One Housing Group Limited (202309578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309578

One Housing Group 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould in her property.
2. Delays to repairs to a kitchen cupboard, and missed contractor appointments.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a 2-bedroom property with her 3 children including a one-year-old under an assured tenancy agreement which began in 2011.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for the structure of the property, including the drains and roof.
Under Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had an obligation that the property should be habitable in relation to freedom from damp.
Under the landlord’s repairs policy, the timescales for routine repairs was to attend within 7 working days and complete within 28 working days.
Under its damp and mould policy, alternative accommodation arrangements would be made while repair works took place.
Under the complaints policy, the landlord should respond within working 10 days at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.

Scope

Throughout the correspondence, the resident reported the impact of the condition of the property on her children. While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters may be better suited to consideration by a personal injury claim. However, a landlord should carefully consider a resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities, and that of their household, and the cumulative impact of any failings on them when responding to complaints.

Chronology

On 29 October 2018, a job was raised to check a leak from under the bath, repair trickle vents and seals and to clear guttering. An electrician was to change the fan to a humidistat. It also raised a mould wash and redecoration to the back door and small passage between the kitchen and bathroom. Mould and damp affecting the bathroom was noted.
On 27 August 2020, a report was made about loose bathroom tiles in the bathroom. It noted the relevant wall was still wet underneath and a heat gun was used to help it dry out. It also washed mould off the bathroom ceiling. The shower screen was replaced in 2019.
On 10 August 2022, a further job was raised to attend to loose bathroom tiles. It raised an inspection as this repair has been raised multiple times. The job was cancelled.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord raised a job regarding a kitchen cupboard underneath the kitchen sink being “very loose” with its shelves fallen off. The sink base unit and worktops and sink were to be removed. There was a question about what doors to use. The job was marked as complete on 7 September 2020. The same job was raised on 15 September 2022 and with a request to pass to contractors.
On 28 September 2022, a job was raised to repair the bathroom window which was not closing properly. The job was marked as a 28-day job and marked as cancelled.
On 26 October 2022, the resident wrote that she was expressing “once again her disappointment, anger and annoyance as to been made to feel neglected. She chased the landlord several times after 7 September 2022 but still did not have an update. She also reported a repair to the tiles but no one attended on the appointment.
An appointment was made for 3 November 2022 to address the window repairs.
The resident wrote again on 7 November 2022. She was given a repair date which was 3 November 2022 but no one attended. She contacted the landlord who stated that the appointment was cancelled and re-booked for 5 December 2022. The windows were letting in “a lot of cold” into the house, so that she was spending a lot more on heating. She had three children including a one-year-old. She had been promised a call back from senior personnel. She requested an inspection for mould and rising damp that reoccurred at least once every two to three years.
On 18 November 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. She referred to her reports, only the windows had been repaired. No one had contacted her. She was very worried about the effect of the damp and mould on her children.
2. She was “fed up and sick and tired of reporting this in the past just for (the landlord) to paint over it”.
3. She requested her tenancy records for the last 10 years.
A damp report of 7 December 2022 stated as follows:
1. There was a “noticeable difference” in temperature when entering the kitchen and even cooler when entering the rear lobby and the bathroom. The bathroom was 15 degrees centigrade.
2. There were radiators in the bathroom and kitchen.
3. The bathroom had a mould problem. To the right of the bath there was a wet patch on the wall, which looked as though the shower screen was not holding back all of the water when the shower was in operation.
4. Some of the tiles behind the shower screen were loose so water was escaping behind them.
5. One of the fans needed checking.
6. On the external of the bathroom, the paint had lifted off the render in places.
7. The resident was a single parent with three children, she was struggling to heat this area of the house. The work being carried out was not a substitute for not heating the area but could hopefully retain heat so the resident was not wasting money.
The accompanying schedule for works includng:
1. External drainage works.
2. The shower screen should be taken down and the tiles repaired.
3. Damp and mould wash,
4. The right-hand wall and the window wall should be over boarded with thermo board to warm the surfaces.
5. The small lobby was not big enough to fit a radiator in it. It suggested a curtain rail for a heavy curtain over the rear entrance door.
6. It recommended redecoration of the kitchen and bathroom.
On 12 December 2022, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
1. It had been unable to resolve the complaint “at the informal stage”.
2. The job regarding the tiles had been passed to a contractor.
3. There had been a damp report.
4. The job to repair the kitchen cupboard had been completed.
5. The complaint was upheld. It acknowledged “some” of the repairs had been completed and some outstanding and this had had an impact on her family.
6. It offered £100 in compensation consisting of £50 for the late repair and £50 for the impact.
On 23 January 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint “as stage one was not dealt with”.
On 12 March 2023, a job was raised to carry out a mould wash. The resident did not want it carried out as she could do it herself but she wanted the landlord to address the underlying cause. The tiling has been repaired 5 or 6 times and there were issues with that external wall.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. Her confidence in the landlord was at a low point. Once these works were completed, she would feel a remarkable difference in her home.
2. It attached the scope of works which would “eliminate the problem” she had in keeping her home warm.
3. It thanked her for withdrawing the complaint.
The resident replied on the same day asking whether this would be a permanent solution. She wanted a schedule in advance in order to plan ahead. If works would prevent the use of the bathroom, she requested a decant. She was not withdrawing her complaint as the landlord’s promises to resolve the damp issue had not yet materialised.
The repair records showed a visit on 26 April 2023 for a contractor to attend in relation to the recommended works.
On 13 July 2023, the resident asked to escalate her complaint.
1. The job raised 10 August 2022 regarding the kitchen cupboard remained outstanding.
2. The mould in the bathroom had returned. She had also been cleaning it off.
3. The bathroom had damp problems and it was very cold even when the central heating was on and it smelt of damp.
4. Her baby had been diagnosed with eczema “due to the mould and damp” in the bathroom.
5. Appointments had been made for the Gas Safety checks on 2 and 17 January 2023 and the Gas Safe engineer failed to attend.
6. She requested a decant until the “damp penetration” was resolved.
On 1 August 2023, the works to reaffix the kitchen cabinet door were raised.
On 10 August 2023, the landlord wrote with its stage 2 review as follows:
1. The resident had spoken the area manager on 10 August 2023 and he was to call her on 11 August 2023.
2. The job to repair the kitchen cupboard had been passed to an external contractor who attended on 11 October 2022.
3. The works order to replace the kitchen “drawer” was raised 1 August 2023. The contractor attended on 7 August 2023 and replaced the “drawer”. It was also post-inspected by a “senior” surveyor on the day.
4. It apologised that it had taken over a year to repair the cabinet door. It would update her with a fresh appointment.
5. The annual gas servicing was carried out on 21 March 2023 but there were no recorded missed appointments.
6. There was no record of damp in the previous two-years repairs history. The area manager would request more details and book an appropriate appointment for a mould wash.
7. It only decanted for damp and mould cases where it would be deemed as a serious risk to health.
8. The mould wash would be raised as a repair under its 5–working day category which would resolve the issue without requiring a decant, also because a bathroom was not classified as a habitable room.
9. In relation to energy costs, there was only one job for loss of heating which had been raised and completed on the same day, on 29 November 2022.
10. “Discussions” had been had internally to ensure effective communication and record keeping to its in-house case management and internal communications systems and ensure that repairs and follow-on actions were carried out in as close to “real-time” and monitored through to completion.
11. The complaint was partially upheld for failing to provide the repairs service as agreed and within time, lack of communication between raising work orders to its operatives and then to contractors without keeping her informed.
12. The complaint was not upheld regarding missed gas service, reports of mould and damp in her bathroom and utility costs.
13. It offered £300 compensation consisting of £50 for the resident’s “right to repair”, £200 for its service failure and £50 for the impact.
The works raised on 26 April 2023 were completed on 15 August 2023. The evidence indicated this referred to the works raised in the schedule of 7 December 2022.
On 8 September 2023, the following jobs were raised and completed on 22 September 2023:
1. Remove mould from window reveals in living room and hallway at top of stairs.
2. Clear gutter to back.
On 5 December 2023, the resident wrote as follows:
1. Soon after the weather had got colder, the mould in the living room, bedroom, bathroom and the corridors got worse. The top corner in the corridor had water “coming down” and “it was wet and damp”.
2. After the stage 2 complaint, she did not get a response for many months. The area manager did not call her on 11 August 2023. The works to the kitchen cupboard door remained outstanding.
3. She provided evidence of missed gas safety check appointments in January 2023.
4. On 7 August 2023, the surveyor inspected the whole property and took pictures of other areas that needed attention. She had not received any updates.
5. She had had to chase by phone and email.
6. The compensation was inadequate given the bathroom and kitchen was extremely cold during the winter months and the additional energy costs.
7. She felt “extremely stressed, helpless, the landlord did not care, exhausted and as a mother, failing her children”.
8. She felt “nothing less than £3,000 would be more substantial”.
On 5 December 2023, an inspection was carried out. The surveyor wrote on 8 December 2023 internally as follows:
1. A post inspection of the works to the bathroom had been carried out by the contractor on 2 August 2023.
2. The landlord would replace the kitchen sink unit.
3. The mould had returned.
On 8 December 2023, an internal email from a surveyor of the landlord set out as follows:
1. The door was hanging off the kitchen sink unit door and the entire unit needed to be changed.
2. Damp wall in the corner of upstairs hallway, likely to be from a roof/chimney leak.
3. Mould growing on all the cold surfaces in the property (around garden door, bathroom, kitchen, front entrance landing and around windowsills)
4. Condensation puddling/pooling on the windowsill (bathroom, bedrooms, living room and hallway)
5. Some of the works (a and b) could be assigned to contractor as soon as possible.
6. The property was “really cold” with high levels of condensation on all the windows, along with the fact that the bathroom was thermal boarded, this suggested the house was not being adequately heated. It considered what could it do to insulate the property further. It could not be filled with cavity wall insulation, given its construction.
7. The windows were already double glazed.
8. There were not much improvement/works that can be done, that had not already been carried out.
9. It suggested a) checking the heating and whether the radiators were the correct size or should be moved b) testing whether the house can be heated adequately, taking before and after readings of turning the heating on for 45 minutes throughout the property c) investigating any other possibilities to improve heating efficiency.
10. Re-inspect for mould and condensation.
11. Advise resident of all the ways to reduce condensation and ventilation. High levels of humidity in a cold home would ultimately result in mould.
On the same day, the landlord’s surveyor raised a job for a heating engineer to undertake a heating check.
The landlord wrote to the resident also on the same day as follows:
1. Following contact from the Housing Ombudsman, another inspection was completed that week. The issue had re-occurred since the works were undertaken in July and September 2023.
2. The work previously carried out by its contractors to the kitchen base unit had “failed”. It had raised a works order to replace the kitchen unit and resolve the issue of the damp and mould. Its heating engineer would attend to assess the effectiveness of the heating on 12 December 2023.
3. The surveyor would carry out another inspection to undertake further tests.
On 12 December 2023, the job to replace the sink unit was raised and for a mould clean. The jobs were marked as completed on 26 January 2024.
The heating engineer did not attend on 15 December 2023.
Following mediation through this Service, the landlord increased its compensation offer from £300 to £500.
On 14 February 2024, a job was raised as follows:
1. Supply and fit a vented cap to roof chimney.
2. Assess and report back the on condition of the roof following a report of damp to wall to upper landing.
3. Check loft insulation in roof space and install new mineral or glass wool at minimum depth of 270 mm. in compliance with building reg’s if missing or in poor state.
4. Works to be completed by 27 February 2024.
The gas engineer did not attend the appointment on 17 December 2023. It was therefore agreed to postpone the surveyor’s visit accordingly.
The contractor’s invoice dated 21 February 2024 noted that all lead flashings where parapet wall met the roof tiles was “fine”. It installed the cap to the chimney. It recommended replacing flaunching which was cracked.
On 27 February 2024, the heating engineer confirmed that the heating system was correctly sized. There was no radiator in the kitchen due to kitchen layout. The heating system was tested and all the radiators reached the correct temperatures.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould in the resident’s property.

The resident reported that there had been mould and damp issues in the property since 2018. We expect residents to raise complaints within 6 months of the issue occurring, though we would also expect the landlord to apply its discretion depending on the circumstances. The repair records showed that the resident made a report of damp and mould in 2018. There was no evidence of further reports until August 2020, and then in August 2022. While the Ombudsman has not investigated events prior to August 2022, it has noted the history of the complaint.
The landlord’s repair records reflect the resident’s account that damp and mould had been occurring every two to three years. However, after August 2022, the recurrence of damp and mould became more frequent. There were other signs such as the tiles coming off the walls which reoccurred after two years which may or may not have been due to not allowing the wall underneath to dry. The resident made it clear that she had been cleaning mould off the bathroom and in November 2022 requested an inspection and for a permanent solution. At that time, she alerted the landlord to her children’s health issues. It was reasonable therefore for the landlord to seek a damp report and to create a schedule of works. There was then an unreasonable and unexplained delay to August 2023 before the works were carried out and a further delay to a mould clean.
It is standard practice and set out in the decant policy that a decant would only be offered while works were taking place. The landlord also informed the resident that it would only be offered if it was unsafe for the occupants to remain in the property where there was a “serious risk to health”. The Ombudsman cannot assess the level of risk to the resident’s family’s health. However, a landlord should consider whether a property is safe in any event to occupy and consider alterative accommodation including referring a resident to the local authority. In this case, the bathroom works were to be carried out in a relatively short time following the resident’s request. However, there was no evidence that the landlord assessed the household’s health by requesting medical evidence before making a decision not to offer a decant.
After the resident reported that the mould returned, the landlord reasonably raised a further survey that took place in December 2023. Both the roof and the heating system were found to be in reasonable order. While the evidence indicated that the issues related to the construction of the property, the landlord reasonably considered further measures which were followed through in February and April 2024. Given the circumstances of this case, and that the resident reported a leak on 5 December 2023, this was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord undertook inspections, carried out works, carried out intermittent mould washes to reduce the impact on the resident and her family, it re-inspected the property and explored the heating and issues with the roof. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not arrange an investigation of the heating following the damp report of 7 December 2022, and roof insulation if it did not do so. There were unexplained delays to works. Given the level and spread of mould in the property, these delays were unreasonable. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration and will make an order for compensation that reflects the efforts by the landlord as well as the impact on the resident.
It is recognised that there were limitations to a solution due to the construction of the property. Given the complexities of this case, while the evidence showed that the landlord’s own surveyors had inspected the property and made robust recommendations, the Ombudsman considers that an independent suitably qualified surveyor should be instructed and will make an order accordingly.

Delays to repairs to a kitchen cupboard and missed contractor appointments.

It was unreasonable and inappropriate that the repair to the kitchen sink unit, raised in August 2022 was not, effectively, carried out until 2024. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to communicate to the resident that the job had been outsourced to a contractor and, as at August 2023, the delay was unreasonable. While an attempt at a repair was undertaken, it was effectively not resolved until early 2024.
It was unreasonable that the job to repair the window took nearly two months rather than 28 days to complete. This would not have assisted with the temperature in the room that the resident was experiencing.
The landlord and/or contractor missed a number of appointments including on 3 November 2022 as well as the appointments for the gas safety checks in January 2023 and the heating engineer in November 2023.
This caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, not only requiring her to stay in and wait for appointments but living with a kitchen unit she felt was unsafe, given she had small children. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s eventual offer of £500 in compensation constituted reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It was unreasonable that the landlord did not identify and log the resident’s email of 26 October 2022 as a complaint. The email was an expression of dissatisfaction, as the landlord’s own policy describes what is a complaint. Even on the basis the complaint was made on 18 November 2022, there was a delay to the Stage 1 response of over two weeks. This was neither acknowledged nor explained. The resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 23 January 2023 was not actioned.
It was concerning that, in March 2023, the landlord thanked her for withdrawing a complaint when there was no evidence that she did so.
There were a number of errors in its responses, including stating that the repair to the kitchen cupboard had been completed, a reference to a kitchen drawer was not clear, and there had been missed gas safety check appointments. There was little evidence of the complaints process offering and monitoring a resolution, including the promise of call backs from senior management. This should a lack of proper investigation and added to the resident’s frustration and feeling of not being listened to. This did not reflect the assurances about its communication made in its complaint response of August 2022.
The landlord is referred to the recommendations regarding complaint handling made in the Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The resident’s point about her utility bills was that the conditions of the property was incurring her in additional heating expenses. The damp report itself recognised the difficulties the resident would be facing in incurring additional heating costs. It was unreasonable that the landlord related this aspect of her complaint to a heating repair and thereby missing an opportunity to consider this.
The responses came across as dismissive and lacking in empathy for the resident’s circumstances, who was living with, what was by then, recurring mould and with 3 young children in the home. She had described herself as feeling “fed up”, “extremely stressed, helpless, the landlord did not care, exhausted and as a mother, failing her children”. In all of the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays to repairs to a kitchen cupboard, and missed contractor appointments.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord took a number of steps in relation to the damp and mould including inspections, a damp report and carried out works, there were unexplained delays.
There were a number of missed appointments and in particular a significant delay to repairing a sink unit. However, the Ombudsman found that £500 constituted reasonable redress.
The complaint handling was delayed, showed little understanding of the resident’s circumstances, there was no evidence of providing a resolution or monitoring the case.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay to the resident the sum of £1,100 comprising as follows:
  1. £750 in relation to the damp and mould
  2. £350 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should if not already done so:
  1. Check the loft insulation in the roof space and install mineral or glass wool at minimum depth of 270 mm if missing or in poor state.
  2. Replace the chimney flaunching as recommended on 21 February 2024.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should arrange an inspection by a suitably qualified RICS surveyor of the property to determine whether there are any further steps the landlord could take to improve the ambient heating of the property and reduce the incident of damp and mould. The landlord should share the inspection report with the resident and the Ombudsman and carry out any recommended works within 4 weeks of the inspection report.
4. The landlord should carry out a review of the findings regarding its complaint handling and provide a guidance note to its staff and a copy to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should pay the resident the £500 offered to the resident if it has not already done so within 4 weeks of this report.
2. The landlord should write to the resident and offer assistance with a move, including an application for a management move.
3. The landlord should consider its monitoring of repair appointments and outcomes, whether they are undertaken by the landlord or contractors.
The landlord should provide feedback on the above recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.