Vivid Housing Limited (202232756)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232756

Vivid Housing Limited

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 various repairs she had requested it complete to:
  1. The windows to the property;
  2. The gutters to the building;
  3. Cracked brickwork and damaged lintel to the external wall;
  4. Uneven and damaged flooring in her property;
  5. Remedy the excessive cold in her property;
  6. Remedy the damp and mould in her home;
2. The landlord’s handling of a suspected fire hydrant leak;
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a shared-ownership lease for a one-bedroomed ground–floor flat, which began at the end of November 2021.
The lease sets out the division of responsibilities for repairs between the landlord and leaseholder. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair, redecoration and renewal of:
1. The roof, foundations and main structure of the building, including all external and load-bearing walls, the windows and doors of the property (except for the glass);
2. The conducting media serving the building;
3. The common areas.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp, mould, and excessive cold are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The Ombudsman published the Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-damp-and-mould/ ) which stated that landlords should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in their approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in properties.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that once an issue is reported, it will ask residents to monitor the levels of damp in their home for six weeks, and after that it will decide if repair works are required. It will contact residents on a six-weekly basis after repairs are completed, until they confirm they are happy that the problem is resolved. In the case of shared-ownership properties where the root cause of the damp is not obvious, it expects the resident to organise and pay for a survey to establish the cause. It says it “may” refund the cost of the survey if the root cause is identified as being its responsibility.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Its compensation guidance sets out its approach to redress, including where there has been financial loss incurred by a resident. It also provides staff with guidance on reimbursement for the costs of running heaters or dehumidifiers.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms it is responsible for blocking up entry points in the case of pests. The policy confirms its various repairs responsibilities for different issues, and gives timescales of 24 hours for repairs categorised as emergencies, and seven calendar days for those categorised as urgent.
The resident raised several other matters to the landlord during the period covered by this investigation. We will not make further reference to them, as they fall outside the scope of this investigation.

Summary of events

On 23 December 2021 the resident reported rats or squirrels in the walls or roof of the property, and the landlord advised her it was her responsibility to arrange pest control.
On 19 January 2022 the resident chased a response from the landlord regarding the windows to her property. She said she had submitted three enquiries since November 2021, and that it was “freezing and unsafe” to have an unlocked window at the front of her property, and the top windows were a “fire and safety hazard” as she would not be able to escape in the event of a fire (it is understood that this is because she could not open them).
There is record of an automatic reply email sent to the resident in response, which explained that the landlord’s email service was down and it had therefore not received the contents of her email. It advised its email service would be operational from 24 January 2022, and that the resident could call its phone line instead.
The resident called the landlord on 20 January 2022, and reported her concerns regarding the windows. The resident chased a response on 25 January 2022, and the landlord asked her to send it a copy of the section of her lease which showed it was responsible, which the resident did on 3 February 2022.
The resident chased a response from the landlord a further three times between 9 and 17 February 2022. She asked the landlord to confirm if she had permission to replace the windows herself.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord called the resident, established that it seemed the previous occupant had changed the windows themselves, and advised that it would replace her windows as part of its works programme scheduled to start in October 2022. It also offered to recommend some repairs contractors if she wanted to arrange for the windows to be eased and adjusted in the meantime.
The resident next contacted the landlord on 15 May 2022, and reported that there was a leak coming from the flat above, which had entered her bathroom through the electric fan and she could hear dripping in the walls. The landlord attended on 17 May 2022 and made the fan safe.
There was then a gap in communication, until the resident reported a leak from a neighbouring flat’s overflow (it is not clear if it was the same flat). She told the landlord it had caused “issues” in the communal garden, and that the dripping noise was “annoying”. On 11 July 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had notified her neighbour and asked them to fix the leak.
On 11 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord, after she had received notification from it that it would replace the roof to the building. She said she also wanted it to carry out repairs to:
1. The “rotten” communal front door;
2. The windows;
3. The structure, as the floor had warped and there were “big gaps” between the floor and the walls.
The landlord replied the same day, and advised the resident that she would shortly receive a notice of the landlord’s proposal to replace the windows and doors during 2022 to 2023. It asked the resident to log a repair for the structure of the building.
The resident chased an update regarding the windows on 1 September 2022, and logged the repair for the “structure” of the property. She explained she thought tree roots may be the cause of the damage, and the next day she emailed in some pictures of cracked tarmac and a hole under the external wall. On 8 September 2022 the resident sent an additional photo showing the building in wet weather, with areas of damp visible on the lower parts of the external wall.
The landlord noted in early September 2022 that it was possible a tree had fallen onto the roof.
On 8 September 2022 the landlord responded to the resident, and confirmed it would inspect the brickwork on 20 December 2022, which it told her was the earliest available date.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would arrange a stock condition survey of her windows within the next two weeks. The resident contacted the landlord two months later, on 9 November 2022, and advised that she had had no further contact regarding this. A member of the landlord’s staff asked the resident to confirm what was “wrong” with the windows on 16 November 2022, which she did that day.
The landlord’s records show it closed a job to inspect the external brickwork on 18 November 2022, having identified that it required a surveyor to attend.
On 28 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that its fire safety team would respond to her concerns. The resident reminded the landlord that “the damp and collapsing brick work” were outstanding.
On 10 December 2022 the resident submitted a completed damp and mould questionnaire to the landlord, and advised it that there was damp present in all of her rooms due to “disrepair”. On 11 December 2022 the resident explained to the landlord that the situation was very stressful, the damp and mould had affected her sinuses, and that she could not have her elderly parents to visit. The resident described the walls as running with water.
On 12 December 2022 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding its response to the “rising damp” she had reported. She asked it to send a suitably qualified surveyor and a damp and timber specialist to carry out a structural survey. She explained that she was “fed up of waking up in wet bedding and walking on wet carpets”, that there was moisture on the walls even when she used a dehumidifier, and that her floorboards had warped and bowed.
The resident has advised that she submitted a subject access request (SAR) on 23 December 2022, with the aim of gaining the information relating to the repairs she had raised. She has advised the landlord issued her with its response to the SAR on 29 December 2022, but it did not contain the repairs information.
The landlord recorded that it closed the complaint after talking with the resident and agreeing that a damp and mould survey would be carried out on 5 January 2023. It noted that the resident had reported squirrels under the floor and that mice had accessed her toilet. It also noted that she told it she could not get the temperature in the property above 16 degrees Celsius, and that this may be due to a lack of insulation.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 5 January 2023. It identified the need for the gutters to be cleared, and for trickle vents to be fitted to the building. The surveyor noted that there was no mould in most of the rooms because the resident had recently cleaned them, but the area of mould they had observed suggested that it was a result of a condensing pipe hitting a cold wall. They noted that the survey readings did not suggest there was a water ingress or build issue. They noted that a damp patch visible on the external rear wall was likely due to a broken gutter downpipe, and asked for an urgent inspection and repair. They asked for a regular repair to be raised for the trickle vents to be fitted. The surveyor also recorded advice they had given the resident regarding the prevention and management of damp and mould.
On the same day, the landlord recorded a note on its repair system suggesting that it ‘tanked’ (waterproofed) the foundations to remedy the problem with wildlife getting in through the gap in the wall at foundation level, linking the matter to the other damp issues that had been reported.
On 8 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the gutters to the building were broken in several places, which caused the water to run down the walls and damp and condensation to form inside her and her neighbour’s properties, and reminded it that she was still waiting for the landlord to arrange a structural survey of the building. She explained she was unable to close her doors due to the bowed and “sinking” floors. The resident also asked the landlord to ensure it sent a suitably qualified individual, as she had been home during two previous visits by members of the landlord’s staff, who both told her the issue required a structural inspection and potentially “underpinning” work.
The resident has advised that on 10 January 2023 the landlord sent a copy of the damp and timber report for her property to her neighbour. She has explained this was upsetting, and she had found out through her neighbour and is therefore concerned that the report may have been shared with other residents too.
On 12 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a survey of the building, after the landlord asked it to investigate for subsidence. Its contractor noted that it was raining that day, and that it had been sent a photo prior to its visit that indicated there was dampness in the internal surface plaster of an external wall, which corresponded with the mortar joints. It noted some “undulations” in the ground floor surface and recommended the landlord inspect under the sub-floor void, and explained one potential cause could be dampness. It also recommended the landlord:
1. Clear and repair the gutters;
2. Install trickle vents;
3. Investigate the presence and quality of cavity and party wall insulation;
4. Provide “vermin protection” to the service opening in the rear of the property;
5. Contact the water supplier for the area, to ask it to inspect and repair a fire hydrant to the front of the property, which it suspected was leaking.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 January 2023. It:
1. Summarised her complaint as being about the gutters, damp and mould in her home, and decaying brickwork;
2. Identified that the resident wanted the gutters to be cleared and repaired, and for a structural survey to be carried out;
3. Acknowledged it had failed to communicate with the resident after its inspection of the brickwork, and that a structural survey was required;
4. Confirmed it had booked an inspection and repair for the guttering on 30 March 2023;
5. Confirmed a structural survey had been carried out on 12 January 2023. It had identified that “cavity fill insulation” needed to be fitted, which it would arrange;
6. Advised it had contacted the water board for the area to notify it that there was a leak to a fire hydrant on the site;
7. Advised that the survey had recommended that it carry out an “intrusive survey to the sub floor”, and that due to the “disruption” this would cause, it had decided to first fit the cavity wall insulation and then to assess whether the inspection remained necessary;
8. Offered the resident a total of £210 compensation, made up of:
  1. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to the repairs;
  2. £30 for not sending a structural engineer sooner;
  3. £30 to recognise the lack of communication following its inspection of the brickwork;
9. Advised the resident of how to escalate her complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied, and signposted her to this Service, and to its website for details of its compensation policy and support service.
The resident sent the landlord an email explaining her dissatisfaction with its response, on 27 January 2023:
1. She queried why it would take “two months” to repair the gutters, and reminded the landlord of the damp conditions in her home;
2. She asked why the risks regarding the windows had not been picked up in the surveys that had been done, and noted that the damp and mould survey had not investigated a cause;
3. The operative who had carried out the damp and timber survey had taken incorrect temperature readings, as they had held the thermometer in their hand. She reminded the landlord that her elderly parents could not visit due to the cold;
4. She asked if the compensation offer was an “interim payment”, as the repair works had not yet been completed. She told the landlord it cost her £28.72 per day to run the dehumidifier, and £30 per month for medication. She had bought a new duvet due to the mould damage, spent £700 on “pointless” heating, £150 for electricians and £150 per month for electricity;
5. She told the landlord she would seek advice from this Service.
The resident confirmed to the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 31 January 2023. On 7 February 2023, the landlord asked the resident to clarify what had not been resolved in its stage 1 response, and what resolution she was seeking.
The landlord and resident spoke on 15 February 2023 and the resident explained she felt blamed for the damp. She felt there had been a lack of communication from the landlord, which had not shared any reports with her. She wanted the amount of compensation to be reviewed. The landlord confirmed it had escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 February 2023.
On 23 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to add to the stage 2 response the matter of the leaking water hydrant. The water board had advised her that it had not received a report from the landlord regarding the leak.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 7 March 2023, as part of its review of her complaint. It issued its stage 2 complaint response letter to the resident on 23 March 2023. It:
1. Advised it had asked its roofing contractor to clear all the guttering to the block on 22 March 2023;
2. Advised it had employed a contractor to carry out a structural survey for subsidence on 12 January 2023, and none was found. There was a crack in the brickwork, which it advised was “normal” due to the effects of the environment, and that it would have this repointed on 18 August 2023;
3. Acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with its damp and mould survey, and explained it had received a second opinion on the structural survey. The contractor had advised that the damp and mould was likely caused by condensation due to poor cavity wall insulation, exacerbated by the “issues” with the guttering and lack of trickle vents in the windows.
4. Confirmed it was responsible for the windows to the resident’s property, and that it would inspect the windows and consider whether it should repair them or bring forward their scheduled replacement from 2030;
5. Confirmed its contractor had provided a quote for the filling of the cavity wall insulation, and would arrange a date with the resident to fit this;
6. Advised its damp and mould team would contact the resident every six weeks until the issues were resolved;
7. Advised it disagreed with its stage 1 complaint response, and offered the resident £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience it caused the resident due to the delay in the response from its damp and mould team, and £300 to cover the costs incurred by the resident through the use of her own dehumidifier;
8. Apologised that the resident had to make a complaint, and signposted her to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day, and queried why it needed another inspection of her windows, after five individuals had already done this. She told the landlord:
1. 2030 was too late for the window replacement, as they presented a fire risk;
2. The cavity wall had recently been inspected and fitted with insulation (after it was found not to contain any), which made a “massive difference already” and she was warmer;
3. The guttering had been cleared the day before. She had been advised that the edging posed dangers, and some loose tiles had been removed;
4. There was still a big hole under her bedroom wall and lintel. It had been inspected numerous times, and needed a repair rather than another inspection;
5. She had had her ventilation inspected by a contractor she had engaged, and had been advised that there was not space to add extra ventilation. It had told her that the existing ventilation would not be effective until she could open her windows;
6. There had been “a continued lack of communication” from the landlord regarding the repair works to be done. She had been home when some visits were carried out, but that was “luck” due to her being “signed off”.
On 26 April 2023, the landlord issued a notice to the resident of its proposal to replace the doors and windows to individual properties.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord closed the job for the inspection of the wall, noting that it had not found any holes in the brickwork.
The landlord’s records show that it closed a job for the inspection of the windows after it failed to gain access to the property on 22 June 2023.
The resident asked the landlord for an update three times between 23 May 2023 and17 July 2023. On 19 July 2023 the landlord advised the resident it was in the process of chasing the bricklayer, and it would provide a further update by the end of the following day.
The resident chased the landlord again for an update regarding the repairs to the brickwork and windows in early August 2023.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the windows on 11 August 2023.
The resident said an appointment was booked for 18 August 2023 to repair the holes under the foundations of the building, but no one turned up. She explained she had taken a day’s annual leave from her work to be there.
The resident asked for a complaint to be logged at stage 2 on 16 September 2023. She chased an update regarding the missed appointment for the damaged brickwork, reported that a vertical crack had appeared on the internal walls above the damaged brickwork, and that holes had appeared on the external wall under her bedroom window. The resident explained that her dehumidifier collected 12 litres of water a day, and mould had grown on her bedroom walls. The resident questioned whether the insulation that had been fitted would be affected by the damp, and said she was afraid the vermin that were able to enter her flat would affect her property and her health. The resident also reported that the communal front door had bowed and would not close. She asked for:
1. An immediate inspection of the damaged brickwork by a suitably qualified person to assess the extent of the damage to the underneath of her bedroom, floorboards, and pipework and for the necessary repairs to be completed within 60 days;
2. Regular and transparent communication regarding the progress of the works;
3. Compensation for damages, including the cost of replastering her walls, redecoration and new carpet and underlay.
The landlord replaced the windows on 19 September 2023 and completed a mould wash on the wall with the window in the kitchen. The new windows contain trickle vents.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord raised a job for a damp and mould survey.
The landlord carried the second damp and mould survey on 6 October 2023. It found no mould present. The resident advised the surveyor she was happy for the damp and mould case to be closed down, and that it was the repair to the wall that she wanted to be completed. The resident told the surveyor that the landlord had paid for a structural survey, which had recommended “ACO drainage” was installed. The landlord noted that it was agreed a thermal imaging camera inspection was not necessary.
On 24 October 2023 the resident sent the landlord a video of the new front door, which she told it was warped, and did not close or lock.
The landlord booked an appointment to dig a drainage trench on 3 November 2023.
The resident has advised that as of March 2024, she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions regarding the external wall. She explained that she lost pay each time she took time off work to be present for three appointments the landlord missed. She has advised that an operative has filled the hole at her request whilst they attended the site for a separate job, however she would like the area to be surveyed to ensure there is no ongoing issue or damage.

Assessment and findings

The damp, mould, and excessive cold in the property

Many of the repairs the resident had sought were contributors to the damp, mould, and excessively cold conditions in the property.
The property was found to lack adequate cavity wall insulation, and when this was fitted in March 2023 the resident reported that it had made a “massive” difference to the temperature of her home.
Additionally, the property lacked adequate ventilation, in part because many of the windows did not open. The resident had reported her concerns regarding the windows in January 2022, and said she had made previous attempts to raise the matter prior to the start of her lease. The landlord identified the need for trickle vents to be fitted when it carried out a damp and mould survey a year later, and this was reiterated by the contracted surveyor who attended a few days later. It was another half a year until the landlord fitted new windows in September 2023, which was an unreasonable length of time.
The resident did report an internal leak and a leak from the overflow from her neighbours, and the landlord took action within a reasonable period to notify the neighbours of these issues.
The resident reported water running down the internal walls, that the carpets were soaked, her bedding was wet, and she shared a photo of pooled water on her window sill with the landlord. She used a dehumidifier to try to remove moisture from the air, which she explained had been expensive. She had tried to use her heating to warm the property, but had ended up spending a lot with minimal impact on the temperature of her home.
The resident explained the distressing impact of living with these effects, explaining she had become physically ill, had been signed off work because of the impact on her mental health, and could not have her parents round to visit due to the risks to their health.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will complete urgent repairs with a week. However, it does specify that residents with shared ownership leases are expected to arrange and pay for a damp and mould survey in the first instance. There is no record that the landlord advised the resident of this, which contributed to an unreasonable delay on its part.
There was a gap of over 10 weeks between the landlord being notified by the surveyors who had attended in January 2023 that the walls were potentially too cold, and the fitting of the cavity wall insulation. The resident had reminded the landlord that it was winter, and it should have considered this along with the health issues she had informed it of, to consider whether it could have brought this forward. As it was, this was an unreasonable delay and caused the resident additional and avoidable distress.
The resident has explained that she was caused additional upset when her damp and timber report was shared with her neighbour. The landlord should now take appropriate steps to reassure her of what was shared with who, and how it occurred.
The resident sought clarity about the landlord’s plans, and for clear information about the findings of its inspections. She said she submitted a SAR with this intention in December 2022. The landlord’s failure to keep her updated and informed was a missed opportunity to provide her with reassurance that it understood the matters she had raised and was seeking to put things right. The landlord’s original offer of £550 compensation at stage 2 (of which £300 was for the cost of running the dehumidifier) was not proportionate to the cumulative effect of its failures and lack of communication on the resident, and we have made an order below to remedy this.
The resident has supplied the landlord with a detailed list of costs she incurred, and it would be appropriate that it advises her of the best way to submit a claim, consider and confirm what it will offer.

The windows

In mid-September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would arrange for a survey to be done of her windows. She contacted it nearly two months later to chase this, and had to explain again what her concerns were. The resident has explained this was one year after she had initially made enquires about the windows.
The windows are the responsibility of the landlord, and it should ensure they meet safety requirements. The landlord fitted new windows, which contain trickle vents, in September 2023. This appeared to be carried out as part of a planned upgrade at the estate, and the landlord issued a service charge consultation which accounted for some of the time it took to complete this. However, overall there was an unreasonable delay to repairing the resident’s windows given the specific issues she had raised, and she was caused much distress in chasing an outcome from the landlord.
As discussed above, it is likely the original windows contributed to the poor conditions in the resident’s property. The resident was also very concerned that she would not be able to escape in the event of a fire. It is welcomed that the landlord has now fitted windows which are FENSA approved, as the resident had requested.
It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident £400 for the time and trouble she was caused in chasing a response regarding the windows due to the landlord’s poor communication and failure to progress the matter within a reasonable timescale.

The gutters

The landlord’s damp and mould survey on 5 January 2023 indicated that the damp was not caused by water ingress. It had noted the gutters and downpipe as being in need of clearance and repair, and asked for these to be raised as an urgent repair. However, the readings the surveyor had taken did not suggest that the water was coming through the resident’s walls.
Despite the findings in this case, the landlord should be aware that water hitting external walls for prolonged periods due to defective guttering can lead to water ingress and should not be left unremedied.
The guttering was cleared on 22 March 2023, which was not in line with its urgent repair timeframe. As discussed above, the landlord does not specify timescales for regular repairs. It took 52 working days for the work to be completed after the resident reported the matter on 8 January 2023, which is an unreasonable period to wait. It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident £50 for the time and trouble it caused her in having to chase this repair.

The uneven and damaged flooring in the property

The resident explained to the landlord that ‘warping’ of the floorboards meant she could not replace the damaged floor covers in her home, and also eventually led to her being unable to close her doors.
The landlord’s contracted surveyor identified at its visit in January 2023 that there did not appear to be subsidence, however the warping could be caused by damp conditions in the underfloor area.
The resident has explained that she has been caused inconvenience in having to chase for an inspection to be completed. Without this survey, she has been left uncertain of who is responsible for any remedial work, and she has not yet been able to replace her flooring. It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate her for the additional uncertainty this caused her.
The resident would like this survey to go ahead, and the landlord should now arrange this.

The cracked brickwork and damaged lintel to the external wall

The resident has explained that she was concerned that pests could access the building due to the damage at the base of the wall. The landlord is responsible for sealing any access points, and had record of the issues the resident had experienced with pests since December 2021.
The landlord agreed in early September 2022 to inspect the damaged area of brickwork, and advised the resident it could not do this before 20 December 2022. This was an unreasonable delay, as the inspection was required to understand what the extent of the problem was, and what repairs would be required.
The matter was raised again to the landlord by its contracted surveyor in January 2023, who recommended that the landlord fit pest-proofing.
As discussed above, the surveyor recommended that the landlord arrange for the sub-floor area to be inspected, and it should now look to do this. It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for the upset she was caused whilst chasing for a resolution to this issue.

The leaking fire hydrant

In January 2023, the landlord’s contracted surveyor advised it to contact the water supplier for the area, due to a suspected leaking fire hydrant in the grounds of the estate. The resident raised concerns, as part of her stage 2 complaint escalation, that the landlord had not done this. The landlord did not address this in its response, which will be discussed in relation to its complaints handling below. It should now take steps to confirm whether there is still an issue with the hydrant, and if so, confirm to us and the resident that it has reported this to the appropriate authority.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and compensation.

As discussed above, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the fire hydrant in its stage 2 response.
The landlord was right to recognise failures in its communication with the resident in both of its complaint response, however its offer of compensation was not appropriately proportionate to the distress and general negative impact caused to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation guidance suggests its staff offer compensation valued at 30% of the rental value for a period without heating, and £302.40 for every three weeks of dehumidifier use. Whilst the resident has a shared ownership lease, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reference to these figures when calculating the resident’s compensation, and it would also have been reasonable for it to consider the financial losses she had reported to it as a result of the disrepair she had experienced.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 was brief, and did not provide reassurance it had identified and taken appropriate learning from the resident’s case. Its stage 2 response confirmed the complaint handler ‘disagreed’ with the original complaint response, but similarly left several matters incomplete.
The landlord did not make adequate use of its complaints process to ensure the matters were concluded satisfactorily, which meant the resident spent another half a year chasing promised resolutions and was caused further time and trouble. It was not clear who was responsible for monitoring the completion of promised actions.
The ultimate outcome of the repeated mistakes is that the resident asked the landlord to log a further stage 2 complaint six months after it had issued its first one, and it missed the opportunity to put things right as quickly as possible.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to various repairs the resident had requested it complete to:
1. The windows to the property;
2. The gutters to the building;
3. Cracked brickwork and damaged lintel to the external wall;
4. Uneven and damaged flooring in her property;
5. Remedy the excessive cold in her property;
6. Remedy the damp and mould in her home;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of a suspected fire hydrant leak;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and compensation.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in the repairs to remedy the excessive cold and damp and mould in the resident’s home. This caused her distress and had a significant impact on her ability to enjoy her home.
There were unreasonable delays to the replacement of the windows, and the assessment of any repairs needed to the sub-floor area, which potentially have affected the internal floors and the external wall. This has caused the resident distress, and significant time and trouble in chasing.
The landlord should have completed the gutter clearance and repair more quickly, and this represented another missed opportunity to put things right in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord said it notified the water board of the leaking fire hydrant, however it did not respond to the resident’s concerns that this had not been done (raised after she received advice from the water company that it had not heard from the landlord).
The landlord did not appropriately use its complaints process to ensure the matters the resident had raised were put right, and the lack of ownership of promised actions led to further delays and distress to the resident.
The landlord did not appear to make use of its compensation guidance when considering redress for the resident, and did not explain to her whether it had considered her request to be compensated for financial losses. This was also a missed opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the distress she has been caused by its poor communication and failure to use its complaints process to put things right in a timely way. It must provide us with a copy once complete.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident a total of £1,660 compensation, which is to replace its original offer of £550:
1. £800 for the distress the resident was caused by the delays to remedy to the excessive cold and damp and mouldy conditions in her home;
2. £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase the repair to the guttering;
3. £400 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in having to chase the survey and replacement of her windows;
4. £260 for the inconvenience caused chasing a resolution to the matter of damage at sub-floor level, affecting indoor flooring and external wall/ lintel;
5. £150 for the failure to use its complaint process to identify appropriate learning and to effectively resolve the matters the resident had raised, including the matter of the fire hydrant.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm the details of the costs she incurred as a result of the damp, mould, and excessive cold. It should then use its compensation policy and, if relevant, public liability insurance policy, to consider the resident’s claim and issue a decision within five weeks of the date of this report. It must advise the resident of the outcome in writing, and provide us with a copy once complete.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure an appropriate survey of the sub-floor area is completed, and inform the resident of the outcome of the survey and any actions it plans to take as a result. It should provide us with a copy of this information.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should inspect for rodent access points, and confirm to the resident the steps it will take to fit proofing. It must confirm the timeline for this work, and must provide us with a copy of this information.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should inspect the communal front door and frame, to check for damp and to confirm it can open, close, and lock as it should. If it is found to have bowed or warped excessively, it should take appropriate steps to investigate the cause. It should confirm to the resident any repairs it proposes to take as a result of its investigations, and provide us with a copy of this information.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should take appropriate steps to confirm whether there is still an issue with the fire hydrant, and if so, confirm to us and the resident that it has reported this to the appropriate water authority.
Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must take appropriate steps to reassure the resident of what information from the damp and timber report was shared with other residents, and explain how it occurred. It must confirm to us when this is complete and provide us with details of what learning, if any, it has identified, to prevent this from happening in future.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider whether providing guidance around reasonable timescales for different types of regular repairs could assist its staff and residents to better assess how long these should take, and at what point the length of time has become a failure.
It is recommended that the landlord remind its relevant teams of its procedure for responding to damp and mould reports from shared owners and leaseholders, with attention drawn to its policy that they are responsible for arranging a survey.
The resident has advised us of unrelated repairs that were outstanding. We recommend the landlord contact the resident to confirm whether any repairs remain outstanding currently, and to confirm to her the timescales it will complete these within and how it will keep her updated, if so.