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

Hightown Housing Association Limited (202229801)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229801

Hightown Housing Association Limited

31 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of flooring and increased heating bills as a result of water penetration.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration and damp following a leak.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and his request for a permanent move.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. During the timeline of the complaint, the resident lived in the property with his daughter who has autism. At times, the resident’s partner has acted as his representative in correspondence with the landlord. For the purpose of this complaint, both will be referred to as “the resident”.
  2. On 10 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that there appeared to be a leak coming from the bathroom. The landlord attended the property on 18 January 2023 and found the issue was coming from under the bath. It noted that the leak had been ongoing for some time, and had resulted in damaged flooring which the resident had laid himself. It also recorded that the wall next to the bath was wet, so works orders were raised to replace sections of plasterboard and skirting. After initial assessments into the resulting damp and mould had taken place, the resident was provided with dehumidifiers and the matter was referred to an external repair contractor for review.
  3. In their assessment, the contractor said the landlord needed to take into account further works including the removal of the bath to fully access the location of the leak, and a longer drying out phase. This meant the works were likely to be more extensive than originally thought and as a result, the landlord informed the resident he would need to be temporarily decanted. It explained he should make a claim on his contents insurance for damage to his personal items, but offered him £175 as a goodwill gesture towards the replacement of his flooring, which had been damaged by the leak.
  4. The resident initially refused the offer, and approached the Ombudsman directly on 28 February 2023 to advise that he wanted to make a complaint. He wanted compensation for all the flooring that he had laid throughout the property and an additional contribution towards his heating bills, which he felt had accrued as a result of the property being damp from the leak. The resident also explained that he wanted to be considered for a permanent move.
  5. The Ombudsman notified the landlord of the resident’s complaint on 5 June 2023 and it acknowledged his concerns on the same day. It issued an “early stage” complaint response on 8 June 2023. It said that it did not feel that additional compensation to what it had already offered him was justified. It said he had been kept regularly informed of the progress of the repairs and he had been provided appropriate advice in terms of his move options. The resident was unhappy with the response. He alleged that the landlord had been aware of water penetration in the property since 2022 and it had left him to live in “unsafe conditions”. He said it was not taking into account his household needs and felt it should offer him a permanent move.
  6. The landlord issued a final response on 23 June 2023. It apologised that it had referred to its earlier correspondence as “early stage” when it was intended as a stage 1 formal response. It offered him £50 in recognition of the confusion it had caused. It explained that it found no evidence that the leak had been reported earlier than January 2023, felt it had addressed his concerns appropriately and had compensated him fairly during the time of his decant.
  7. In recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident said that his health had deteriorated and the humidity in the property was “worse, and not getting any better”. He felt that the landlord had acted unfairly and should have considered him for a permanent management move.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme explains that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  3. On 10 and 13 March 2023 the resident made 2 money claims against the landlord. These were registered as claims with the courts and formally issued to the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for reimbursement of flooring costs and a contribution towards his heating bills.
  4. On 27 July 2023, the landlord offered the resident £175 to conclude matters, on the proviso that all further claims about the flooring and the heating bills be withdrawn. The resident agreed to this in writing on the same day. The courts were notified, and the claim was withdrawn.
  5. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about reimbursement for flooring and heating bills, because they concern matters which he raised as part of legal proceedings. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of flooring and increased heating bills as a result of water penetration is outside of jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration and damp following a leak.

  1. The resident has a responsibility to report repairs in a timely manner, in accordance with his tenancy agreement. In this case, no evidence was seen that he reported a leak, damp or mould to the landlord prior to 10 January 2023. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord was unaware of the need to investigate the issue prior to this date. The landlord’s repairs and responsibilities document says that it aims for a 3 working day response time for reports of a minor leak from an indoor water supply. Records show that although the landlord was delayed in attending the property, it still visited within a reasonable timeframe on 18 January 2023.
  2. The landlord recognised that in addition to the leak under the bath, there was damp and mould in the property. However there were conflicting assessments made about its severity. Contrary to the recommendations made within the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould, there is limited evidence that the landlord adopted a risk-based approach and clearly identified what its initial diagnosis of the issue was. For example, an incomplete report submitted by the property inspector on 27 January 2023 noted “inspected every room and no mould found”, detailing no specific findings. However an environmental health officer (EHO) assessment done later the same day noted that there was “substantial” mould on the wall under the bath. This contradictory information was confusing, and as a result the landlord has been unable to evidence that it was clear about the condition of the property from its initial investigations.
  3. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. In this case, whilst it is accepted that the landlord referred the matter to an external generic repairs contractor, there is no evidence that the situation was reviewed by a damp and mould specialist. As a result it is unclear whether the landlord had identified and considered the full extent of the problem before it arranged for repairs at the property. 
  4. In the absence of a damp and mould survey, it was still clear that the initial scope of works needed to be more extensive as was highlighted in the external contractor correspondence dated 22 February 2023. The landlord notified the resident of the revised works and the need to temporarily decant the property in a timely manner. However the landlord experienced difficulty in arranging a start date for the repairs because the resident would not agree for it to proceed until he was reimbursed for his flooring, resulting in delays.
  5. In its correspondence dated 2 March 2023, the landlord made it clear to the resident that it had a legal obligation to carry out the works, and urged him to cooperate to allow access in order for the repairs to be carried out as soon as possible. It warned him that if he failed to do so, it would consider seeking an injunction for access. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord recognised the urgency it needed to start the repair works.
  6. There were further delays starting the works during March 2023 whilst the landlord sourced appropriate alternative accommodation for the resident, which was reasonable. Once he moved on 30 March 2023, it progressed with the schedule of works in a timely manner. Its records demonstrate that it was in regular contact with the resident to provide him with progress updates which was appropriate and helped manage his expectations. He was able to return to the property on 2 May 2023, which was within the predicted timeframe for the completion of the works.
  7. During a visit to post-inspect the property on 11 May 2023, the landlord recorded that it noticed that the property felt humid and the resident was given appropriate advice about using the tumble dryer and keeping his windows open. Whilst it was important for the landlord to highlight to the resident the importance of keeping the property ventilated, it should have considered whether further monitoring and investigations were required following the completion of the works in line with its HHSRS obligations. It is acknowledged that in February 2024, the landlord revisited the property following further reports of mould made by the resident, and it raised for an upgrade to the kitchen extractor fan. Given the history of the resident’s reports of mould it would have been appropriate for a formal assessment of the damp to have taken place. However to date, no evidence of a specific damp and mould assessment has been seen and the resident reports that the issue remains unresolved. An order has been made for the landlord to revisit the property with a damp and mould specialist.
  8. The landlord does not have a specific damp and mould policy in place. It does however have a section within its repairs guide that it provides to residents which is focussed on damp and condensation. This document provides the resident with information about what damp and mould is, and what steps residents can take to prevent it. It does not explain what steps the landlord will take to address ongoing problems, and does not signpost residents to where they can go if they have followed the landlord’s advice and the issue remains. An order has been made for the landlord to review this, taking into account the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
  9. Overall, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs following a leak. The landlord quickly identified the cause of the leak from the bathroom and the remedial works it identified were conducted according to schedule, with the resident being kept regularly updated. However, there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have sought the expert opinion of a damp and mould specialist at an earlier opportunity. This would have assisted it in being confident that its interventions had resolved the damp issue fully in accordance with its HHSRS obligations, and provided the resident with reassurance it was taking the matter seriously.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and his request for a permanent move.

  1. Records show that the resident first expressed a desire to move in July 2022, and informed the landlord that he wanted a property with a garden so he could have a dog and be better located for his daughter’s medical appointments. The landlord’s allocations policy explains that it does not hold an internal transfer list, and any properties not let through the local authority would be registered and advertised through a mutual exchange (MEX) scheme. The resident was given advice at the time and referred to the MEX scheme which was appropriate.
  2. In February 2023, when the landlord was informed by its contractor that the amount of remedial works were likely to be extensive and they would be unable to be concluded with the resident in situ, it was reasonable for it to have arranged for a temporary decant with the resident. Records show that the landlord communicated the reasons for the decant with the resident in a timely manner. This was appropriate and helped manage his expectations.
  3. It is understood that the resident had concerns about where he would need to move to, particularly because his daughter had additional needs which needed to be considered. A letter from the social worker dated 22 February 2023 highlighted that the resident’s daughter needed to continue to be able to attend her college, and they raised concerns that it was “beyond [the resident’s] means to live a hotel lifestyle”. In response, the landlord referred the matter to its housing team which was appropriate. A decision was made to change the temporary accommodation type from a hotel to a 2 bedroom property within a reasonable commuting distance of the college. This showed that the landlord appropriately considered the support evidence and minimised the impact a temporary move posed to the family.
  4. On 28 February 2023, the resident said that unless a permanent move was offered, he could not accept any offer of temporary accommodation. The landlord’s allocations policy explains that in certain circumstances, it will consider a management move as a “last resort” where other action has failed. It says it will move residents on exceptional grounds such as fleeing domestic violence or where there is a high level medical need. Whilst it is accepted that the prospect of moving temporarily caused the resident inconvenience, his circumstances at the time did not meet the criteria for a permanent management move.
  5. The landlord reconsidered the information the resident provided and met with the social worker on 16 March 2023. Based on the information that was presented, the landlord was able to confirm that temporary accommodation within reasonable location of his daughter’s college was suitable to the needs of the family, and it was offered to the resident again, which was appropriate. Records show that the resident refused the property on the basis that it did not allow pets. There is no evidence that the landlord had been aware prior to the offer of a need to rehome the resident’s cat. Once it became aware of this, it found the resident self-contained accommodation with cooking facilities that allowed the cat. This demonstrated a willingness to ensure all household needs were taken into account. It also paid for the taxi fare to the accommodation which was reasonable.
  6. The landlord was in regular contact with the resident during the time he was decanted which was appropriate. Upon his return to the property, the resident reported that he had noticed damage to his sofa which he alleged to have taken place during the time he was away. The landlord attended promptly to assess the damage and identified that 10mm base cap of one leg of the sofas was missing. It took prompt steps to raise the allegation of damage with its contractors. Although there was no evidence that the contractors were at fault, it offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture which was reasonable and sufficient to put matters right for the resident.
  7. It is understood that during the timeline of his complaint, the resident was dissatisfied that his neighbour was moved when he felt he had a greater priority need. The landlord was not at liberty to discuss his neighbour’s personal circumstances. The resident was given appropriate advice about what his move options were, based on the information he had provided the landlord on a number of occasions. The information the landlord gave the resident was consistent and appropriate in line with its allocations policy.
  8. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to his feeling that he was assured he could be moved via management transfer. Email correspondence shows that the landlord referred his case to the housing team, but there is no evidence that it had confirmed that the request had met the criteria or been approved at any point. The landlord clarified this to the resident in an email on 2 October 2023. The explanation that it gave was reasonable and managed the resident’s expectations. It is noted that in recent contact with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that his health has since deteriorated and he feels isolated in his home. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to see if his circumstances have changed and consider whether he requires a referral to support services.
  9. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and request for a permanent move. The landlord gave the resident consistent and appropriate advice about what his move options were in accordance with its allocations policy. At the time the resident needed to be decanted to allow for the completion of the repairs, the landlord kept in regular contact and took his household needs into consideration. The offer of temporary accommodation took into consideration supporting evidence from social services which was appropriate.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water penetration and damp following a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and his request for a permanent move.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of flooring and increased heating bills as a result of water penetration is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the service failure noted within this report, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £125 to the resident. The amount should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The compensation is comprised of:
    1. £75 in recognition of the loss in confidence the resident experienced in the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp following the leak.
    2. £50 it offered for the damage to the resident’s sofa, referenced in paragraph 28 of this report, if not already paid.  
  3. The landlord is ordered to visit the property with a damp and mould specialist and address the resident’s more recent concerns. The landlord should update the Ombudsman and the resident of the outcome of the visit in writing, within 4 weeks.
  4. The landlord is ordered to carry out an assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report. In doing so, the landlord should explain in detail how it has adopted recommendation 2 with regards to its overall framework and policy to address reports of damp and mould, and how it intends to update its repairs guidance. The report is to be shared with the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord discuss the resident’s recent concerns as referred to in paragraph 30 of this report and consider whether a referral to support services is appropriate.