Aster Group Limited (202306225)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306225

Aster Group Limited

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Complaint about its contractor.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, information supplied for the purposes of this investigation shows that both the resident’s husband and son have asthma.
The property is a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The render on the front elevation extends to the neighbouring property which is privately owned.
The landlord carried out works to treat damp and mould in the property, mainly in the bathroom, during 2020. On 16 November 2020 the landlord carried out an inspection and concluded that the trickle vents should be replaced. It also said that the loft insulation was adequate, having been installed correctly to allow the loft space to breathe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 January 2023 to report the presence of damp and mould throughout the property. The landlord carried out a property survey on 22 February and made a number of findings, including that the render on the front elevation and cavity wall insulation should be renewed. It also agreed to carry out a mould treatment. The resident contacted the landlord to say that she felt the contractor that attended the property on 14 April to carry out a pre inspection was unprofessional. She also reported that she was dissatisfied with the quality of work carried out by the contractor during the week beginning 8 May 2023.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 13 February 2023 in which she said:
1. There was mould “up the walls downstairs and across every ceiling upstairs.”
2. Her son’s room was particularly bad, the clothes in his wardrobe and his bed felt damp. He had been on steroids since October because his breathing was so bad. His GP advised this was caused by the condition of his room. She was sleeping on the sofa so her son could use her bedroom.
3. Despite following advice on the landlord’s website and from the environmental health department, the mould kept coming back.
4. She rang to speak to a surveyor on 2 February and was told to wait 48 hours. She was told that if she did not receive a reply she should make a complaint. She rang again on 7 February but still did not receive a response. She had called again on the morning of 13 February and was again asked to wait a further 48 hours.
5. She said she had been off work for 2 weeks due to stress and felt like she was having a “mental breakdown.”
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 March 2023 (the letter says 2022 but this is assumed to be a typographical error), the main points being:
1. The responding officer visited the resident and carried out a property survey on 17 February.
2. It also raised an inspection to carry out a second survey on 24 February however, this was rescheduled for 2 March. A third appointment was made to carry out a survey on 22 February following receipt of the formal complaint.
3. It apologised for the delay in attending to the original survey of 17 February which “fell below the service it expected to deliver.” In recognition of this and for inconvenience it offered £250 compensation.
4. When the responding officer carried out a further survey of the property on 22 February he noted there was “fairly extensive” mould in the property.
5. It said the fan in the kitchen had been “poorly” installed for which it offered £150 compensation.
6. It said that the mould was due to heating and ventilation rather than a “serious property defect.” It provided weblinks to further information on condensation and damp.
7. It set out its action plan to include a specialist mould clean, installation of data loggers, replacement of the kitchen fan, repair to the render and replacement of cavity wall insulation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 April 2023 to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. She said that she was dissatisfied with the conduct of the contractor tasked to carry out the mould treatment. She also summarised her general dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response as “constant mix ups and miscommunication (…).”
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 31 May 2023, as follows:
1. It was aware that the resident had experienced issues with condensation and mould since January 2015. It said it had failed to resolve the issue in line with service standards and its communication was “inadequate.”
2. It had recently identified building defects which had contributed to condensation and mould which it should have picked up sooner. It added that “inadequate heating and ventilation” also contributed.
3. When the resident made contact in February she had to chase for updates which were not responded to.
4. It apologised for the service and that it took “so long to identify and resolve the issue.”
5. It should have nominated a Specific Point of Contact (SPOC) earlier in the process. It had identified this was the main reason for “conflicting information” from the landlord and its contractors which caused confusion.
6. Its contractor was asked to quote for works to the external render and to carry out an internal mould treatment too. It advised it was normal for the landlord to request more than one quote for works to ensure value for money but it should have advised the resident of this.
7. It apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with the operatives who were new subcontractors to its contractor. It said it had asked the contractor to investigate the allegations in full and provide response. It said it would not use them again until it received a “satisfactory response.”
8. Its area response surveyor would oversee all works and would act as the SPOC.
9. The survey carried out in February concluded that building defects contributed to the mould issue but that the amount of moisture generated by the occupants was the largest contributory factor.
10. The data logging information showed that the ventilation within the property needed to be improved and an increase in the heating of the property required. It noted that the radiators were an adequate size to heat property.
11. It set out recommended works including repairing the render to front elevation, cavity wall and loft insulation works.
12. It said it was currently reviewing and modernising its customer services department which would eliminate the communication issues the resident had experienced.
13. It offered £2650 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £500 offered at stage 1 resolution.
  2. £2000 for distress and inconvenience endured (£250/year).
  3. £150 for delays in handling the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
  4. £100 poor communication.
The resident emailed this Service on 1 June 2023 to say that she remained dissatisfied. She felt the landlord had not carried out a thorough investigation of her stage 2 complaint because it did not inspect the property prior to issuing its response. She was also concerned that a number of repairs remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord must ensure that its homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing and be in a reasonable state of repair.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. 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 freedom from damp, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure says that it aims to resolve routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.

Scope of the investigation

In its stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced issues with condensation and mould since January 2015. This is consistent with the evidence in its repair logs.
This investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports from January 2023 onwards. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. Furthermore, this is the timeline the landlord appropriately considered in its complaint responses.
Part of the resident’s complaint is about the conduct of the landlord’s contractor. While we do not doubt the resident’s experience, this investigation is not able to make a finding on whether the behaviour happened. However, it will consider the landlord’s response to the complaint.
On 27 July 2023 the resident called this Service to request that we also assess the landlord’s response to works to overhaul the windows, particularly in relation to an appointment which took place on 17 July 2023.
In June 2023 the landlord raised works to overhaul the windows as part of longer term remedial works related to damp and mould. This was after the landlord issued its final response and the resident’s complaint was accepted for investigation by this Service. Therefore the landlord has not had an opportunity to provide a formal response to this complaint and as such this investigation cannot assess its actions. The resident may wish to make a formal complaint to the landlord regarding these works.
This is consistent with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Damp and mould

The resident emailed the landlord on 4 January 2023 to report that her house was “absolutely full of mould.” She said it was mainly present in her son’s room, the landing, upstairs ceilings and all around the windows. She said her son’s doctor had confirmed it was causing issues with his asthma.
Under the Decent Homes Standard and Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 the landlord had a legal obligation to ensure that the property was in a reasonable state of repair. It should also ensure it was not unreasonably affected by damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould requires landlords to have a zero tolerance approach. This requires landlords to respond swiftly and efficiently to reports from residents. Furthermore, the report says that landlords should have regard to the detriment caused to the resident including any impact on physical and mental health.
On 6 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that an appointment had been booked for 24 February. This was 37 working days after the resident emailed the landlord and 17 days over its 20 day repair response target. The reason for the delay was unclear therefore it was unreasonable.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say that due to sickness, the surveyor’s appointment for 24 February needed to be postponed to 2 March. Given the resident’s description of the situation, her concerns for her son’s health, the landlord’s obligations and the fact that the appointment was not due for another month, it was inappropriate that it did not make alternative arrangements so that the survey could proceed as intended.
The postponement caused distress to the resident who tried to contact the landlord on 2, 7 and 13 February 2023 saying she could not wait until 2 March. In her email to the landlord of 13 February, which was also her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that she could smell the mould in her son’s room from downstairs when the door was open.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 6 March 2023 confirmed that it carried out a survey of the property on 17 February. This investigation has not been provided with any evidence regarding this survey which is a record keeping failure. In its response the landlord apologised that it failed to follow up on the outcomes of that survey. It failed to provide an explanation as to what had gone wrong and what it would do differently which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failure caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble because she had to facilitate a second survey on 22 February 2023. However, in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord appropriately acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident and offered £250 compensation.
The survey carried out on 22 February 2023 noted that the property was a 3 bedroom house occupied by 2 adults and 2 children. It found that:
1. The render on the right hand side of the front elevation was blown and should be renewed.
2. There were health concerns and vulnerabilities which made the resident more susceptible to effects of damp and mould.
3. No major defects were found and it was “clearly condensation mould” from looking at the type and location.
4. There were areas of poor air flow within the external walls.
5. The kitchen fan was blowing into an air brick on the external wall which was reducing the flow rate.
6. The old fibre cavity wall insulation should be replaced.
7. The radiators were adequately sized to heat the property.
8. The property was not cluttered and there were no clothes drying on the radiators.
9. The cause was “occupation, use and under heating.”
10. Data loggers were installed.
The spotlight report on damp and mould identified that there can be a tendency for landlords to infer blame on the resident and place the onus on them when it was often not solely their issue. It also says that the landlord should clearly communicate its diagnosis with the resident, sharing any relevant information, to ensure the resident has confidence in it and understands the next steps.
The survey noted that the property was not overcrowded, there was no evidence that clothes were being dried on radiators and the radiators were the correct size for the property. The landlord appropriately installed data loggers as means of further investigation. Given that it had not concluded its investigation it is unclear why it determined that the cause was occupation, use and under heating, at that stage. Its conclusion was not evidence based and was therefore inappropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it discussed its conclusion with the resident, opting instead to provide links to further advice in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 March 2023.
On 22 February 2023 the landlord appropriately requested that works orders be raised to carry out a repair to the render on the front elevation, carry out a complete mould clean and fogging treatment to the whole property. An order was also raised to replace the existing kitchen fan, duct it externally and remove the air brick and make good around the flue.
The spotlight report on damp and mould says that landlords should keep residents informed on matters such as timetabling of works. In the resident’s email to the landlord of 3 April 2023 the resident said a contractor had been out to survey the mould on 16 March. She had not received any further communication about when work would commence. This was inappropriate because the resident could not be confident that the landlord took her situation seriously.
Also in the resident’s email of 3 April 2023 the resident said that when she tried to discuss the delay with the landlord on 28 March she was told there were “hundreds of jobs that needed doing of the same nature” and that it could not control the cleaning company. She was also told that the work should be carried out within 10 days of the inspection, so by 26 March. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response about the unreasonable delay or the allegations made about inappropriate comments made by its staff which caused distress to the resident.
The landlord instructed 2 different contractors to quote for carrying out the mould treatment but did not tell the resident. This was a further example of ineffective communication. This caused confusion when the resident was contacted by the second contractor trying to arrange access to carry out a survey. She advised that due to the best of her knowledge it had already carried out a survey, on 16 March 2023. Given that the earlier survey had been carried out by a different contractor the one she spoke to correctly denied having done so. This created a difficult conversation for the resident and contractor which could have been avoided.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord raised a works order to “check the roofline in 3 locations on both the front and rear elevations” to ensure that the insulation was adequate. The notes on the repair log were updated on 18 April to say that insulation had been installed in the sloping eaves. However, there were gaps that required “topping up.” This was contrary to the inspection carried out on 16 November 2020, several years prior, which said the loft insulation was installed correctly. It is not clear why there was a different outcome on this occasion which was inappropriate because it caused distress and frustration to the resident.
During May 2023 works took place to carry out a clean and mould treatment which is assessed in the section below. The works commenced on 8 May, just under 3 months after the works order was raised and 5 months after the resident first contacted the landlord. This was significantly outside the landlord’s response time of 20 days. This was particularly concerning given that the survey of 22 February noted that “there were health concerns and vulnerabilities which made the resident more susceptible to effects of damp and mould.”
On 11 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that a contractor had attended to inspect the loft insulation. However, on arrival he had no knowledge about the job and was therefore not adequately equipped, including not having a ladder or any loft insulation. It was inappropriate that the operative did not possess the required information to enable him to carry out the job, causing further distress to the resident.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident, attaching the data logger graphs and a guide to interpret their meaning. It confirmed there was one localised area of damp on the front elevation which it believed was due to the blown render and/or rubble in the cavity. It also advised:
1. The lounge and bedroom “1” had an average air temperature below the government recommended levels and relatively high humidity.
2. Bedroom “3” was “adequately heated” with a relatively high humidity.
3. It said it had carried out a heat loss calculation which confirmed the radiators were the correct size to adequately heat the property.
4. The sloping ceilings had been insulated but there was a gap between the area and the loft insulation. It had raised a works order to top it up.
5. There were gaps in the cavity wall insulation and evidence of rubble in the bottom of the cavity. It would arrange for this to be replaced as part of its energy efficient programme.
6. It advised the fan should be replaced and a flue installed through the airbrick.
7. It gave appropriate advice regarding ventilation and heating of the property.
Contrary to its stage 1 complaint response of 6 March 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 31 May concluded that building defects recently identified had contributed to condensation and mould and it “should have picked them up sooner.” It apologised that it took so long to identify and resolve the issue.
Its stage 2 response reiterated the need to raise works orders for the render. There was no explanation provided as to why this work had not yet been carried out following the recommendation of the survey in February which was inappropriate. It advised that the cavity wall insulation would be included in its planned programme of works and therefore may not be completed until March 2024. Due to the nature of the works this was reasonable. It confirmed that the loft insulation works had been completed and would be post inspected.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The landlord’s records show that a new SPOC was appointed on 2 June 2023 and that he carried out a third survey of the property on 13 June 2023. The landlord’s internal email of 22 June requested that works orders be raised to relay roof tiles, install vents in the front and back soffits to help the roof space breath for a painter. A further works order was also raised on 27 June 2023 to replace the kitchen fan. However, a note was placed against the order that the fan was already of the type requested, was working correctly, and was fully ducted through an air brick. Therefore there was no need to replace it.
In a telephone call with this Service on 2 May 2024 the resident said the cavity wall and loft insulation had been resolved but the repair to the render was outstanding. This is concerning because the landlord identified the condition of the render as a potential source of water ingress in its stage 1 complaint response of 6 March 2023.
In an internal email dated 8 May 2024 the landlord confirmed that “it took nearly 6 months for a party wall act to be signed by the private owners”. It said the works were scheduled for 24 May. While this is a positive step, the repair was first deemed necessary on 22 February 2023. The delay relating to the party wall act does not account for an overall delay of a year which was therefore unreasonable.

Redress

When assessing redress this Service considers whether the landlord’s response aligns with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which are be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 it offered £2550 compensation, comprised of:
1. £250 for the failure with the February 2023 survey.
2. £150 for the poor installed kitchen fan.
3. £2000 in recognition of distress and inconvenience (£250/year).
4. £100 for poor communication.
The landlord demonstrated learning from the complaint. In its stage 2 complaint of 31 May 2023 it acknowledged that it should have provided a SPOC earlier in the process. It said that by not doing so it did not fix the problem as quickly as it should and its communication was confusing. It also said that it was reviewing and modernising its customer services department, including implementation of new database, designed to eliminate the communication issues the resident had experienced.
The landlord has not been fair to the resident because it failed to use the complaint as an opportunity to expedite the repair to the render which was unreasonable.
This investigation has identified the following failures:
1. The landlord failed to consider the impact of the mould on the health of the resident’s family in terms of the timeliness of its response.
2. It delayed in carrying out the initial survey and had to repeat the survey previously carried out on 17 February 2023.
3. The conclusions of the 22 February were not evidence based.
4. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
5. The works to carry out the mould clean were delayed.
6. The landlord failed to repair the render and failed to replace the fan in a timely manner.
This investigation is aware that following a determination in a previous case, reference 202200958, the landlord carried out a full review of its repairs processes. It identified several issues and created an action plan to change its processes and procedures around repairs. This included training on the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on repairs and damp and mould. Introduction of case management through a new database to give greater insight and visibility of complaints. All front line teams received customer service training in the next 12 months.
The failures amount to maladministration. The landlord’s breakdown of its compensation confirms that it offered the resident £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience during 2023. This is consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance on financial remedies where there was no permanent impact.
However, this does not prevent an adverse finding because the landlord failed to carry out the repair to the render. This is particularly significant because the landlord identified it as a potential source of water ingress. Furthermore, the landlord failed to fully put things right because it did not consider redress for the effect on the resident’s enjoyment of her home during 2023.
During January to March 2023 the rent was £136.67 per week. During April and May 2023 it was £146.24 per week. The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the impact of its response to damp and mould on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. The period considered for this calculation is January to May 2023, which is 22 weeks. It also takes into account that there are 6 rooms in the house.
In the circumstances the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £769.45 compensation. This figure was calculated as follows:
1. An amenity loss calculation for her son’s bedroom £22.77 x13 + £24.40 x 9 = £515.61.
2. A 10% amenity loss calculation for each of the remaining 5 rooms £11.08 x 13 + £12.20 x 9 = £253.84.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

Conduct of contractor

On 5 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had received a call from the contractor to book in an appointment to carry out a mould clean. As set out in the section above, they had a frustrating conversation about whether it had already carried out a survey for the work.
On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that she had received a call from the same contractor which she felt was “very abrupt.” She felt he was pressing her to arrange an appointment which she believed was being managed by the landlord. The operative suggested they liaise with one another, rather than go through the landlord who the contractor described as a “pain in the ass.” There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident on this point which was inappropriate because it compounded her distress and further eroded the landlord/tenant relationship.
The contractor attended the property on 14 April 2023 to carry out a survey. In her email to the landlord of 18 April the resident said he made inappropriate comments about the condition of the property. Examples included “it would be like opening a can of worms once they take the wallpaper off” and that he lived in a housing association house and “could not keep the mould out of his own house.” She said she had discussed this with the landlord during a phone call on 14 April. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated the inappropriate comments made by the contractor. This was a failure because it caused disappointment and frustration to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 May 2023 to say that works to carry out the mould clean had commenced. She was concerned about the conduct of the contractor, including dust sheets not being used and mouldy wallpaper being left on the floor and on top of furniture.
Following discussion with the landlord on 10 May 2023 the resident sent several further emails the following day, 11 May, which was the day works were due to finish. She was concerned that the bedrooms upstairs were still wet and they would not be able to sleep there that evening. She said it was not practical for the contractor to start works in the lounge that day because there was not enough time for them to complete those works either, which would leave them with nowhere to sleep that night.
She sent a further email that day, 11 May, to say that the contractor had asked to return the following day, on 12 May, to complete the works. She had advised it was not possible to arrange to be at home for a further day. She said the contractor had not stripped all the walls in her son’s room where there was visible mould. However, it had stripped all the walls in another room where only one wall was mouldy. She said items were covered in dust and mouldy wallpaper. The resident was also dissatisfied with the way the contractor spoke to her husband.
There is evidence that the landlord emailed the resident on 11 May 2023 to acknowledge receipt of some of the emails she sent that day. However, there is no evidence that it tried to intervene in order to bring the works to a satisfactory close which was inappropriate. This caused distress inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident who had to email the landlord again on 15 May to say there was “considerable damage” on the walls where the wallpaper had been removed.
In the resident’s email of 15 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to confirm its position with regards to finishing the works and cleaning up the resulting debris. There is no evidence of any further communication between the resident and landlord setting out next steps, such as a property inspection, which was inappropriate. This is because the lack of communication caused disappointment and distress to the resident. Furthermore, she could not be confident that the landlord would put things right by finishing the work to a satisfactory standard.
The contractor provided a response to the landlord on 18 May 2023 in which it confirmed the works were booked to take place between Tuesday 9 and Thursday 11 May. It said it had discussed the timeline with the resident and reassured her that works would be complete by 11 May. It stated that all works upstairs were complete by 10.30a.m. on the morning of 11 May. The resident did not permit them to start works in the lounge that day, it said that if it had, the works would have been completed. It said its operatives had been professional and courteous to the resident “at all times.”
In its stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 the landlord apologised for the resident’s dissatisfaction. It said the operatives were new subcontractors to its main contractor. It said it had asked its contractor to investigate the allegations in full and provide a response. Although the operatives were a subcontractor to its main contractor the landlord was still responsible for its actions. There is no evidence that the investigation was carried out and/or that the landlord pursued a response from the contractor which was inappropriate.
There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property prior to providing its stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023. It would have been appropriate to do so, to gain a better understanding of the subcontractor’s failings, the detriment caused to the resident, and to identify what was required to put things right in a timely manner. It also would have reassured the resident that it took the complaint seriously. The failure to carry out the inspection further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord did not inspect the property to identify remedial works until 13 June 2023, a month later.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had raised further works orders to carry out a mould treatment and clean to rectify the issue. It also confirmed this would be post inspected and “completed by another contractor as necessary.” It said this would include any specialist cleaning of carpets and making good any damage caused. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take as a means of putting things right for the resident.
However, it did also cause further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident because she had to accommodate further intrusive works to put right its original failure. This was highlighted in the resident’s email to the landlord on 10 July 2023 to chase a date for redecoration, saying she had already packed the house up and would have to do it again.
The landlord caused confusion between the resident and subcontractor because it did not clarify the position with regards to obtaining multiple quotes. This undermined the relationship between the resident and subcontractor from the outset. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord took the resident’s concerns raised on 11 and 14 April seriously. For example, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to intervene to try to ensure that the works were completed as smoothly as possible for the benefit of all parties.
Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord provided a meaningful response to the resident’s emails of 10, 11, 14 and 15 May 2023. It failed to address the distress and inconvenience caused. It did not provide reassurance to the resident by setting out the action it would take to remedy the issues which was inappropriate.
The subcontractor provided its response to the complaint on 18 May 2023. However, there is no evidence that this was scrutinised by the landlord or its contractor to establish what happened, identify any learning and how it might put things right.
In an effort to put things right the landlord replaced the resident’s carpets which has been damaged by the contractors, totaling £1999. However, it failed to consider providing compensation for distress and inconvenience which was inappropriate.
The failures amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord learnt from the complaint and/or updated the resident as to the outcome of the investigation. It failed to put things right for the resident by providing redress for the distress and inconvenience caused by the subcontractor’s conduct. It also failed to carry out a timely inspection of the property to identify what works were required to restore the resident to the position she would have been in were if not for its failure.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £500 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 13 February 2023. The landlord issued its complaint response on 6 March, 15 working days later which was 5 working days over the target. However, this investigation acknowledges that the delay was short and therefore the detriment to the resident was minimal.
On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. She chased the landlord for a response on 18 April. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 complaint request on 28 April, 13 working days later. It was unreasonable that the landlord took almost 2 weeks to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint. Furthermore, the landlord did not comply with its complaints policy to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.
While the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 31 May 2023 was issued in time from the date of its acknowledgement, it was issued 33 working days after the resident first raised her complaint which was unreasonable.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £150 in recognition of the delay in its response as a means of putting things right. Its response on what had gone wrong and what it would do differently was broad and did not focus specifically on the delay in escalating the stage 2 complaint which would have been appropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that where resident’s raise additional complaints during the investigation, and the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The resident raised the complaint about the conduct of the operatives after the stage 1 complaint had been issued. Therefore, the landlord should have opened a separate stage 1 complaint. Had it done so, the resident would have had the benefit of a 2 stage process prior to exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The Code says that landlords should resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity. During her telephone call with this Service on 2 May 2024 the resident said that repair to the render remains outstanding. The landlord did not use the complaints process as an opportunity to resolve the issue in a timely and efficient manner causing distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
The landlord inappropriately delayed escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, it failed to log a separate stage 1 complaint about the conduct of its operatives and did not use the complaints process to resolve the substantive issue.
The landlord has acknowledged some failings and tried to put things right. It offered £150 for its complaint handling failures. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact of the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its contractor.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1519.45 compensation comprised of:
1. £769.45 for the loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
2. Re offer £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by landlord’s response to damp and mould during 2023 if not already paid.
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its contractor.
The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified by this investigation.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a review of the case and identify what it would do differently to prevent a recurrence. This should include how it will respond to complaints about the performance of its contractors. A copy of the outcome of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out works to repair the render on the front elevation. It should write to the resident to confirm the date of works and should post inspect to ensure the work has been carried out satisfactorily. It should provide evidence that the work has been completed to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The landlord should re offer £150 compensation for the complaint handling failures if this has not already been paid.