Stonewater Limited (202324238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324238

Stonewater Limited

30 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs following the resident’s reports of leaks in his property, and damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the decant process.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of services not being carried out, including grounds maintenance.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In its stage 1 response of 10 October 2023, the landlord responded to a complaint about the provision of communal services including grounds maintenance. It offered a 50% service charge refund from April 2023. The resident did not escalate this complaint to stage 2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “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”. Essentially, a landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions at both stages of its complaint procedure prior to investigation by the Service. As the resident did not escalate his complaint regarding the provision of communal services including grounds maintenance to stage 2, it has not been investigated by the Service.
The Service does note, however, that the resident raised a new complaint on 22 February 2024 about the provision of the grounds maintenance, communal cleaning and window cleaning services. The resident stated that it had been over a year since these services were provided. The landlord has advised the Service that it has offered a refund of the service charge, but it is not evident that it has sent a complaint response. If this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure the resident can advise the Service if he remains dissatisfied. In this instance, we can raise a new case and investigate this complaint separately. If the resident is experiencing difficulty progressing this complaint, the Service, on notification, can provide advice and support to ensure that the complaint is responded to.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has mental health issues and a collapsed lung. The property is a 2 bed lower ground floor flat in a block of other similar properties. His rent is £123.67 per week. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair obligations, stating that it must keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home including:
1. the windows and the walls, floors, and ceiling.
2. things which supply the heating, water heating, … water and sanitation … including:
  1. the basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing system and waste pipes.
  2. the electric wiring, gas and water pipes.
  3. water heaters … and central heating.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s Decant Policy states that:
1. “A temporary decant is usually a planned move for the customer to reside at alternative accommodation whilst work is carried out in their home. The customer is decanted for a set period of time, with the intention for them to return to their home on completion of the works. Where a temporary decant is for a short period of time, Stonewater will consider the following options:
  1. Staying with friends or relatives.
  2. Staying in temporary accommodation such as a B&B or Hotel at Stonewater’s expense.”
2. “Where a customer is decanted into temporary accommodation through either of the above options, that has lessor (sic) facilities than their current home, Stonewater will offer a disturbance payment of £20 per adult/child per day to cover any additional expenses the Tenant may incur through lack of facilities that would usually be available to them in their home.”
The landlord’s complaint procedure in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that it should acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 days and send the response within 10 working days. If an extension is required, it will advise the resident of the timeframe and any extension beyond 20 days should be agreed with the resident.
In September 2023, the landlord updated its complaints policy. This states at stage 2 it should acknowledge the escalation within 2 working days and send the response within 10 working days. If the stage 2 complaint takes longer to investigate it should advise the resident and if it is not able to respond within a further 20 working days, it should contact the resident to agree an extension.
The landlord’s Compensation Matrix allows it to award £25 if a response is 1-5 days late, £40 if it is 6-10 days late, £75 if it is 11-20 days late and £100 if the response is over 20 days late. Regarding Inconvenience, Time and Trouble, where there is high impact / serious long-term effect on the customer or tenancy, the matrix awards £700 for 0-3 months, £800 for 3-6 months, £900 for 6-12 months and £1,000 for over 12 months.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that it should respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, non-emergency repairs within 28 days and major repairs “within a maximum period of 42 days where there is a significant amount of work beyond the original repair”. The policy also allows it to pursue rechargeable repairs “with customers if intentional damage has been caused to their home or surrounding area”.
The landlord has a Damp, Mould and Compensation (DMC) Policy. This states:
1. Phased and targeted engagement to support customers quickly and respond to raised cases.
2. Any customers with DMC issues managed as part of our DMC case processing system.
3. Customer assigned a category and either support, guidance provided and/or remedial works.

Summary of Events

On 5 November 2022, the resident reported “sporadic” leaks from the flat above during torrential rain which he attributed to the flat being abandoned and an open window. The landlord’s repair records do not detail any leaks from the flat above during this period. The landlord took possession of the above flat on 12 June 2023.
On 15 June 2023, the resident reported a leak from the above flat through the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s contractors attended the same day and made safe by capping the water supply in the bathroom and kitchen.
The landlord’s electrical contractor attended the next day to check the electrics. It made safe by removing the light bulb from the bathroom, but a repair was put on hold pending testing for asbestos.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2023 stating that 3 ceilings were affected by repeated leaks, with one just needing repainting. He stated that there was mould and damp in his bathroom from continuous leaks from above. He requested that the landlord carry out repair works, investigate why it took 15 months to regain possession of the property above, deal with the leaks, and pay compensation. The resident also stated that the grounds maintenance contractor had not attended the scheme since April 2023 and that he had personally removed moss and weeds from across the scheme.
On 3 July 2023, the resident chased up the response to his email of 23 June 2023 and on 10 July 2023 the landlord advised it had opened a complaint. On the same day it tried to inspect the property and left a card. On 24 July 2023, the resident requested a full property survey.
On 31 July 2023, the resident sent an email complaining further about services at scheme. He stated:
1. the grounds maintenance contractor had failed to trim a bush blocking a footpath.
2. the window cleaner had not cleaned the windows of individual properties for 4 months.
3. 2 storm drains in the car park needed to be unblocked.
4. The car park light needed to be altered so as not to come on in broad daylight.
5. A length of fencing to the rear of the washing area needed to be replaced.
The resident stated that he had spent over 60 hours carrying out grounds maintenance and gardening works to the scheme himself, including cutting back bushes, removing weeds and moss and sweeping of communal areas. He also stated that there was still a leak from the flat above.
The landlord attempted further visits to the resident’s property on 2 and 8 August 2023 but did not gain access. On 2 August 2023 it raised a works order on the basis that the bathroom ceiling had been damaged by the leak of 15 June 2023. On 14 August 2023 it raised a further works order on the basis that the lounge ceiling was also damaged.
On 9 August 2023, the resident advised the landlord that he had received 4 missed visits cards when appointments had not been made. He requested that the landlord make mutually convenient appointments. He also stated that the leak from the above flat had not been stopped.
On 10 August 2023, the resident chased an update on the complaint.
After the resident reported a leaking stopcock, the landlord attended on 14 August 2023. It fitted new washing machine valves and replaced the sink waste. A new shower unit was fitted on 23 August 2023.
On 20 August 2023, the landlord raised a works order following a report that a kitchen base unit was rotten with black mould. On 23 August 2023 it raised a further order after the resident reported there was mould on the bath sealant and on the bathroom walls. He advised of his concern about the effect on his health. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the only prior report of mould it had received was in 2019 when there was a leak to the bath sealant causing mould below the bath.
The landlord agreed with the resident to carry out the asbestos survey on 24 August 2023.
On 24 August 2023, the resident clarified his complaint. He stated that leaks since mid–2022 had damaged 4 ceilings and he thought it had caused black mould in the kitchen and bathroom. He stated “I have lost use of 75% of my property for 50> of every day and have done so for 6 weeks thus far… .” He requested full bathroom and kitchen replacements, and all mould ridden items be replaced including plasterboard, cupboards, flooring, ceilings, skirting boards after a thorough drying out. In a later statement to the court dated 23 October 2023, the landlord stated it thought the “property was being mistreated” but that it would replace everything to prevent the need for the resident to raise new issues of repair.
On 25 August 2023, the resident raised the following repairs:
1. The sink waste was leaking.
2. The toilet cistern was leaking from the supply pipe and had been for several days causing damage to the plasterboard and the flooring.
3. A leak to the supply pipe of the sink that had leaked across the floor, but the water was turned off.
The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day. Also, on 25 August 2023, the resident emailed stating that the contractor had advised him that the kitchen waste pipe that had been fitted the previous week was too big. He also advised that his insurers (to whom he had made a claim for damaged possessions) had advised he should be placed in temporary accommodation due to the black mould in his property and a sewage leak.
On 29 August 2023, the landlord agreed to provide the resident with decant accommodation from that day while it carried out works and the resident was to provide access to the contractor the following day. The landlord arranged for a shipping storage container (placed in the car park) and skip to be made available so that the resident could empty the property of all of his belongings.
The court statement confirms that on 29 August 2023 the landlord asked a company specialising in locating temporary accommodation to provide the resident and his 2 cats decant accommodation. The landlord was to make a meal allowance payment of £20 per day and an extra £10 per week to cover the costs of a laundrette. By that evening, it had found pet friendly accommodation at a hotel. The landlord has provided evidence to the Service that it has paid the meal allowance to the resident and offered him the option of eating at the hotel’s restaurant instead. It also refunded the cost of transport to the hotel.
At the commencement of the decant one of the resident’s cats escaped. The landlord paid the resident £50 to print missing posters to paste around the neighbourhood.
On 4 September 2023, the resident reported a leaking radiator. The landlord’s statement said that the resident should have not been in the property at that time and on attending it found that the radiator had been pulled off the wall.
On visiting the resident on 8 September 2023 to discuss the refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom the landlord noted that the resident had dismantled a partition wall as he believed there was mould behind the plasterboard.
The landlord asked the resident to clear his possessions from the property by 13 September 2023 so that it could commence remedial works. The works were to include a full skim of the ceilings, an environmental clean and a lock change.
Correspondence internally and between the parties between 13 and 19 September 2023 show that the resident returned to his property while the contractor was working and requested extra works. He wanted full remedial works to remedy black mould included mould hidden in internal walls. He contended that the “mould ridden kitchen wall” needed replacing or serious treatment but the contractor only wanted to paint over it. The landlord advised the resident he should not return to his property as his property was a “building site” and he had access to his possessions, and for the health and safety for all parties. The landlord installed metal doors on 15 September 2023 after the resident damaged and removed a window to access his property.
The landlord’s statement confirms it ascertained that the hotel in which it placed the resident was due to close for refurbishment works on 28 September 2023. Having nowhere to stay for several hours the resident tried to access his property. A statement by a councillor on the resident’s behalf noted that he sheltered in the container outside his flat. However, the landlord found alternative decant accommodation by the end of the day.
On 26 September 2023, the resident emailed regarding various matters. He stated that he wanted vinyl floor tiles, which had been underneath his own vinyl flooring, to be removed and the floor underneath decontaminated.
On 3 October 2023, the resident sent the landlord a “cease and desist” notice as it was contacting him about an outstanding gas safety check even though he had not been in the property for 7 weeks and rent arrears.
After the contractor completed the refurbishment works, the landlord inspected the property and took photos. The resident was due to return on 10 October 2023. The resident according to his particulars of claim for the court dated 22 October 2022 on return saw dried sewage in the property, black mould, holes in the plaster work, exposed shower electrics and a missing shower door. The landlord decided it would latex the flooring in the bathroom and kitchen to allay any concerns that resident had and understood the works would take between 3-6 hours.
On 12 October 2023, the landlord sent the stage 1 response to the complaint. It advised:
1. It accepted the new grounds maintenance contractors took a bit of time to get up and running and it was working with it to ensure it could deliver, such as providing accurate maps and resources. It would carry out inspections when out on site. As the grounds maintenance had not been delivered to an acceptable standard it would refund of 50% the grounds maintenance charge from 3 April 2023 to 3 October 2023.
2. It had resolved the problems with the leak, and it was now in the process of completing the significant programme of home improvements including a new kitchen, new bathroom, follow up work to treat and prevent damp and mould as well as upgrading the home’s electrics. It would extend the decant to 16 October 2023.
3. It would offer compensation on £800 comprising:
  1. £650 for the inconvenience over the last 4 months
  2. £150 for complaint handling.
In correspondence between 12 and 16 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. The landlord understood that he was unhappy with the flooring (referring to the rooms other than the kitchen and bathroom) and that he wanted a replacement shower screen. He also disputed that a deep clean had taken place and that the landlord had treated the mould. He also stated that the complaint response did not address the sewage leak.
On 23 October 2023, the landlord after meeting with the resident confirmed the outstanding works:
1. A small area behind the toilet would be treated and decorated.
2. The missing part to the shower would be fitted.
3. It would fix the weep on the kitchen radiator.
4. Floors in the lounge and hallway will be latexed. It had not received a report from the resident’s insurance company saying that all floors needed to be addressed.
The landlord has provided photographs taken of the resident’s property dated 23 October 2023.
On 23 and 24 October 2023 the resident declined a repair appointment and emailed the landlord stating that he was taking court action as the landlord breached his “cease and desist” notice of 3 October 2023. In his claim he asked the landlord to remove all floor tiles from the bedroom, hallway and living room, decontaminate these rooms and treat black mould, as well as making safe the shower, installing a shower screen door and repairing holes in the plaster. The landlord put the stage 2 complaint on hold. In its statement for the court the landlord advised that it was not necessary to lift the floor tiles from the rooms listed as they were not affected by the leak, the mould had been attended to and it would carry out a “whole house assessment” if this was not successful, the shower was safe, it was not possible to install a shower screen due to the layout of the property and in any event it had never installed one, and there were no holes in the plasterboard.
On 27 October 2023 the resident’s application for an interim injunction was dismissed on the basis that the landlord provide temporary accommodation for 3-4 hours while completing floor repairs. On 3 November 2023, the landlord reopened the complaint at stage 2.
The landlord ended the resident’s decant on 30 October 2023. On the same day it advised it wished to complete outstanding repairs on 1 November 2023 and had booked the guest room for his use.
On 3 November 2023, the landlord confirmed it would proceed to investigate the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
On 3 November 2023, the resident advised he did not want to return to his property after being discharged from hospital, having been admitted for a lung infection, as the contractor did not treat visible mould behind the toilet.
The landlord made an appointment for outstanding works for 14 November 2023 with the landlord booking the guest room for the resident’s use. The landlord advised the bedroom floors would not be latexed. It clarified to the resident that it would not treat reported mould in the stud wall between the bathroom and kitchen as the insulation in the stud wall was replaced when the kitchen and bathroom were replaced. 4 minutes before the appointment the resident emailed stating that he could not provide access due to ill health.
On 20 November 2023 Environmental Health sent a report to the landlord stating that:
1. “There were no appreciable signs of Damp and Mould Growth other than to a very small section of the wall that was located at the base of the stud partition between the lounge and bathroom, this we suspect is due to the timber frame having been saturated previously (due to the leak from the property above) this still has slightly higher moisture levels than other parts of the wall and in other rooms but this is due to the location of the timber stud frame being directly under the bathroom of the property above where the leak originated from and will improve over time especially if the heating is being used regularly.
2. We did take measurements using a Protimeter moisture meter and found the readings as low and of no concern, we compared these readings to the other rooms within the property. At this time there is no evidence of any Category one hazards within [the property] and hence there will be no further intervention from … Council.”
On 30 November 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
1. Its surveyor had assessed the works that had been carried out and concluded that the property was fit for living.
2. It had been trying to arrange access for nearly a month to:
  1. treat and decorate a black mould spot on the incoming water supplies at the rear of the toilet. The way the pipework was configured was standard.
  2. install a missing shower part.
  3. latex the floor.
3. It had provided a shower curtain which was its standard specification. It could not install a shower screen due to the location of a window.
4. The bathroom ceiling plaster works had been completed and there may be minimal cracking as the property was drying out. It would review and arrange any remedial works when reattending to carry out the outstanding works.
5. An inspection had not detected any sewage. A leak under the sink was from the supply and a toilet leak was from the cistern.
6. Any damage/alteration to the stud wall without consent was a breach of the tenancy agreement and would be rechargeable.
7. It summarised the outcome of Environmental Health’s report which stated that it required “no further intervention”.
8. It considered the offer of £800 at stage 1 was reasonable but would offer £25 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
9. It would offer suitable accommodation during the duration of the works and would pursue legal option if access was not provided.

After the complaints procedure

On 9 January 2024, the resident submitted a disrepair claim. The parties have appointed expert surveyors in order to compile a Scott Schedule. The resident also made a liability claim for personal injury.
On 22 February 2024, the resident raised a new complaint about window cleaning, cleaning and grounds maintenance service.
The resident’s expert surveyor concluded that “based on the balance of probabilities the property has not been mould washed prior to decoration works commencing and nor has the property been hygiene cleaned”. The landlord’s expert surveyor “did not see mould in the property except for on the rear sides of sections of the kitchen plasterboard that had been removed”. After visiting on 9 April 2024 Environmental Health advised the resident there was “No visible signs of mould growth, other than the inaccessible area adjacent to the unit previously containing the washing machine in the kitchen”. It further advised that there may be moisture beneath the thermoplastic floor tiles which could be investigated further but this did not constitute a HHSRS hazard because it was contained within the sub-structure beneath the non-permeable tiled floor covering.
The landlord has agreed a schedule of works, and the resident is currently decanted again pending completion of works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

In contact with this Service the resident has referred to how the situation has affected his health. Whilst the Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is due to the fact that claims for personal injury must ultimately be decided by courts of law which can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. It is understood that the resident has made a personal injury claim against the landlord which is currently being dealt with by its solicitors. However, the Service can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience and time and trouble from a landlord’s service failure.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following leak from the flat above.

The landlord has a legal responsibility to ensure that the resident’s property remains in good repair. It also has a responsibility to assess hazard and risks, including damp and mould in the property. It therefore had a responsibility to investigate the resident’s report of a leak from the flat above in November 2022. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
Following the report of 15 June 2023, the landlord responded on an emergency basis and made safe by capping the water supply to the flat above and checking the resident’s electrics. This response was in line with the Repairs Policy. The resident subsequently in his complaint of 23 June 2023 reported that extensive repairs were needed, in particular to three ceilings and in respect of mould and damp. As highlighted in the Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould landlords should adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
As confirmed by the resident’s email of 9 August 2023, the landlord made several attempts to inspect. However, there was a lack of urgency of the part of the landlord, especially as the resident expressed concerns that the leak above had not stopped. The landlord took longer than 28 working days to inspect. While there were missed appointments, this could have been mitigated had the landlord arranged mutually convenient appointments. The landlord also should have communicated with the resident about any risks and carried out a risk assessment, in line with its DMC policy.
The resident subsequently in August 2023 reported several leaks and mould in the kitchen and bathroom. By attending to the leaks reported, agreeing to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen, and removing mould damaged items, it demonstrated an intention to eradicate issues of mould. However, it is not evident that it carried out a full property survey as requested by the resident.
Works commenced in September 2023 after the resident was decanted. During and on completion of the works the resident remained dissatisfied with the extent of the works as he thought a deep clean including the removal of sewage had not been done and insufficient action was taken to eradicate the mould. In particular, he contended that there was mould within internal walls and also that vinyl tiles beneath the flooring were contaminated from leaks and should be replaced. In fact, he raised these items in his court claim.
The landlord had sought to resolve the resident’s concerns about the condition of his property by carrying out refurbishment works. It agreed to latex the lounge and hallway floor even though it did not these areas were affected by the leak. However, it did not adequately investigate the extent of dampness and mould within the property and seek to identify the underlying reasons. This can involve the use of instruments and photographs and writing a report. The Spotlight Report states “Landlords should identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.” In this case, it is not evident that the landlord carried out a survey.
The resident specifically raised concerns about the dampness of the floor and mould within walls. The landlord did not provide evidence that it had investigated and assessed these areas which contributed to the resident’s perception that its actions were insufficient. The lack of comprehensive investigation of the damp and mould reported was unreasonable given that the resident was vulnerable due to his health conditions and had cited dampness as a factor. Furthermore, he contended that he had lost use of his rooms.
The landlord confirmed that the refurbishment works included an environmental clean and redecoration. While the landlord inspected after the completed refurbishment works, there are no records to confirm that the contractor had completed an environmental clean or treated the property for mould before redecorating. The Spotlight report states that “Landlords should consider their current approach to record keeping and satisfy themselves it is sufficiently accurate and robust...” More generally, timely and complete records enable a landlord to monitor and manage outstanding repairs to ensure it can provide accurate information to residents. As the landlord did not keep full records of the work, it did not ensure that they were done fully to specification.
The resident reported a number of leaks and the landlord’s records indicate that it considered some may have been caused by the actions of the resident. The resident has a responsibility to act in a tenant-like manner and the landlord has the option to take action against him if it considers he is not doing so. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not raise its concerns with the resident at the time. Not only could the resident provide his version of events, this would have been a more robust response to repair issues that possibly contributed the resident’s concerns about damp and mould.
It is noted that Environmental Health produced a report in November 2023. However, there is an onus on landlords to proactive in responding to reports of damp and mould and investigate itself at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, Environmental Health departments are focused on identifying whether the condition of the property constitutes a hazard whereas landlords should have zero tolerance to damp and mould. Environmental Health noted an area of mould on a stud wall between the lounge and bathroom. It is not evident that the landlord took action in respect of this area, subsequently.
The Service has previously found maladministration following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving damp and mould and complaints handling. As a result of these investigations, wider orders were issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme under a previous complaint. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case (202224250). The orders made under the previous case included orders for the landlord to:
1. carry out a review of its practice in relation to responding to requests for repairs due to damp and mould, including its record-keeping practices and responses to repairs taking longer than 28 days. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
2. complete a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report and review its current policy and processes against this.
3. review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
  1. respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders involving more than one contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures.
  2. respond to formal complaints appropriately. Responses must address all issues raised by the resident. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord has now complied with the orders from the previous case (in April 2024). Therefore, the Service considers that the actions taken in relation to the above wider orders are sufficient in the circumstances, and these orders have not been made as part of this investigation accordingly. However, the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider learning.

The landlord’s handling of the decant process

The landlord decanted the resident from 29 August 2023 prior to the refurbishment works. This was in line with a recommendation in the Spotlight Report stating, “Where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move resident(s) out of their home at an early stage.” Moreover, this was in accordance with the resident’s wishes at the time. In providing a container and a skip the landlord ensured there was storage for the resident’s possessions as required.
The landlord’s Decant Policy is silent on the issue of pets; however, residents generally have close attachments to pets in their household and in this case the resident was vulnerable. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord obtained decant accommodation that could accommodate the resident’s cats. The Service appreciates the resident’s distress from losing one of his cats during the decant process. The landlord exercised its discretion and showed empathy in paying for the resident to print missing posters.
The landlord paid the resident £30 for food and laundry while the resident was decanted. It also covered the transport cost to the decant accommodation and utility bills while the resident was away. In making these payments the landlord met the requirements of its Decant Policy.
The decant accommodation that the resident was initially placed in shut down early. The landlord appreciates the resident’s uncertainty and distress during the period he had nowhere to stay. The landlord missed an opportunity to alleviate this by not identifying alternative decant accommodation prior to his last day. However, it located another property by the end of the day therefore it ensured the resident was not homeless overnight, in line with its commitment to provide decant accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

There were significant delays in the landlord’s handing of the complaint at stage 1. After the resident submitted the complaint on 23 June 2023, it took 11 working days to send an acknowledgement, over the required 2 days timeframe. It took 16 weeks to send the stage 1 response, well over the 10-working day timeframe. While the landlord was seeking to inspect the resident’s property and carry out works, this did not provide good reason for the delay. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time stated “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and dealt with promptly with regular updates provided to the resident.”
The landlord offered £150 for the failings in its complaint handling at stage 1. This exceeded the amount in its Compensation Matrix and is within the range outlined in the Service’s Remedies guidance in cases where there is maladministration with no permanent impact. The landlord accepted it delayed in dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage 2 and offered £25 compensation. Taking into account the period when the complaint investigation was put on hold due to the resident’s court action, this award was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation matrix.
Regarding the content of the responses, as highlighted in the Code, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.” It did not address the resident’s contention that there had been leaks from the flat above for over a year prior to his report of 23 June 2023. The landlord also did not fully address the resident’s claim that a deep clean did not take place and mould had not been treated. It did not make clear whether it had considered the resident’s statement about the extent of damp and mould throughout the property. Therefore, while confirming its commitment to carry out works in the property in its complaint responses, the landlord’s responses were not adequately thorough.
The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident from the repairs required to the property since June 2023. There was a lack of urgency in arranging an inspection and in assessing the risk prior to the decant. Moreover, at the very least the resident’s use of his bathroom had been impacted by the loss of the light. Ultimately, it took over 3 months from his initial report before all refurbishment works were completed. The landlord’s award for inconvenience did not match the amount in the compensation matrix, £800. Taken together with the complaint handling failings, the landlord’s compensation award is not sufficient to resolve the complaint.
In addition the Service awards compensation of £247.34 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of his bathroom and kitchen due to leaks and mould. This takes into account the period 23 June 2023 when mould was first reported to 29 August 2023 when the resident was decanted. It is calculated at 20% of the rent which takes into account the landlord’s access issues and that it was not confirmed the resident could not use the rooms.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs following the resident’s reports of leaks in his property, and damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the decant process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There was a lack of urgency in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould. Whilst the landlord sought to resolve the resident’s concerns by carrying out refurbishment works, it did not adequately investigate the extent of dampness and mould within the property, and seek to identify the underlying reasons. The lack of a comprehensive investigation for damp and mould was unreasonable given that the resident was vulnerable due to his health conditions and had cited dampness as a factor. There are no records to confirm that the contractor completed an environmental clean or treated the property for mould before redecorating.
The landlord provided decant accommodation in line with the resident’s wishes at the time. In providing a container and a skip the landlord ensured there was storage for the resident’s possessions as required. It was reasonable that the landlord obtained decant accommodation that could accommodate the resident’s cats. It made payments that exceeded the requirement of its Decant Policy.
The landlord’s complaint responses were not adequately through. It did not address the resident’s contention that there had been leaks from the flat above for over a year prior to his report of 15 June 2023. The landlord also did not fully address the resident’s claim that the deep clean did not take place and mould had not been treated. It did not make clear whether it had considered the resident’s statement about the extent of damp and mould throughout the property.

Orders and recommendations

The Service orders the landlord within the next 4 weeks to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. In making the apology, the landlord must follow the Service’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,522.34 comprising:
  1. £247.34 in respect of the resident’s loss of enjoyment of his bathroom and kitchen due to damp and mould.
  2. £800 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, and damp and mould.
  3. £175 in respect of the delays in the complaint handling.
  4. A further £300 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by for not responding to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. This award also reflects the fact that the landlord did not keep records of full property inspections prior to the refurbishment works and of all the works carried out.
  5. This offer supersedes the offer made within the complaint procedure, therefore the landlord may deduct any compensation already paid.
3. provide an update to the resident about the progress of the works currently ongoing to his property.