Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202332720)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332720

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

28 June 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. 

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a one bedroom bungalow. The landlord has recorded that the resident has mental and physical disabilities.
  2. On 2 January 2023 the resident reported that there was damp and a draught throughout the whole property. He noted that he felt “afraid” to use his storage heaters as the electrics kept tripping. The landlord arranged for a visit by an electrician, and a surveyor visit followed on 18 January 2023. Although the storage heaters were found to be working effectively, the surveyor recommended that they be replaced to gas central heating (GCH) and at the same time, arranged for further repairs within the property. The landlord updated the resident of the outcome of the visit in writing. It informed him that the repairs team were “extremely busy” but it would try its best to start the works “as soon as possible”.
  3. On 30 January 2023 the resident made a complaint. He said that his property was too cold to live in and there was damp throughout, which had caused damage to his belongings. He said that he felt he had to chase up what was happening and there appeared to be “no coordination or oversight” of the repairs, as a number of different contractors had been sent to the property. He also mentioned that he had made an earlier complaint which he felt had been ignored, and explained the situation was making him feel depressed and withdrawn.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 3 March 2023 at stage 1 of its complaint process. It provided him with its repair records, explaining it had completed each repair within a few days and in accordance with its policy. It said it could not uphold that the property was uninhabitable, and offered to refer him to its tenancy sustainment team for further support. However it accepted that there had been a failure to explain that his earlier complaint contact was being treated as part of the surveyor’s visit to his home, and acknowledged that it had not yet updated him on works it had completed to the loft. It explained that further works would need to be put on hold until the upgrade of the GCH had taken place, and in the meantime assured him that it had a quality framework in place to check completed repairs. The landlord also gave the resident advice about referring a claim for his personal belongings to its insurer.
  5. After the stage 1 response, there was a further surveyor visit to the property which highlighted additional works were required to the kitchen. On 30 May 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint. He said he had made 4 attempts at contacting the landlord to get a progress update but had no response. He said he had “questions and anxieties” about the pending works to the GCH and asked that it arranged a full damp survey.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a final complaint response on 19 June 2023. It said that it was sorry it had not kept him updated of the additional works it had raised, and said it would feedback to the relevant teams to make improvements. It offered the resident £225 in compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience he had experienced and said it had arranged for a ventilation specialist to visit him on 20 June 2023. Following the visit, records show that a repair to the kitchen extractor fan was completed on 22 June 2023, and works to replace the GCH system were completed in August 2023. On 9 October 2023 the landlord recorded it had spoken to the resident and he was “happy with the works”.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in December 2023 and said that he felt the landlord had not remedied the damp and mould. He reported he felt “in exactly the same situation” as the previous year and as a resolution requested that the Ombudsman order for the landlord to arrange for an independent damp survey to be undertaken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is acknowledged that the resident has expressed to the Ombudsman that he is not satisfied that the landlord has rectified the issue of draughts in his property, despite installing a new GCH system in August 2023. It may help to explain that an Ombudsman’s investigation is focussed on the events that led to the resident’s complaint and how the landlord responded to those events within its formal complaint responses. This is broadly reflected in the background above, which demonstrates the timeline of the resident’s complaint. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the resident made further reports of damp and mould to the landlord after it spoke to him in October 2023. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to establish what his current concerns are and arrange for an independent damp survey, if appropriate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. The landlord has a procedure for damp, mould and condensation reports. It explains that on receipt of a report of damp and mould, it will log the call and ask the resident to complete a questionnaire, and provide photos where necessary. In this case, the landlord responded promptly to the resident on receipt of his reports. It reviewed the information he had provided in the completed questionnaire against its priority assessment matrix (PAM) and formulated a plan of action which it communicated with the resident. The plan included raising a number of repair jobs and arranging a visit from its surveyor. This was appropriate action to take and helped manage the resident’s expectations from the onset of his reports.
  2. The landlord sent several operatives to the property including joiners, glaziers and electricians. It is understood that the number of operatives required to attend the property would have caused the resident inconvenience. However, the landlord was reliant on several different trade specialists to complete the repairs. Records show that the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations by giving him notice of the appointments and explained the reason why various tradespeople were required within its complaint response, which was reasonable.
  3. In line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure, an asset surveyor inspected the property on 18 January 2023. They followed up the inspection in writing and included details of the additional scope of works that would be raised. The resident was reminded that he should use his storage heaters when it was cold, which was reasonable. The landlord approached this sensitively and there is no evidence that it apportioned blame solely to the resident, as it raised a request for additional checks to be carried out to the rear cavity wall. This demonstrated a commitment to investigate the possible cause of damp in line with its Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) obligations, and helped managed the resident’s expectations.
  4. The resident made a complaint 9 working days after the surveyor visit and said that he had to chase up what was happening, as he believed the landlord had made “no coherent attempt” to address the problem. The evidence suggests that this was not the case. The landlord was in regular communication with the resident throughout January 2023 and he was kept fully informed of the outcome of the surveyor visit. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to update him on the specific outcomes of the exploratory work on the loft insulation and the wall cavity. The landlord acknowledged this failure and apologised to the resident within it stage 1 response which was appropriate.
  5. To help demonstrate to the resident that it had responded promptly to him, the landlord provided him with a table of its repairs records in the stage 1 response. The records displayed the date the resident had contacted it to report repairs, and the date the repairs had been completed. In doing so it was able to show that it had attended to the repairs he had reported in a timely manner and in accordance with its repair policy. Furthermore it was clear in its explanation that some of the repairs needed to be put “on hold” to allow for the upgrade to the GCH to take place first. Records show that the landlord communicated the timeline for installing a new GCH and explained to the resident that it could take up to 12 weeks until completion. This was to account for a new gas connection and meter to be fitted to the property. The explanation it gave was clear and helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
  6. The landlord responded empathetically to the resident’s concerns about the impact the situation was having on his mental health. In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainability team to see if there was further support it could offer him. This was appropriate and demonstrated a commitment to support the resident whilst it continued to finalise the remedial works.
  7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould was largely proactive and proportionate from the time the resident first reported the issue up until it provided him with its stage 1 response. However, between March to June 2023 there was a gap in communication between the resident and the landlord which prompted him to escalate his complaint. The delay in providing the resident with an update caused him evident worry and distress.
  8. It is clear from the landlord’s repair records that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and tried a number of interventions to establish the root cause of the damp, raising a number of repairs and an additional surveyor visit on 8 June 2023. However it is not until 12 June 2023, approximately 6 months after the resident had raised his initial concerns, that it completed a damp survey and referred the matter to its ventilation specialist. An earlier damp assessment could have better informed the landlord the schedule and priority for the repairs. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident distress.
  9. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
  10. In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its final response that the resident had experienced delays in concluding all required repairs. It accepted that it had failed to keep him fully updated following the stage 1 response and offered him £225 in compensation for the inconvenience. The amount it offered was fair in accordance with its compensation policy, and was sufficient to put matters right for the resident. Furthermore it took learning from the resident’s complaint and agreed to feedback to the appropriate teams to implement service improvements, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint 

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy explains that it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord]”. In this case, on 15 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that he “couldn’t seem to get anyone to listen to [him]” and said the situation was affecting his quality of life. There is no evidence that the landlord treated his correspondence as a complaint and it was not until he contacted it again on 30 January 2023 that it formally acknowledged his concerns. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble and distress.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. This is consistent with the guidance set out within the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Whilst the landlord acknowledged the complaint within a timely manner, its response was delayed by a further 15 working days. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay within its response and did not apologise to the resident for the inconvenience it had caused which was inappropriate.
  3. The resident requested an escalation to his complaint on 30 May 2023. The landlord responded to the resident within the timescales expected in accordance with its complaint policy and a final response followed within 15 working days which was appropriate.
  4. Overall, both complaint responses from the landlord were comprehensive. They set out fully its understanding of the resident’s complaint at each stage, and provided a detailed response to each point he had raised. This demonstrated that the landlord had fully understood the resident’s concerns and was committed to putting matters right. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that there was an initial failure to record the resident’s initial dissatisfaction on 15 January 2023 as a formal complaint and it did not apologise for the delay he had experienced at stage 1, resulting in a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted in this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 in compensation for the time and trouble he experienced in bringing his complaint. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his most recent damp and mould concerns. In doing so, it should give consideration to arranging an independent damp and mould survey to ensure that it has considered all reasonable interventions, in line with its HHSRS obligations.