Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202306478)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306478

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

07 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 7 March 2016. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident lives on her own. The resident is a wheelchair user and has mental health issues recorded on the landlord’s systems.
3. It is clear that the resident had experienced damp and mould in her property since 2021, which the landlord was aware of. To address the issues, the landlord scheduled inspections of the damp and mould in June and August 2022. However, the resident declined further inspections as she did not believe they were necessary. Subsequently, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 23 November 2022. The Ombudsman has not received evidence confirming whether this visit occurred, or its outcome.
4. On 11 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to discuss the damp and mould issue. She reiterated her earlier stance that she was unhappy as she did not want to have another inspection. Instead, she wanted the contractors to attend and install the fan they had said they would install previously.
5. On 23 January 2023, a survey was scheduled. The resident cancelled this as she just wanted the contractor to attend to undertake the required works. Internal emails show that the resident had contacted the landlord many times throughout the duration of the issue to request a mould wash to be done in every room.
6. On 30 January 2023, the resident lodged a formal complaint, expressing dissatisfaction with the repairs and the mould issues. She believed that the landlord had ignored her personal circumstances.
7. On 10 February 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaint procedure. It said that they had raised a job on 19 January 2023 to install a new fan in the resident’s property, aiming to address the damp and mould issues. The contractor had until 2 March 2023 to complete the installation. Despite difficulties in scheduling an appointment with the resident, the landlord booked an appointment for 17 February 2023. The landlord confirmed that after the fan installation, it would schedule a job to carry out a mould wash in the property.
8. On 17 February 2023, the contractor attended as scheduled, but the resident refused access. Internal emails show the contractor had not been advised that the resident could only do afternoon appointments due to her carer attending after 12pm each day to help the resident.
9. The resident requested escalation to stage 2, via telephone, which was acknowledged by the landlord on 17 February 2023. No evidence has been provided to show the details of the escalation request.
10. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 21 February 2023. It confirmed it found its stage 1 response to be acceptable. It said an appointment had been booked for 17 February 2023. It said it had been booked as an all-day appointment in case of a wiring issue, and the job took longer than expected. It said the contractor had said the resident refused access and had been uncooperative. It asked the resident to advise when she was free for the fan to be installed. A mould wash had been booked for 23 February 2023.
11. The fan unit was installed on 7 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

12. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles require landlords to:
    1. Be fair.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is proportionate for any maladministration or service failure found.

Scope of investigation

13. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised complaints about damp and mould in her property in 2021 and September 2022. However, for the purposes of this investigation, the Ombudsman has not taken into account the landlord’s handling of those complaints. In accordance with section 42a of the scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that have not gone through the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, any mention of details related to issues raised during that period is provided for context only.

Policies and procedures

14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a prompt and effective manner where such matters result from issues requiring a repair. It further states that it will treat customers reporting issues with empathy and respect. It says it may offer further support including providing and funding dehumidifiers or installing ventilation systems. It says that it will keep residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis and timetabling of works required and that they will explain why work might be needed and what that work might be.

Damp and mould.

15. As per the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it has an obligation to address damp and mould reported by the resident. Its policy states that all reports of such issues will be diagnosed and then managed by raising a report. It said that in some cases the landlord requires its technical inspectors to attend to assess the situation. While the Ombudsman is aware that inspections of the resident’s property had taken place prior to this complaint, those inspections had not been undertaken for some time and therefore undertaking further inspections at the time of the new complaint was appropriate. This would have enabled the landlord to gain a full picture of the issues reported by the resident and to ensure a suitable repair was raised.
16. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2023 as she did not wish to have a further inspection of her property done. She said that she wanted the contractors to attend to install the fan which they had said they would previously. While the Ombudsman understands that a landlord needs to inspect a property prior to undertaking a repair on occasion, there is no evidence provided to show that the landlord communicated its reasoning for undertaking a further inspection to the resident. This lack of clarity in its communication is not in line with its policy and would have frustrated the resident who was unsure of the reasons behind the landlord’s actions.
17. The landlord tried to arrange an appointment with the resident for the 23 January 2023 to undertake a survey of her property with the contractor and the landlord. While the landlord had not communicated its reasoning for the further inspection, to undertake one was appropriate and in line with its policy.
18. On 18 January 2023, the resident cancelled the appointment again as she did not wish to have a further inspection done. This was another opportunity for the landlord to have provided an explanation to the resident for wanting to conduct a survey and further how that differed from an inspection. Had the landlord clearly explained the reasoning behind the need for a survey, it may have reassured the resident of its necessity. Not doing so caused a further delay in the resolution of the issue.
19. Internal communications revealed that the landlord did not actually need another inspection. Instead, it awaited a quote from the contractor to install the fan. This information was not conveyed to the resident; this was unreasonable. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain clear and open communication with residents to manage expectations effectively. Furthermore, this practice does not align with the landlord’s policy, which says that it will communicate clearly and regularly with residents regarding planned actions. Not providing the resident with an update goes against the Dispute Resolution Principles.
20. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident preferred not to be contacted via phone. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord considered alternative communication methods, such as sending a letter or an email, to inform the resident about the situation. The evidence shows that the landlord intended to wait for the resident to contact it, which was not a suitable approach. Landlords should proactively communicate with residents, and the responsibility should not fall solely on the resident. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to explore other communication channels when residents do not wish to communicate via phone.
21. On 24 January 2023, internal communications showed that the resident had contacted the landlord to explain the need for a mould wash in every room on many occasions. The landlord also inquired whether the mould wash could be done before installing the fan unit. While it was appropriate for the landlord to explore this possibility, there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident. Given that the evidence shows consistent communication from the resident about the mould issue, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly explain the necessity of installing the fan first and reassure the resident that a mould wash would follow. Not doing so led the resident to spend time seeking clarity on the situation. However, it is important to note that the landlord did provide clarity in its stage 1 complaint response.
22. Further to this, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord explored the severity of the mould with the resident. Nor is there is evidence that it discussed temporary solutions with the resident. This is of particular importance given the resident’s vulnerabilities, of which the landlord was aware. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to undertake a risk assessment and to explore the severity of a situation to fully understand the urgency. Not doing so showed a lack of empathy for the situation and left the resident living with mould unsure of when the issues with damp and mould would be resolved.
23. On 17 February 2023, the landlord scheduled an appointment for the installation of the fan unit. However, the appointment did not go ahead as planned because it had been booked for the entire day. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s preference for afternoon appointments but explained that they had chosen an all-day slot due to potential wiring issues. The resident, who uses a wheelchair, had specifically requested afternoon appointments to coincide with her carer’s availability. The landlord knew about this requirement. Consequently, scheduling an all-day appointment without first notifying the resident and confirming the feasibility for her was inappropriate of the landlord. This caused a further delay in resolving the issue and showed a lack of empathy towards the resident.
24. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the resident had been uncooperative and had declined access on the given appointment of 17 February 2023. While the Ombudsman understands that the repair job may have taken all day, the landlord had not considered the resident’s personal circumstances, and therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to blame the cancelled appointment on the resident on this occasion.
25. On 20 February 2023, internal communications show the landlord had contacted social services to request help with communication with the resident given her request not to be contacted via telephone. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this request, reaching out to the resident’s social worker highlighted a commitment by the landlord to ensure the issues could be resolved and ensure that it could communicate with the resident about the outstanding repairs.
26. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to make reasonable adjustments in its communication with the resident. Although the landlord has accommodated the resident’s request for communication via letter only, the Ombudsman is concerned about the tone used in the landlord’s complaint response during stage 2. It suggests dissatisfaction with the resident’s request. Landlords should show empathy in communication with residents. Not doing so would have frustrated the resident and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
27. Overall, while the Ombudsman understands that communication with a resident is not always straight forward, there has been no evidence provided to show that the landlord fully explored other ways to communicate with the resident to facilitate a repair. Furthermore, it missed several opportunities to provide clarity, in line with its policy, about the steps it was taking to resolve the issues and why it was taking the steps that it was. The landlord has failed to show that it considered the resident’s known health issues and its complaint responses lacked empathy with the resident who it knew suffered with mental health issues. It has failed to show that it considered temporary solutions in resolving the damp and mould.
28. Therefore, taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.

Determination

29. In accordance with section 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.

Orders and recommendations

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £500, made up of the following:
    1. £100 for not considering temporary solutions.
    2. £100 for not exploring the severity of the damp and mould.
    3. £100 for the failings identified in the landlord’s communication.
    4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for failings identified in this report.
32. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.