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

Platform Housing Group Limited (202229614)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229614

Platform Housing Group Limited

27 June 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:
    1. Handling of reports of defects, including damp and mould in the property.
    2. Response to concerns about compliance with building regulations.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a shared owner since September 2020. The property is a new build 3-bedroom house, which was completed in March 2020.
  2. On 18 February 2021, the resident reported defects, including damp and mould, as part of the end of defects inspection.
  3. On 22 November 2022, the resident told the landlord he was still having a problem with damp and mould, and on 9 December 2022 he said mould had spread throughout the property and it was affecting his partner’s health, who was pregnant.
  4. In response, the landlord sent the resident a leaflet on 24 January 2023 advising him about mould and damp prevention. It said if the problem persisted, he would need to arrange an inspection and send it the findings. It said if the problem was caused by the building, it could pass this to the developer as a latent defect.
  5. The resident complained on 29 January 2023 about the damp and mould and a lack of communication from the landlord about the problem. In its response on 24 February 2023, the landlord said it had been unable to find any reports of damp and mould raised during the defects period. However, it said there was a report at the end of the defects inspection, and it had followed its policy when it had sent the resident a leaflet with advice about this. It said it was only able to investigate its actions from the previous 6 months and could not consider his earlier reports. It said it had sent advice again in January 2023 and advised him to arrange an independent inspection. However, it said it now had a new procedure for reports of damp and mould and because of this, it had asked a surveyor to contact the resident to discuss his concerns.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 March 2023. He was unhappy his older reports of damp and mould had not been considered. He felt his home was not compliant with building regulations and asked for the name of the home ownership officer. He said the living conditions were having a negative effect on his and his partner’s physical and mental health. He said the landlord had sent him the incorrect Local Authority Building Control (LABC) certification and this was a data breach. He wanted the landlord to consider his older reports, damp and mould to be addressed urgently, details of how to contact his home ownership officer, the correct LABC certificate, and an apology for failing to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.
  7. On 1 May 2023, an independent survey was carried out on behalf of the landlord. This found evidence of historic damp and a fault with loft insulation. It also found the windows did not have ‘trickle ventilation’ and said consideration should be given to installing vents in the windows.
  8. In its final response on 22 May 2023, the landlord apologised that the resident’s experience of his home and the service provided had not met his expectations. It said it would contact the developers about the defective loft insulation, but his home was built in compliance with building regulations at the time, and trickle vents were not a requirement. It said it was sorry the resident had to submit several reports and had to follow up his calls. On the LABC certificate, it apologised but said the error did not constitute a data breach as the certificate did not provide any personal data. It offered £500 compensation for the time taken to resolve the damp and mould, £300 for time taken to follow up his calls, and £50 for delay in sharing the certificate. It provided details on how to contact the home ownership officer.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman as he said he was getting nowhere resolving the issues, and the damp and mould had caused health problems.
  10. On 21 December 2023, the landlord carried out a follow up survey, which identified various works that were required, including repairs to the loft insulation. The landlord said it would carry out the works in the New Year. In June 2024, the resident confirmed that some works, including loft insulation, had been completed but other works were still to be completed. He said he wanted compensation for damage caused to his goods.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident complained the landlord provided him with the incorrect LABC certification, which he said was a data breach. After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint as it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about data protection breaches, as these usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
  2. The resident referred to the effect that damp and mould had on his health. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.o of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider this part of the complaint. This is because we cannot determine impact on health, and the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that concern matters where the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  3. The resident said he wanted the landlord to compensate him for damage to his personal belongings. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the complaint for damages. This is because the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
  4. The Ombudsman can only consider complaints about actions or omissions by the landlord. This includes looking at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of incorrect documentation and the effect of damp and mould.

Handling of reports of defects, including damp and mould in the property

  1. The LABC warranty policy document says that during the first 12 months from the date of completion, the builder is responsible for remedying defects and any resultant damage to the home.
  2. The landlord’s welcome to your new home document says the new home is under guarantee by the developer during the 12-month defects liability period. During this time, the developer will put right any defects that arise, and when the 12month period is up, the resident will receive a letter advising when an inspection will be carried out to make a list of any remaining defects. The inspection will be attended by the developer and the landlord. The developer will then arrange for any work to be done. After the 12month defects liability period has ended, shared owners will be responsible for arranging and paying for any repairs, in line with the terms of their lease.
  3. The landlord’s defects policy says it will log any reported defects, pass them to the developer, and will proactively monitor them and escalate as appropriate. The policy says the landlord will arrange an end of defects inspection and ensure any agreed repairs are completed by the developer within timescales. It also says the landlord will make alternative arrangements if a developer is unable to complete repairs in a timely manner.
  4. The Ombudsman has noted the LABC warranty started on 3 March 2020, and the resident’s lease started on 25 September 2020, which was 6 months into the warranty period. Records provided by the landlord show that it logged several defects on 30 September 2020, but these did not include damp and mould.
  5. On 18 February 2021, which was within the warranty period, the landlord logged a report of a “major mould problem that is affecting the health of occupants”. This was identified as part of the end defects inspection. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this problem was raised with the developer, as the landlord’s defects policy sets out. Instead, the landlord’s records show the resident was sent a leaflet and asked to provide photos of the damp and mould. On 23 March 2021, the landlord noted that the resident was chasing end of year defects that had been raised.
  6. As the damp was reported during the defects period, and identified as a major problem affecting health, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have followed the defects policy and raised this with the developer. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to follow its defects policy, and because of this, the reported problem with damp and mould was not investigated in a timely manner.
  7. On 22 November 2022, 18 months later, the resident told the landlord there was still a problem with damp and nothing had been done about the issue he reported 2 years ago. It is unclear from the records why there was a significant time gap between the reports of damp and mould. The resident called the landlord on 9 December 2022 and said mould had spread throughout the property and was affecting his and his partner’s health. He said his partner was pregnant.
  8. The landlord responded on 24 January 2023, which was 2 months after the resident reported damp and mould. In its response, it sent a leaflet which gave advice on maintenance, and said if the problem persisted he would need to arrange an inspection. It said if the problem was caused by how the property had been built, it could pass this back to the developer as a latent defect.
  9. The resident responded and said he had been sent a similar leaflet before and had been following the advice, but it made no difference. He said the damp and mould had been going on since October 2022, and this was because of a property defect. He said the main area affected was the bathroom, and it was caused by either a leak in the roof, the extractor fan was insufficient, or the window was not fitted properly. He said he had to wipe windows and sills in other rooms every morning. He asked for the problem to be looked at urgently.
  10. The Ombudsman has found that although it was reasonable to provide general advice, it took the landlord 2 months to respond to the report of damp and mould made on 22 November 2022. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord checked its records to identify whether there were previous reports. Because of this, the landlord followed an approach where it sent general advice rather than arrange to visit the resident’s property to inspect the reported fault. The Ombudsman has found there was a lack of curiosity from the landlord about the report of damp and mould, even though the resident said it had been a problem for 2 years, and that this was a failure by the landlord.
  11. Records show the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s response on 29 January 2023. He said there were multiple issues and was trying to speak to someone about it but kept being fobbed off” and passed backwards and forwards”. He wanted the landlord to send a surveyor to investigate.
  12. In its response on 24 February 2023, the landlord said it had no evidence of damp and mould being raised during the defects period. However, it acknowledged there was a note from 18 February 2021, showing mould being reported during the end of defects inspection. It said it followed its policy at the time and sent a leaflet containing advice to the resident. However, it said it now had a new policy and because of this it had arranged for a surveyor to contact the resident within 28 days. It said the surveyor would decide whether an inspection was required. The Ombudsman has found that overall, this was a reasonable response in the circumstances. However, the resident then had to wait a further 28-days to be contacted by a surveyor, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was an overly long additional wait for a problem that was reported in November 2022.
  13. In its response, the landlord also told the resident that because of its complaints policy, it was only able to investigate its actions over the last 6 months. It said this meant it was unable to investigate how it had dealt with the resident’s earlier reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman accepts there is a time limit on how far investigations can go back, and this is set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord’s complaints policy from 2022, said it would not investigate complaints where the issues are more than 6 months old. This was out of step with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and the Ombudsman is pleased to note that the latest version of the complaints policy has been updated to say the landlord will not investigate complaints that are more than 12 months old.
  14. The Ombudsman has not seen a note on the outcome of the surveyor’s visit to the resident’s property, but on 1 May 2023, an independent inspection of the property was carried out. Again, the Ombudsman has noted that this was over 2 months after the landlord’s final response, and almost 6 months since the resident reported damp and mould. During the period between the first complaint response and the independent inspection, the resident escalated his complaint on 10 March 2023.
  15. The Ombudsman has noted the landlord did not send its final response until 22 May 2023, which was outside the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord was waiting for the independent inspection report, and did contact the resident to say there would be a delay. Because of this, the delay in responding was reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. The independent inspection found isolated areas of damp and mould caused by defects with the loft insulation and made recommendations on how to resolve the problem. The landlord said in its final response that it would raise this as a defect with the developer. It awarded £800 for delays in dealing with the damp and mould. The Ombudsman has found that this was a reasonable resolution in the circumstances.
  17. However, following the final response, the Ombudsman has noted there was a further delay in carrying out the repair to the loft insulation. Records provided by the landlord show that some of the delays were caused by difficulties it had engaging the developer. However, the landlord’s defects policy says the landlord will make alternative arrangements if a developer is unable to complete repairs in a timely manner. The Ombudsman has noted that the landlord carried out a further inspection of the property in December 2023. Following this, it agreed to carry out a range of works, and engaged its own builder to do the work. The resident confirmed the loft insulation was repaired in February 2024.
  18. While the landlord’s final response was reasonable, there was an expectation that it would arrange for the repairs to be completed in a timely manner. The Ombudsman accepts that additional delays were caused to some extent by a lack of engagement from the developer. However, responsibility sat with the landlord, and because of the additional delay the resident experienced further inconvenience. The Ombudsman has found that the further delay was a service failure by the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, service failure occurs when there is a minor failure. Because of this, the Ombudsman is ordering the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation. 

Response to concerns about compliance with building regulations

  1. From 15 June 2022, all new and replacement windows installed in the UK need to be fitted with trickle vents in line with new building regulations. This applies to new and existing properties.
  2. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the property meets specific building regulations. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord reasonably dealt with the resident’s concerns that his home did not meet building regulations.
  3. Records provided by the landlord show a surveyor carried out a satisfactory final inspection of the property on 3 March 2020. On the basis of this, it is reasonable to conclude that the property met relevant building regulations at that time.
  4. In his complaint on 29 January 2023, the resident said there were multiple issues with his property including damp and mould, and on 16 February 2023, he raised a concern that the windows did not have trickle vents.
  5. As part of the complaint investigation, the landlord arranged an independent inspection of the property, which was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances.
  6. The inspection on 1 May 2023, found the windows did not have trickle vents. It said that although trickle vents only became mandatory in June 2022, it was highly unusual for modern windows not to include background ventilators. The inspection said consideration should be given to retrospectively installing vents to windows. It also suggested consulting the original architect as the omission of vents could have been part of a strategy to secure other building regulation requirements, such as air tightness and energy performance.
  7. In its final response, the landlord said the property had been built in line with building regulations in force in 2020. However, it said it would follow the advice from the independent inspection and had requested information about the ventilation strategy.
  8. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns. As already noted, there was a delay in arranging the independent inspection. However, the inspection confirmed the property met building regulations in place at the time the property was built. The landlord then reasonably contacted the developer about the ventilation strategy. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to concerns about compliance with building regulations.
  9. The Ombudsman has not seen the outcome of the request for information about the ventilation strategy, and it is unclear whether this was provided to the resident. Because of this, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord provides this information to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of defects, including damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns about compliance with building regulations.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord provides the resident with a copy of the ventilation strategy if it has not already done so.