.

  1. The landlord was given a formal diagnosis in relation to the cause of the damp and mould on 30 March 2021, by a third-party specialist damp and mould contractor. However, the landlord did not raise a works order to remedy the damp and mould until 25 May 2022, after the resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The landlord does not dispute that there was a significant delay before it acted upon the recommendations and instructed works to remedy the damp and mould. This was inappropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience, which was avoidable.
  2. It has not been possible to determine the severity of the damp and mould from the evidence seen. However, it was evident from the stage 1 complaint that the resident felt her living conditions were having a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of her family. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor to evaluate whether a temporary decant was necessary. However, it is unclear how its surveyor arrived at this decision from the evidence seen. It would have been best practice for the landlord to have completed a risk assessment, showing that it had considered all of the circumstances of the case before arriving at its decision. It is noted that the resident did not provide the landlord with any medical evidence to support her need for a decant, but the landlord ought to have taken reasonable steps to understand the resident’s concerns before making its decision.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the landlord completed recommended damp works during the week commencing 18 July 2022. This was 15 months after it received the first specialist damp and mould report. Although the landlord’s repair policy does not give an indication of expected timescales for completing complex or major works, the landlord was statutorily required to carry out repairs in a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord met this requirement.
  4. It is understood that once the damp and mould works were completed, the landlord needed to complete various follow–on works. This included external and internal decorations, and the rehanging of a radiator. The landlord does not dispute that there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord arranging these works. The Ombudsman notes that progress of these works was then hindered by its contractor missing or rearranging appointments. This left the resident uncertain as to when the works would be completed, which created additional dissatisfaction.
  5. The landlord showed that it was endeavouring to resolve the matter for the resident, by setting out a new timeline for completing the follow-on works in the stage 2 response. The landlord committed to completing the work on 21 October 2022.
  6. It is unfortunate that the landlord misjudged the amount of time that was needed to complete the follow-on works. This resulted in the resident having to wait a further month before the landlord could arrange a 2-day appointment for its operatives to return. Since the landlord could not rehang the radiator until the decorations were finished, the resident was left without adequate heating in her bedroom. It is understood that this was the resident’s only source of heating in this room. Given that the weather was likely to get colder, the landlord ought to have considered offering the resident some form of temporary heating until it was in a position to rehang the radiator.
  7. The evidence shows that the landlord was unable to complete all of the follow-on works by 16 November 2022, as it had planned. It was understandable that it could not complete the external painting while it was raining. However, had the landlord scheduled the right operatives to attend, with the appropriate skill sets, it should have been in a position to complete the internal decorations. It is understood that the operatives dispatched to the job had the required skills on paper, but not in practice. The landlord’s records indicate that this was an administrative error. Ultimately, this meant that the job could not be completed, which caused added frustration for the resident. The resident told the landlord that she could not take much more. The landlord arranged another appointment to complete the outstanding works on 1 December 2022.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 December 2022, to cancel the appointment because its operative was sick. The resident told the landlord that the situation was impacting upon her mental health and she felt that she was being discriminated against. Although the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord could not have foreseen the events which led to it cancelling this appointment, the cumulative impact on the resident was evident. The landlord arranged another appointment for 28 December 2022, to complete the outstanding works.
  9. The landlord was unable to attend the appointment on 28 December 2022, as it was unable to obtain supplies, after finding its local builder’s yard closed. In the Ombudsman opinion, the landlord ought to have reasonably foreseen that its local builder’s yard might be closed over a festive period. The landlord’s poor planning created further distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord made arrangements to complete the outstanding decoration works on 13 January 2023.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023, when no operatives arrived. The landlord’s records show that the job had been cancelled. The reason for this is unclear. The landlord made a new appointment for 20 January 2023.
  11. The evidence shows that operatives completed the decoration works on 24 January 2023, which was approximately 6 months after the damp works were completed. According to the resident, the radiator was rehung a couple of weeks after the decoration works were finished. Given that the landlord had accepted at stage 2, that the resident had already waited too long for follow-on works to begin, the landlord’s lack of urgency to complete these works within a reasonable timeframe is concerning.
  12. The landlord’s complaint handlers should have been tracking completion of the follow-on works as an outstanding action and should have been giving proactive updates to the resident. In accordance with its repair’s procedure, the landlord should also have been tracking the progress of the job at monthly operational meetings with its contractor. It ought to have noticed when the job started rolling over from month to month, which in turn should have prompted it to have taken decisive action to secure resolution for the resident. If its contractor did not have the available resources to complete these follow-on works in a timely manner, the landlord ought to have identified this as a risk and acted accordingly.
  13. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of follow-on works was poor. The Ombudsman is concerned by the landlord’s lack of urgency to resolve the substantive issues of complaint for the resident. An unreasonable level of involvement was required by the resident throughout the case, to encourage the landlord to complete necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould and complete the associated follow-on works.
  14. The Ombudsman has considered the remedies offered by the landlord in this case. It was encouraging that the landlord recognised there had been failings, apologised, offered compensation, and set out to put things right. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings it itself had identified. Ultimately, the substantive matters of complaint were not fully resolved in a timely manner or within the timescales set out by the landlord. There is no evidence that the resident received any compensation for missed appointments, which would have been in keeping with the repair’s policy.
  15. Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of follow-on works. The resident was caused significant distress, inconvenience, as well as increased time and trouble.
  16. As a remedy, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation which reflects loss of amenity of the property, arising from the landlord’s delay to complete identified repairs between 30 March 2021 and 24 January 2023. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to compensate at a rate of 10% of the estimated weekly rent over this period. The Ombudsman makes a separate order for compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of follow-on works. This compensation is calculated in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

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, and its handling of follow-on works.

Orders

  1. The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay compensation of £1,540 directly to the resident, which is reduced to £1,340, if the landlord has already paid the compensation that it previously offered. This compensation has been determined in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is broken down as follows:
    1. £1,140 in recognition of loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s delay to complete identified repairs in the property.
    2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould, and its handling of follow-on works.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
  4. The landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review into the issues identified in this case. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the decision. The landlord should endeavour to bring any identified improvements into operation within 3 months of it completing its review. As a minimum the landlord must:
    1. Satisfy itself that it has adequate processes in place for assessing risk and recording its decision making, when considering the need for a temporary decant.
    2. Review the adequacy of its existing oversight processes for tracking works orders. The landlord should ensure that it has alternative procedures in place to complete works in default, if its repair’s contractor does not have the resources to complete identified works in a timely manner (assuming its contract with its repair’s contractor would allow this).
    3. Review the adequacy of its existing processes for tracking remedies and outstanding actions to a successful completion following closure of a complaint, and its mechanism for keeping residents updated.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should reinspect the property to establish the extent of the resident’s latest reports about damp and mould.