A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202300620)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300620

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

25 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. damp and mould
2. back/patio door repairs
3. window replacements

Background

The property is a ground floor, 2 bedroom flat. The resident has an assured tenancy and the landlord is a housing association.
On 20 February 2019 the resident reported mould and damp. On 13 April 2021, the landlord noted that the main bedroom window had a rotten frame and was falling out of the wall. Remedial works took place, which included sealing the back doors.
In December 2022 a mould wash was carried out and it was noted that trickle vents needed replaced. In January 2023, the resident reported severe mould. A damp inspection took place on 11 January 2023. Damp, condensation, and mould were noted throughout the property. The inspection said that the bathroom extractor fan was switched off, the kitchen extractor fan was dull of dust, and there was no PIV (positive input ventilation) unit. The inspection report referenced water ingress, high damp meter readings in the bathroom, roof defects, and windows and back doors in disrepair.
The inspection recommended that the landlord investigated for leaks in the bathroom, replaced the bathroom fan, serviced the kitchen fan, and that it advised the resident to reduce storage/furniture and avoid overspills in the bathroom. It also recommended replacing the back doors, and mould treatment. Long term actions that were recommended included replacing windows, roof works, possible monitoring of the damp, and consideration of mechanical ventilation.
During February 2023 and March 2023, the landlord noted unsuccessful attempts that it had made to book appointments. On 20 March 2023 the landlord referenced a report that the back door was unrepairable, it did not close or open correctly, water was ‘pouring in’, and the internal floor was rotten. On 31 March 2023, the resident chased for an update. The landlord noted that he felt he had been given the ‘runaround,’ had received contradictory information, ideally wanted to be moved, and that his child had been hospitalised in relation to the damp and mould. On 5 April 2023, the resident raised a formal stage 1 complaint regarding the window repairs, the back door, and a lack of update following the January 2023 inspection.
On 12 April 2023 the landlord noted that the back doors were due for replacement in 4-5 weeks’ time, it had not found a leak from under the bath, and the extractor fan was to be replaced. On 18 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it was looking into the damp and mould repairs, and provided contact details for its contractor who, it said, could advise of an action plan following a window survey. It said that the back door would be inspected and that any outstanding window/damp related repairs would be completed by 19 May 2023. The complaint was partly upheld, “we have now carried out inspections and will put in an action plan to address your concerns.”
The landlord noted that the windows were beyond repair, they needed replaced before winter, and they were contributing to the mould. In April 2023, the landlord replaced the bathroom extractor fan and serviced the kitchen fan.
On 4 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he believed he was entitled to compensation, and that he had been informed that the insecure windows would not be replaced until March 2024. In addition, he said that no further suggestions or works had been made to improve the damp and mould issue.
On 7 May 2023 the landlord apologised that repairs were outstanding. It said that its contractor had until 19 May 2023 to complete works to the window, back door, and damp and mould. On, or around, 19 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the back door had been replaced but that the outstanding repairs would be progressed to the Ombudsman.
In June 2023 the landlord undertook flooring works and noted that a quote it had requested to replace the windows had been declined. On 16 June 2023, the resident escalated his complaint on to stage 2 and reiterated the concerns that he had raised on 4 May 2023.
On, or around, 5 July 2023 the landlord noted internally that the damp and mould issue was resolved and that the windows were to be replaced the following year but that it would decorate around them. It said that, as the damp and mould was reported on 3 March 2023 and resolved by 17 April 2023, it had followed its process. In addition, it referenced that the damp and mould was attributed to condensation rather than the fabric of the building. The complaint was not upheld and it determined that no compensation was due.
On 17 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In summary, it said:

it was sorry to hear that the resident’s child had been hospitalised. Its specialist damp and mould team had intervened to resolve matters, mould treatment had been carried out, and there was no issue with the building’s fabric – rather internal living factors which were unavoidable at times
potential leaks in the bathroom had been investigated. The bathroom fan had been replaced, the kitchen fan serviced, and the back door replaced. Works were completed by 17 April 2023
windows were due to be replaced the following year, and decorative works were completed on 7 July 2023
no service failings were identified and works were carried out within specified timeframes

This service understands that the windows were replaced in, or around, July 2023 (having been brought forward from the landlord’s planned maintenance programme). Extensive works to the bathroom were completed between August 2023 and October 2023. In September 2023, the landlord noted that the rear guttering leaked and needed replaced.
The resident approached this service for assistance. At the time of the resident’s initial contact works were outstanding. He has, however, recently advised that works were completed with the exception of the guttering. In addition, he has said that while the mould is mostly resolved, there is mould in a bedroom. To resolve matters the resident is seeking compensation and for the landlord to change its practices.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Information provided to this service, from February 2019 and April 2021, is included in the summary of events for the history of the case and for context in relation to the issues experienced. No further detail about relevant events prior to October 2022 has been provided to the Ombudsman and there is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint during this time. Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the actions the landlord took from April 2022 onwards. This is when the landlord noted that remedial works to the window had taken place.
This service considers that there are gaps in the evidence that the landlord has provided to this service which has hindered the Ombudsman’s investigation. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord provided copies of all its relevant policies and procedures, or a copy of the tenancy agreement. In addition, the landlord referenced communications with the resident which were not always evidenced, such as the letter it sent when it was experiencing contact difficulties. For the purpose of the complaints about the condition of the property, inference has been drawn where it is considered fair and reasonable to do so.
In addition, this service is aware that the landlord recently reviewed its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to leaks, damp, and mould as part of a wider order that this service made. As such, this has been taken into consideration when considering the orders that have been made.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident has said that the condition of the property has had a detrimental impact on his child’s physical health. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear of this concern and we do not doubt his comments about this. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk. We can consider the general risk posed by damp and mould and the landlord’s response to this. However, it is beyond our remit to determine the specific cause of any reported illness. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer, where the judge or insurer would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of the illness. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Damp and mould

Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, and drainage that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and to complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that urgent repairs are completed within 24 hours of the first report and standard repairs within 20 working days. In addition, the policy advises that the landlord will seek to identify vulnerability at the first point of contact through proactive engagement with residents, encouraging their disclosure of matters which need to be considered in the prioritisation of their repair.
On 19 December 2022 the landlord referenced mould washes in relation to the bathroom, bedroom, and living room. Following further reports of ‘severe’ mould in all rooms, walls, windows, and doors the landlord arranged a damp inspection on 11 January 2023. This was an appropriate response which demonstrated the landlord’s attempts to better understand the extent of the issue and the actions needed to resolve matters. Nevertheless, this service understands that it was approximately three and a half weeks later that recommended works were raised which was an unreasonable delay.
The damp inspection report outlined a combination of factors that contributed to mould and damp throughout the property. It referenced a restricted airflow due to furniture, the bathroom extractor fan was switched off, and roof defects that “may add to excess moisture in the property.” It advised that “windows are also in disrepair due to the effects of external weathering,” and “patio doors in particular are in a poor state of repair … there was evidence of dampness to the adjacent carpet. It is thought that the doors allow water ingress.” In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, however, it concluded that, “reasons for the mould were attributed to internal living factors”. This approach was unreasonable when considering the findings in the inspection report, and apportioned unnecessary blame on the resident which likely contributed to his distress and frustration.
Further, the damp inspection report outlined that the existing mould would require treatment. This service understands that works were raised to treat the mould on 6 February 2023. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 18 April 2023, it further referenced that mould treatment would be carried out yet there is no evidence that the this was progressed with any urgency which, when considering the resident’s significant concerns, was unreasonable.

25.In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 18 April 2023, the landlord partly upheld the resident’s complaint. While its reasons for this were unclear, its response suggests that this was because of delays arranging an inspection and taking associated action. The landlord referenced its learnings, which included better communication and keeping residents updated. This was a welcome approach which demonstrated this service’s dispute resolution principle, ‘learn from outcomes.’ However, there is no evidence that, having identified failings, it considered its compensation policy which allows for financial redress where a resident has experienced stress, inconvenience, and delays. The landlord’s approach was therefore unfair. In addition, the landlord’s investigation at stage 2 of its internal complaints process did not identify service failings which was in contradiction to its stage 1 complaint response. Without a clear explanation this was confusing and likely contributed to the resident distress, frustration, and lack of confidence in the landlord’s approach.

26. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that one of the learnings it had identified was to keep residents updated with an ‘action plan.’ It gave the resident contact details for its contractor who, it said, could advise him of an action plan. However, the landlord is reminded that the resident’s relationship is with it [the landlord], and not with its contractor. It was for the landlord to decide how to best manage the repairs and ensure effective communication. It was unreasonable to expect the resident to liaise with both parties. Neither is there evidence of an action plan which may have helped to ensure that there was a strategy for keeping the resident updated and reduced the likelihood of him needing to chase the landlord and/or the contractor for updates.

27.Further, this service has not seen evidence that all recommendations in the inspection report were considered or, where recommended, progressed. For example, there is no evidence that the resident was advised on how to reduce the damp and condensation, or that the landlord considered remote monitoring. An order is made below to address this following the resident’s recent report of mould in the bedroom.

The resident reported that his child was hospitalised due to contact with damp and mould. However, there is no evidence that the landlord requested any further information to help establish risk. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) advises that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Furthermore, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) the landlord was required to consider whether any mould problems amounted to a health hazard that may have required prompt remedy. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it suitably assessed the urgency of repairs based on the vulnerability of the household.

In addition, the landlord noted that the resident ideally wanted to be moved. However, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up on this request or offered the resident housing advice which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 11 April 2024 the landlord noted that the resident wanted to add a missed appointment to his complaint. There is no evidence that this was responded to, or that the landlord considered whether any compensation was due to reflect the resident’s time and inconvenience which was unfair. An order is made below to address this.
On 12 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that he had not heard anything following the damp and mould inspection in January 2023. This service would, for example, have expected to see that the landlord subsequently provided him with a copy of the report, or a detailed summary of the findings. Clear and effective communication on a landlord’s part is an essential aspect of all aspects of its overall service delivery.
At times the information that the landlord provided to the resident was unclear. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 17 July 2023, it said that the mould issue had been reported on 3 March 2023. However, the timeline of events shows that reports predated this timeframe. In addition, the landlord noted, “Customer wants compensation however the issue about mould and damp was reported on the 03/03 and resolved by 17/04.” Yet on 7 May 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident for delays and said that its contractor had until 19 May 2023 to complete damp and mould works. Communication was, at times, confusing which likely contributed to the resident’s frustration.
It is acknowledged that, on 4 July 2023, the landlord noted that the resident had confirmed that the damp and mould issue was resolved. Nevertheless, this service understands that there is still an issue with mould in a bedroom. While any reports of damp and mould made since the landlord completed its internal complaints process are out of the scope of this investigation, an order is made below that the landlord inspects and addresses any outstanding repairs.
The Ombudsman understands that there will always be some damp and mould cases that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, take longer to rectify. Nevertheless, overall events were protracted and the resident experienced distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble pursuing his concerns. It is reasonable to consider that this had a detrimental impact on the household’s overall enjoyment of their home.
As such, this service has made a finding of maladministration and orders are made below to address this. The order of compensation made is in accordance with this service’s remedies guidance for cases where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and where the landlord has failed to adequately acknowledge its failings.

Back door

It is acknowledged that the landlord would not have control over the supply chain of doors and that it can typically take several weeks for new doors to be supplied. This is factored into this service’s consideration of the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord noted that there were gaps and draughts around the back door. It subsequently undertook remedial works which was an appropriate response. However, the resident continued to report issues and the landlord arranged an inspection in January 2023. In this respect the landlord took positive action to investigate and seek the views of an independent expert.
The inspection in January 2023 identified that the back doors were in a poor state of repair, the adjacent carpet was damp, and it was thought that the doors were allowing water ingress. It recommended that the door set was replaced. On 20 March 2023, the landlord noted that the back door was unrepairable and water was pouring in. It asked, internally, if the issue could be referred to its contractor. This was a reasonable approach to try and progress matters. In addition, it is noted that the landlord experienced some difficulty attempting to contact the resident to schedule works. On 5 April 2023 the landlord noted that a temporary fix had been done to the back door.
The resident chased the landlord on 12 April 2023 to ask if the door would be replaced. The landlord was expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding what works would be done, and when. The lack of information provided to the resident contributed to the overall time and effort that he experienced which was unfair.
On 19 May 2023 the resident confirmed that the back door had been replaced. This was in accordance with the timescale provided by the landlord in its email to him dated 7 May 2023. Nevertheless, it was approximately 4 months since the inspection took place which was longer than may reasonably have been expected. In recognition of the time taken overall to fully resolve matters, and the shortcomings in the landlord’s communication, the Ombudsman has found service failure. An order is made below to address this to recognise any distress, inconvenience, time, trouble, and delays that the resident experienced.

Window replacements

The landlord is responsible for keeping the windows in a good state of repair. If it is not clear whether a window can be repaired, or needs to be replaced, then the landlord should hire a specialist surveyor to attend the property, assess their condition and give recommendations on the next steps to take. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by arranging an independent inspection on 11 January 2023, although the evidence suggests that it would have been good practice for the landlord to have done this earlier.
The inspection determined that the windows were in disrepair, with condensation and mould around them. It was recommended that they were replaced. The landlord noted that the windows needed changed as soon as possible and that they were causing mould in the property. On 5 April 2023, the resident chased the landlord for information. It was unreasonable that he did not receive an update following the inspection and needed to follow up. This contributed to the overall distress and inconvenience he experienced.
It is acknowledged that the landlord carried out remedial works prior to the windows being replaced, which was appropriate. In addition, it brought forward the replacement date from its planned maintenance programme. This demonstrated an attempt to put things right for the resident. This service understands that the windows were replaced in, or around, July 2023.
However, in summary, the resident had to chase for updates and the landlord acknowledged that external maintenance had not been maintained. This likely contributed to the longer-term distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced. When considering the time taken to fully resolve matters, and the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced, the Ombudsman has found maladministration. The compensation ordered is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for cases where the resident experienced distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the ‘Scheme”) there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the door repairs.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window replacements.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident £750 compensation. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident, rather to their rent account should there be any rent arrears, and is comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, and delays the resident experienced in relation to the damp and mould
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience the resident experienced in relation to the door repairs
  3. £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience that the resident experienced in relation to the window repairs
2. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report
3. contact the resident to discuss the reported ongoing issue with damp and mould and the outstanding guttering works. Arrange to inspect and provide the resident and this service with a schedule of works
4. confirm in writing with the resident and this service whether remote monitoring of the damp will be progressed, and explain its decision
5. review whether the resident is entitled to any compensation for missed/cancelled appointments and confirm the outcome in writing with the resident and this service
6. advise the resident in writing of ways to reduce damp and condensation in the home if it has not done so already
7. identify any learnings from the resident’s complaint that it can take/has taken forward to further improve service delivery. The landlord should then share its learnings with the resident and this service
8. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 6 weeks of the date of this report.