Southern Housing Group Limited (202313346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313346

Southern Housing Group Limited

15 July 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and her request that the windows were replaced.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has said it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord has advised that the windows in the property were assessed in July 2022 and has provided an undated report from its contractors in which the operative advised that the property was being damaged by the amount of damp caused by water ingress. The only repair that could be completed was to reseal the windows as the trim was coming away from all frames. They noted that this would be a high cost and would not prolong the life of the windows.
On 5 December 2022, the resident reported that her daughter’s bedroom looked like it had damp as there were water marks under the window. The landlord asked the resident whether there were gaps around the windows and asked her to take pictures. However, the job was later closed, with the landlord’s notes showing that this was due to no response from the resident.
Two work orders for a window assessment and damp inspection were raised on 12 April 2023 as the resident had reported that the windows in the property were draughty and 1 leaked when it rained. The landlord’s records note that there was damp and mould, and all residents were ill.
The landlord’s records from 20 April 2023 show that it understood the windows were under its programme to be renewed in 2024-2025, but it asked internally that this was brought forward due to the costs involved with completing repairs. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether an inspection of the windows took place around this time due to the landlord’s records being incomplete.
Three work orders were raised on 26 April 2023 to complete a mould wash to the areas around the windows in multiple rooms and the corners of the living room, complete work to the plastering in the living room (outstanding from previous damp works in 2022), and to inspect the windows. The landlord’s records suggest that this was following an inspection on 25 April 2023.
An operative who attended to complete plastering works on 15 May 2023 noted that they could not complete the work as the plaster was damp and there was a lot of mould. They noted that damp was visible in all rooms and an inspection was needed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2023 to chase works; she had been told by operatives who attended that the windows needed to be replaced. A mould wash was reported as completed on either 26 May 2023 or 9 June 2023.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 6 June 2023 over the phone. She said that:
1. She had contacted the local authority’s Environmental Health department (EH) regarding repair issues in the property but was told that she was unable to do so without raising at least 2 complaints with the landlord directly.
2. She had been having issues with damp and mould in the property for months and her daughter had been getting ill with chest infections. She noted that her GP was willing to write a supporting letter that the health concerns were damp related. She said that her son had also been recently hospitalised with sepsis and was worried about how the damp would affect him.
3. There had been several appointments to complete a mould wash but the issue kept returning. She had been told by an operative that the cause of the issue was the windows in the property and that they needed to be replaced. She had since been told that the windows were not due for replacement until 2034.
4. A plasterer was also meant to attend to plaster a wall that was damp, and they said that there was no point completing the work as until the windows were resolved, the damp would return. She was waiting to hear regarding another appointment for the windows to be assessed but had not heard anything further.
5. She wanted the damp issues to be resolved and for her and her children to be put in temporary accommodation until the works were done due to the impact on her children’s health.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 June 2023 and the resident chased a response on 20 June 2023. On 3 July 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident for failing to process the complaint.
The window replacement was referred to the landlord’s reinvestment team and, on 10 July 2023, its internal records show that while the windows were found to be old, dirty, and in need of replacement at some point, they were not dangerous or insecure so did not need to be replaced immediately. The replacement would remain planned for 2024. The landlord confirmed to the resident on the same day that the windows would be upgraded in 2024 as planned. In response, the resident said that she would not be paying off her rent arrears until the windows were replaced, and that she would be approaching EH due to the impact on her daughter’s health.
A work order was raised for a full damp and mould inspection on 12 July 2023. A further work order for a mould wash was raised on 21 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023 and explained the following:
1. It apologised that the report it had received from its surveyor had not been processed in line with its procedures when it had received this in July 2022. It had now made a referral to its reinvestment team who were responsible for deciding on whether to replace windows outside a planned programme of upgrades. The system showed that the resident’s windows were not scheduled to be upgraded until 2032 and its surveyor had asked for the date to be brought forward. It anticipated a response form its reinvestment team within 4 weeks.
2. It apologised that the resident was experiencing mould and damp and said it wanted to do what it could to resolve this. It had arranged for a mould wash to be completed and said its contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. It acknowledged that mould washes had been completed previously but this was to prevent the resident’s household from being exposed to damp and mould and to allow it to identify what the cause was.
3. It had asked a surveyor to inspect the property to identify the cause of the issue so that it could raise the correct jobs and avoid a reoccurrence in future. It had also enclosed a leaflet detailing how to manage damp and mould in the property. It hoped this would be helpful to mitigate issues while it came to a full resolution.
4. It apologised that the plasterer who attended was unable to complete the work due to the condition of the walls. Once the damp and mould issues were rectified, it would make good any damage that had been caused after allowing time for the areas to dry out.
5. It confirmed that the inspection would take place on 11 August 2023 and it would update the resident regarding the window referral by 22 August 2023. It assigned a member of staff to oversee the actions and act as a point of contact.
6. It apologised and offered £575 compensation. This was comprised of £450 for the impact the matter had on the resident and her family as well as any inconvenience and time and trouble, £60 for its failure to carry out repairs in a timely manner, £50 for its unsatisfactory handling of the complaint, and £15 for its failure to follow process in referring the windows for replacement.
On 21 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that someone had attended to look at the windows, but they had not assessed whether it was definitely the windows causing the damp, or looked for any other cause. She also doubted that she would receive an update regarding the windows the following day as agreed. She was dissatisfied that she needed to repeatedly chase the landlord and that her children were being affected. She asked that the complaint was escalated. She pursued a call back on 24 August 2023.
On 25 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to escalate the complaint as there were still mould issues which were causing health concerns, and the window replacement referral had been rejected. It confirmed that it would provide further details of her escalation request on 30 August 2023.
The landlord’s records from 6 September 2023 note that the landlord had asked for a repair to be raised to “get her by” until the window replacement was completed in the next financial year. It also re-raised works for the plastering, noting that no damp works were required.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord apologised for the delay in confirming the resident’s escalation request details. It said that the complaint would be reviewed by its panel on 29 September 2023 and a response would be provided by 13 October 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 13 October 2023 and explained the following:
1. Following receipt of the complaint, it had asked its contractors to inspect the windows and submit any recommendations. They found that the windows were old, and needed replacing at some point rather than a repair. Its reinvestment team had determined the windows were not posing a risk, nor were they dangerous, and would be replaced as part of a planned programme of works in the next financial year (2024 to 2025).
2. It apologised that the resident’s daughter was affected by mould. It confirmed that a mould wash was completed on 23 August 2023, however, plastering works remained outstanding. This had now been booked in for 20 October 2023.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had asked to be decanted (temporarily moved) and said it would not usually decant residents for repairs that could be carried out while the resident was in situ. It noted that the reason for the decant request was due to the impact of the damp on her childrens’ health. It said that any “changes in lifestyle” should be reported to its contact centre and as it had not received any doctors notes, it was unable to progress with a decant. It asked that the resident contact it to update its records.
4. It offered an additional £50 compensation for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2 and confirmed the resident’s referral rights to the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord on the same day to advise that the complaint response was not attached to the email. It remains unclear as to when the resident then received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord’s records show that a work order to hack off plaster was reportedly completed on 20 October 2023. Follow on works were raised on 9 November 2023. A further repair was raised on 9 November 2023 for an inspection of the property due to concerns that the mould was not only caused by the condition of the windows. A further work order was raised on 15 January 2024 to complete a mould wash to the living room and 2 bedrooms.
The resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 2 complaint on 22 January 2024 as the issues had not been resolved and she had requested an inspection in November 2023 but this had not been actioned. She remained concerned that this was impacting her childrens’ health but had not provided medical evidence. She was advised that if she remained dissatisfied with its response to the complaint, she could contact the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s records suggest that the plastering was completed on 25 January 2024. However, the landlord’s records from 26 January 2024 note that the resident had called to chase the works. A further work order to inspect the windows was raised on 26 February 2024 due to the resident’s reports that water was entering the property when it rained. This was attended to on 7 March 2024 and the operative said that there was damp and mould “all over” the windows and suggested that the windows needed to be replaced. They also said that the leak at the front was due to the vents on the fascias of the windows rather then the windows themselves.
On 14 March 2024, a repair for the window fascias was raised. The operatives who attended in April 2024 established that when the property was retrofitted with insulation, the window sills were extended, and now covered the drain holes on the windows. They recommended that the windows were replaced with deeper windowsills. This was closed as the windows were due to be replaced in the 2024 to 2025 financial year. The landlord’s records show that work to complete a mould wash was cancelled by it on 30 March 2024 after 3 no access appointments.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman and explained that the issues remain unresolved. The living room was replastered but the mould came back. She had asked the landlord to carry out a further investigation on multiple occasions but nothing had been done, despite operatives suggesting that there may be another cause. She had been told the windows would be replaced in this financial year, but had not received an update. She remained concerned about her childrens’ health, noting that her 1 year old child had been prescribed medication, and that she had been informed that they may be allergic to mould. She said that she had informed the landlord and sent medical letters but had not had a response. On 20 March 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the seals to windows had recently been replaced, but that she continued to experience issues of damp and mould in the corner of the room.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concern that her children’s health has been impacted by the damp and mould within the property. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Policies, procedures, and best practice

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in a reasonable state of repair and proper working order. This includes repairs to walls, window sills and frames, ceilings and floors but not internal painting or decorating. It would also be responsible for carrying out repair work that was its responsibility within a “reasonable timeframe”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states emergency repairs will be made safe within 6 hours. If the repair is not an emergency, the landlord would arrange an appointment “as soon as possible” and in “as little time as possible”. The policy does not provide an expected completion timescale or comment on how it handles reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and for effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s website has a page that provides information in relation to controlling damp, condensation and moisture. It urges residents to report damp and mould and confirms that it would carry out an inspection within 10 days of the first report and aims to find a resolution within 6 weeks. The website also says (as of 14 March 2023) that the landlord proactively deals with issues of damp and mould in homes and installs data loggers to record the heat, humidity, and moisture levels to identify and rectify any issues. It further states that it tracks damp and mould cases closely and prioritises them by risk, keeping residents up to date with proposed resolutions and progress.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its Standard Operating Procedure for handling issues related to damp and mould. It remains unclear as to when this procedure was introduced, however, the landlord informed the Ombudsman of the procedure before May 2024. The procedure sets out that following a report of damp and mould, the landlord should complete an inspection within 10 working days, or 5 working days where there are reports that health has been affected by the conditions. The inspection should include a thorough review of the property/area, images of any concerns, temperature/ humidity/moisture readings and the installation of data loggers as required. In instances where the property condition immediately causes a risk to a resident(s) health, the case handler will contact the landlord’s housing services to discuss options for temporary alternative accommodation. They should also create an action plan which should be reviewed after 6 weeks.
The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it has a 2-stage formal complaints process. At each stage, it should contact the resident within 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint. At stage 1, it would provide a response within a further 10 working days, and at stage 2, it would provide its response within 20 working days. The stage 2 review will either be dealt with by a panel of residents and a senior member of staff, or a senior member of staff. If for any reason the landlord cannot provide its response within the timescales, it should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about damp and mould in the property, and her request for the windows to be replaced

As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide evidence related to the resident’s complaint, including communication and repair records. This information was provided, however, its repair records are not always clear as to when the property was visited, what happened on the visits, or the completion dates of works – multiple completion dates were provided for some repairs. This has not significantly impacted the outcome of this investigation but indicates problems with the landlord’s knowledge and information management which may cause difficulty in how it manages ongoing repairs in its properties.
The Ombudsman issued a spotlight report on the landlord in May 2024 (available on our website) which, amongst other things, highlighted concerns regarding its knowledge and information management. Recommendations were made to the landlord as part of the report and are currently in progress. As such, this report will make no further orders or recommendations in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In this case, it is evident that the resident needed to spend significant time and trouble pursuing repairs to resolve ongoing damp and mould issues within the property, which remain unresolved as of July 2024. The landlord has advised that it was first made aware that the windows in the property needed to be replaced to resolve the issues, related to water ingress, in June 2022. However, its repair records suggest that issues had been ongoing prior to this, with works to install window vents and an extractor fan and replace a fascia near the living room window completed in 2021.
In line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS), the landlord has an obligation to address hazards and risks within its properties, including the presence of damp and mould. When assessing reports of damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord had completed a damp assessment, using professional tools such as a moisture meter in order to establish the underlying cause, the exact location of any defects which may contribute to the spread of damp, and to assess all possible causes of damp, including leaks, rising damp, penetrating damp, and condensation. This is to have a clear understanding of the problem to enable a resolution within a reasonable timescale.
Where the landlord identifies a defect which is allowing water ingress that is contributing to damp and mould in the property, it would be expected to complete repairs, or temporary repairs, to reduce the impact of that ingress. The landlord is entitled to complete works such as window, kitchen and bathroom replacements as part of a cyclical works programme within each financial year rather than on an ad-hoc basis as this may be more cost effective. However, it should consider whether the item is beyond economical repair and its condition warrants a full replacement before the planned programme date. It would be expected to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when making this decision.
The Ombudsman appreciates that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as damp and mould, as it can be difficult to identify the cause from the outset and, in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. However, in this case, there is a lack of evidence to show that the landlord was proactive in its handling of the matter, and no evidence to show that an adequate damp assessment was completed at any stage. The only repairs carried out to treat the issue over the course of the complaint was a mould wash. This is a reactive measure and would not resolve the underlying issue.
The surveyor’s report (which the landlord has stated was from July 2022) indicated that the cause of the damp and mould in the property was the water ingress through the windows. It said that the windows needed to be replaced as any repair would be costly and not significantly prolong the life of the windows. The landlord has ultimately acknowledged that this was not acted on.
The resident reported that there was damp around the windows in her daughter’s bedroom in December 2022. It is noted that this job was closed due to a lack of response from the resident. However, given the presence of young children in the property, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to act proactively, with a zero tolerance approach, and arrange an inspection to determine whether works were needed, especially considering that the damp and mould had been raised previously by the resident. This was a missed opportunity to assess the concerns raised at an earlier date.
Two repair orders were raised on 12 April 2023 which noted that the windows were draughty and 1 was leaking, that there was damp and mould, and the residents were “all ill”. The evidence suggests that an inspection was carried out on 25 April 2023, however, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the findings of the inspection. While several further work orders for a mould wash, plastering to be completed in the living room, and an assessment of the windows, were raised the following day, there is no evidence to suggest that any risk assessment of the property was completed. This was unreasonable given the presence of young children and reports that the household were ill and that an adequate diagnosis of the underlying issue was not completed.
A mould wash was done on either 26 May 2023 or 9 June 2023 according to the landlord’s records. It is noted that there was a delay in the work being carried out and the landlord’s records from 10 May 2023 show that the resident had said she had not been made aware of the appointment and had contracted COVID-19. The delay at this stage was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control due to the resident being ill. However, we would expect landlords to demonstrate that its residents are adequately informed of appointments in advance to prevent unsuccessful visits.
The landlord was clearly of the understanding that the windows could not wait for the planned programme to be replaced. Its internal records from 26 May 2023 show that it understood that the windows were due to be replaced as part of the 2024 to 2025 planned programme of works and that a referral had been sent to its reinvestment team to determine whether this could be brought forward. This appears to have been prompted by the earlier surveyor’s report noting that the windows were to be replaced as there is no clear evidence to suggest that a further inspection of the windows had taken place at this stage.
It is of concern that the landlord advised within its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023 that it was still awaiting an update from its reinvestment team as the windows were not due to be replaced until 2032. The landlord had confirmed to the resident on 10 July 2023 that the windows would be replaced in the 2024 to 2025 financial year. Its records indicate that it had already had a response and been made aware that the referral had been rejected by its reinvestment team and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided accurate information to the resident to avoid any confusion.
The landlord also advised that it would raise a job for a mould wash within its stage 1 complaint response, acknowledging that this may not resolve the issue long term. While it was somewhat reasonable for the landlord to arrange a mould wash to be completed as a reactive measure, its records show that this had been completed a short time earlier on either 26 May 2023 or 9 June 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had inspected the property to determine whether this was needed prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response on 25 July 2023.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would complete an inspection to identify the cause of the underlying damp issues within its complaint response. However, it had the opportunity to do so at an earlier date. The inspection was not arranged until 11 August 2023, a significant time after the resident’s complaint on 6 June 2023. This was an unreasonable timescale given the potential risk and the presence of young children in the property.
In addition, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the property was fully assessed during the appointment to determine whether there were other factors, aside from the window faults, that were contributing to the damp. The landlord ultimately failed to do what it said it would within its stage 1 complaint response. There is also no evidence to confirm that the landlord’s understanding of the issues was communicated to the resident clearly at any stage and it failed to provide reassurance as to how it intended to improve the property condition.
Despite the resident’s escalation request noting that she did not feel the property had been adequately assessed and that the issues remained unresolved, there is no further evidence that this was investigated. It is of concern that the landlord re-raised works to plaster the living room wall on 6 September 2023, noting that no damp works were needed. This was not accurate and had not been adequately assessed. Its own records show that the plasterer who attended on 15 May 2023 had declined to complete works as they could not plaster damp walls. It ultimately remains unclear as to how the landlord asserted that there were no damp works to complete when it had needed to complete multiple mould washes and had not carried out a full damp assessment.
The landlord’s records from 6 September 2023 show that it had asked that a job for the windows was raised to “get her by” until the window replacement programme. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that any job was raised at the time and the landlord offered no reassurance in its stage 2 complaint response as to how it intended to resolve the issues reported. The landlord’s lack of ownership over the damp issues within the resident’s property over the course of her complaint ultimately led to her spending additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution following the complaint and into 2024.
It was unreasonable for the landlord to leave the resident with suspected water ingress into the property without carrying out any form of temporary repair. It failed to act in line with its responsibilities which left the resident understandably inconvenienced, frustrated, and distressed. The Ombudsman notes that the resident asked for a further inspection and temporary repairs in November 2023, following the complaint, but there is a lack of evidence to suggest any action was taken, despite the landlord’s repair records noting this as “urgent”. A mould wash was again raised in January 2024 but later cancelled in March 2024 after 3 alleged no access appointments. While this was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, its records show that the resident had provided access for unrelated works to the plastering and to resolve a leak under the kitchen sink during this period and it remains unclear as to whether she was adequately informed of the appointment in advance.
There is no evidence to suggest that any form of temporary repair was carried out until March 2024, after the resident’s further reports of water coming into the property through the windows on 26 February 2024 and further investigation into what was causing the issues. It is evident that damp was still apparent which was not unexpected given that no works had been undertaken to resolve the underlying issues at an earlier date. The resident has advised that there is ongoing damp in the corners of the living room. This was identified by the landlord as an area that needed to be mould washed in April 2023, and it is unreasonable that no further investigation took place as this area was unlikely to be solely related to the window repairs/replacement needed.
The landlord’s lack of ownership of the repair issues continued following the complaint which demonstrates that it did not take adequate points of learning from the complaint. There is no further evidence to suggest that it has acted in line with its standard operating procedure or to proactively alleviate the damp.
The resident has advised that she does not yet have a date for the window replacement despite the landlord confirming that this would take place in the 2024 to 2025 financial year (within its final response in October 2023). While the landlord has sent information to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation, we have not seen evidence that the landlord has provided any meaningful update to the resident regarding the windows in the time since the complaint. An order has been made below for it to do so.

Summary

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted proactively, tracked the case closely, completed any form of risk assessment, offered reassurance to the resident, or provided clear information on any proposed resolutions. There is no evidence to suggest that the damp was adequately assessed at any stage or that the landlord acted with any urgency in its handling of the matter. It also failed to complete any form of risk assessment despite the length of time the issues were ongoing and the presence of young children in the property, who are more vulnerable to the health impacts of damp and mould. It has identified that the windows may be contributing to the damp and need replacement but it has failed to offer a clear plan as to when they will be renewed and what further measures it is willing to take to resolve the remaining damp issues in the meantime. These failings amount to severe maladministration by the landlord.
While the landlord made some effort to acknowledge the initial inconvenience caused to the resident and its failure to progress works, offering a total of £525 compensation for this aspect of the complaint, this is not considered proportionate. It is the Ombudsman’s view that additional compensation is warranted in view of the significant failings and resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident over a prolonged period. Several orders have been made below for the landlord to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident first made a complaint over the phone to the landlord on 6 June 2023. The landlord issued its complaint response on 25 July 2023, which was outside of its policy timescale by 20 working days. The resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the complaint both with the landlord and via the support of the Ombudsman which was likely to cause inconvenience. The landlord took steps to apologise to the resident, acknowledging that it had failed to process the complaint on 3 July 2023, and that it needed more time to investigate the complaint on 17 July 2023. It is noted that the resident had said she had not received the response on 25 July 2023. Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord provided the response on 4 August 2023.
Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acted reasonably by offering £50 compensation for its unsatisfactory handling of the complaint which acknowledged the inconvenience caused. However, it would have been expected to address all concerns and provide accurate information. The landlord did not address the resident’s request that she and her family were temporarily moved from the property until the damp and mould issues were resolved. It would have been appropriate for it to have confirmed its position to demonstrate that it took her concerns seriously.
In addition, as set out above, the landlord did not provide correct information to the resident regarding the window renewal date as it had already had a response from its reinvestment team by this stage and had confirmed that the window replacement would be scheduled for the 2024 financial year. The landlord was already aware that the request for the windows to be renewed sooner had been rejected. The failure to provide accurate information either indicates that the complaint was not investigated properly at the time, or that there are wider issues in how the landlord shares relevant information between its departments.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 21 August 2023, however, a response was not issued until 13 October 2023 which was again outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord acted reasonably within its response by acknowledging the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2, but failed to consider how it could learn from the failing to prevent similar delays in the future.
It is evident that the resident did not receive the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on this date, and informed it that the response was not attached to the email on the same day. It remains unclear as to when the resident received the landlord’s complaint response. However, she contacted the landlord on 22 January 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with the outcome, indicating that she had since received this.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and showed a lack of empathy. It failed to offer sufficient reassurance as to how it would resolve the issues long term or demonstrate that it had engaged with its own records. Within the response, it said that its reinvestment team had said the windows were “not posing any risk”. The landlord’s records show that the reinvestment team had said the windows were not dangerous and were not making the property insecure but did not comment on any risk. As detailed above, no risk assessment was carried out at any stage, and the landlord failed to consider the potential impact of ongoing water ingress due to a lack of repair. By stating that there was no “risk” posed by the windows, the landlord dismissed the resident’s concerns about the risk of damp and mould on her childrens’ health, which she understood to be related to the windows at the time.
It was inappropriate and unreasonable for the landlord to refer to the resident’s concerns about her childrens’ health and health conditions as “changes in lifestyle” in its stage 2 complaint response. The term ‘lifestyle’ suggests that it is a resident’s choice and demonstrates a lack of empathy. While it can be reasonable for the landlord to request medical evidence to help it support residents and inform its approach to repairs, this should not have stopped the landlord from taking action to ensure the issues were resolved or completing a risk assessment. Had the risk been assessed, the landlord would have been able to make an informed decision about whether the property was habitable or whether a decant was required to prevent the ongoing risk posed by damp and mould.
The landlord’s failure to identify that there were ongoing issues at the time of its stage 2 complaint response ultimately delayed an adequate resolution and was likely to cause frustration and further inconvenience to the resident and necessitated in an unreasonable level of involvement by her in pursuing a resolution. The stage 2 complaint response undermined the resolution focused approach at stage 1 and was likely to make the resident feel unheard.
While the landlord has acknowledged the delay in issuing both responses, it did not adequately seek to put things right or identify its service failures throughout the complaints process. It also failed to evidence that it had identified points of learning to prevent similar failings in the future. Overall, its offer of £100 compensation for the delays in handling the complaint is not considered proportionate to reflect the failings identified and the likely distress, inconvenience, and frustration caused to the resident.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, and her request that the windows were replaced.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings outlined in this investigation. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,500, comprised of:
1. £1,200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and time and trouble spent because of the landlord’s failings in relation to the damp, mould, and windows. This includes its previous offer of £525 if this has not yet been paid.
2. £300 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This includes its previous offer of £100 if this has not yet been paid.
The landlord is to instruct an independent damp and mould specialist to carry out a full survey of the resident’s property within 4 weeks. The purpose of the survey is to diagnose the likely causes of the damp and mould and assess how these can be fully resolved. The survey should also determine whether there is further water ingress through, or around, the windows.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to assign a senior repairs staff member to oversee any work required at the property through to completion and act as a point of contact for the resident.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord should complete a risk assessment to determine whether the resident and her family should be decanted from the property until the works are completed.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to:
1. provide a copy of the specialist’s report, and confirm its understanding of the repair issues in the property which may be contributing to damp;
2. confirm how it intends to resolve the issues and provide a schedule of works along with the expected timescales;
3. provide an update on when it intends to complete the window renewal agreed within its stage 2 complaint response;
4. confirm how it will meet its repair obligations while awaiting the renewal;
5. confirm the outcome of the risk assessment with a full explanation of its decant decision.
In line with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of this case within 12 weeks to establish points of learning and determine what service improvements are needed to prevent similar failings in the future. The review should include consideration of its approach to assessing risk for households awaiting planned works and residents who report that their health is impacted by damp and mould. It should provide a copy of this review to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance to this Service within the specified timescales.