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

Abri Group Limited (202322284)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322284

Abri Group 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould
    2. The residents complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 13 February 2019. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 2 November 2022 the resident reported mould in her kitchen and the landlord raised an order for mould washes to take place at the resident’s property under kitchen units. The landlords records state the resident called the landlord on 21 November 2022 and said she was chasing about jobs due to be carried out. Mould and damp was everywhere, she was running a dehumidifier and the whole house smelled of mould. The landlord confirmed it had booked an appointment for 28 November 2022. On the same day the landlord also requested for a specialist independent contractor to attend and carry out a full damp and mould inspection of the property.
  3. On 28 November 2022 the resident called the landlord and its records state the contractor arrived to do a mould wash but did not agree with the work that needed doing and the works did not take place. On 8 December 2022 the landlords records state it spoke to the resident who said she had chased multiple times about mould in the property. The landlord asked for photos. The resident advised there was thick black mould on skirting boards, kitchen units and kitchen cupboards. The landlords records stated the tradesman attended to do a mould wash but refused to carry out the work as whole units needed replacing, painting, treating and redecorating. A dehumidifier was not reducing damp. The landlord also noted there was persisting issues with a leaking pipe, covered in mould and trades had just sealed mould into the pipe which now needed replacing which needed replacing. The landlord’s records did not specify where the pipe was located.
  4. On 13 December 2022 the resident made her complaint. The resident stated the landlord had already had someone out for a mould wash and they had said the whole units needed taking out and the wall needed checking and replacing not just washing so refused to do it. She was also still waiting for the survey the landlord requested for the property. She believed what needed to be done was a kitchen fitter to take out units along with a decorator to replace walls, treat and paint. She had been advised by the landlord’s staff to not have a multi trades person so two trades men would be needed and she was waiting for a call from the manager. She was told the manager would contact her on many occasions, but she had not been contacted and that was not acceptable and she was very upset by that. The resident said she also needed to discuss help for paying the cost of a dehumidifier she had to buy as she had not been getting anywhere with the landlord as well as the cost of running it 24/7 costing her around £60 per month to run.
  5. In January 2023 the landlord made internal enquiries about the status of any works it had completed as its records differed from what the resident had told it. It called the resident who informed it no mould washes or any other works had taken place and she felt there was rising damp as the clothes under her bed had gone mouldy and mould was coming in through her wardrobe. The landlords records also noted the specialist independent contractor said it would be in touch to book the inspection by 13 January 2023. 
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 19 January 2023 stating:
    1. It arranged to attend the resident’s property on 5 January 2023. As a result of the visit, it needed to attend with a multi skilled operative to determine what was required to put the issues right. It had been determined that it needed to take most of the kitchen units out to treat the mould behind the units.
    2. In addition to that, it would be looking into installing a French drain around the building and some brick sealing to prevent the property being damp.
    3. It was sorry the resident was left waiting for contact from a supervisor when a call back hadn’t been logged for them to contact her. It had provided feedback to it’s Customer Service Centre. It should have been explained to the resident that it was going to the Local Resolutions Team for investigation, rather than a call back request to the Customer Response Supervisor
    4. It had ordered £30 worth of shopping vouchers in light of the inconvenience the resident experienced and the resident should expect those to be delivered by 23 January 2023. As she had paid for a dehumidifier which was costing her money to run, it had explained it could receive her electricity bills and look into providing compensation for those costs. It had also added the resident’s details to a dedicated aftercare repairs tracker to ensure she was communicated with and updated with regards to progress.
  7. On 23 January 2023 the landlord raised works which the landlord stated were completed on 29 January 2023. These works were:
    1. Kitchen Works – Remove units to access wall, rectify any leak and treat any visible signs of mould.
    2. Mould wash of property carried out on areas that were difficult to access and furniture that had to be removed. It mould washed bedroom walls behind the resident’s wardrobes, removed several kitchen units. Removed water-damaged skirting behind sink and corner base units. Removed water damaged back panel on sink unit. Repaired leaking sink waste. Re-siliconed a worktop.
  8. On 7 February 2023 the landlord raised for an independent survey to take place to eliminate issues such as penetrating damp. This survey took place on 17 February 2023 and found no issues relating to either rising dampness, or rainwater penetration. However, moisture readings taken to the bathroom floor, adjacent to and below the bath, were found to be raised and above acceptable levels. It recommended that the landlord instructed either a professional plumbing contractor and/or a specialist leak detection company, to attend the property and investigate the source of moisture, then rectify where necessary.
  9. On 10 February 2023 the inspection requested by the landlord on 28 November 2022 took place. The inspection found there was an existing bathroom fan and kitchen fan which were not working and should be replaced. It also proposed to install a Wall Mounted Positive Input Ventilation system complete with integral intelligent low temperature comfort heater. The landlords records stated those works took place during March 2023. Further mould washes were raised during March 2023.
  10. The landlords records show the resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage two on 21 April 2023. The resident stated the issues had not been resolved with no payments having been made for the dehumidifier or the cost of electricity, there was still ongoing problems, a severe lack of communication from the landlord regarding works taking place and with the works not being carried out properly the latest one being the fan fitted in the bathroom was leaking water which was pooling on her bathroom floor. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and informed the resident it would issue a response within 20 working days.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 May 2023 stating it aimed to respond within 20 working days and provide a response by 3 June 2023.
  12. On 26 September 2023 the landlords contractor emailed the landlord regarding the further inspections recommended following the inspection that took place in February 2023. The contractor stated it originally had difficulty contacting the resident but undertook a site survey on the 18 September 2023 and found leaks on taps, limited access to bath mixer connection recommending the basin was removed to facilitate repairs, basin not holding water and poor flow rate to a hot tap.
  13. The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 September 2023. The landlord stated:
    1. The resolution plan proposed at Stage 1 was not implemented successfully, and for that reason it was upholding the complaint. It was sorry that it had not communicated with the resident better during the course of those works arising from the complaint, and the works promised had not been completed in a timely manner. With regards to the stage 2 complaint, it acknowledged that had not been resolved within the promised timeframe and apologised to the resident. The landlord said it had spoken with its contractor and told them to let it know in the future if it had any difficulty in contacting a customer. It said it would also ensure it communicated more effectively in the future and keep the resident better informed regarding the progress of works. It had also established a new complaint team to ensure no further delays in its stage two response timescales. It informed the resident a repair was booked for the bathroom fan for 16 October 2023 and would be in touch regarding a repair to the mixer taps. It offered the resident £450 consisting of £200 for the time to resolve the issues raised, £100 for its standard of communication, £100 for its delay in issuing the stage two response and £50 towards the costs of running the dehumidifier.

Events after the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The landlord carried out works on 4 October 2023 to replace bath mixer taps. On 16 October 2023 its records stated the bathroom fan was not installed correctly and had been modified to fit so it re–fitted the fan. On 1 November 2023 it replaced the basin waste and bath panel.
  2. On 08 February 2024 the landlords records state the resident had stated the bathroom fan leaked out water when in operation. It attended on 14 March 2024 to overhaul the fan and left it working.
  3. An inspection of the property took place by the landlords surveyor on 8 May 2024 which determined there was no evidence of mould growth due to any fault with the structure of the building was found, and test results revealed no issues with water ingress or moisture penetrating into the property and it believed the main contributing factor had been lack of airflow and based on the findings of the survey and tests conducted, it determined that no further action was required at that time.
  4. On 13 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated it had reviewed the complaint and could see that the resident had requested reimbursement for additional costs incurred by running a dehumidifier while waiting for the landlord to complete its damp and mould investigation. It offered the resident £365 based on £1 per day for a year for running the dehumidifier. It also offered the resident an additional £50 for time it took to send an operative for events that occurred post the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about repairs that the landlord had undertaken following its stage 2 response. However, this investigation report cannot consider the issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 12 months of the matters arising. Therefore, although it is acknowledged that the resident had reported issues to the landlord since 2020, this investigation will only consider the events in this case from her reports made in November 2022 until the landlords complaints process was completed on 26 September 2023.
  3. The resident has said that the damp and mould has had a negative effect on her health. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to decide on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience which she experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  4. In bringing her complaint, the resident has informed the Ombudsman that a significant number of personal belongings had been damaged as a direct result of inaction by the landlord and believes that it should compensate for this. It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to award damages or assess loss. Determining liability and awarding damages are legal matters that require a binding decision from a court or assessment via an insurance claim.

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

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy did not state a timescale for repairs to be completed except for emergency repairs which it stated should be completed within 24 hours. A check of the landlord’s website also did not provide the timescales a resident should expect a routine repair to be carried out. Industry best practice suggests a response time of 28 days for non emergency repairs.
  2. From the evidence provided for the period covered in this investigation the resident informed the landlord of mould in early November 2022. The landlord raised works for mould washes which the resident told the landlord did not take place and later in November 2022 the landlord raised works for a specialist independent contractor to carry out a damp and mould inspection of the property.
  3. Further mould washes were raised in January 2023 following the residents complaint which included the requirement of the removal of kitchen units and wardrobe to access walls.
  4. The evidence provided does show that the landlord raised for an independent inspection to take place. This was a positive step for the landlord to take as it aimed to ensure that any potential causes of damp and mould it may be responsible for could be identified. The landlords records however stated that the inspection was raised on 21 November 2022 but did not take place until 10 February 2023, this was almost three months later. The landlords records did not evidence reasons for the delay. The delay was unreasonable and prolonged finding a potential solution for the resident especially given the landlord had not at that point been able to rule out a significant cause. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. Once this inspection took place it did identify works that would need to be completed including replacements of bathroom and kitchen fans and the installation of a Wall Mounted Positive Input Ventilation system. The landlord has stated to this Service that the works for the ventilation system were raised on 21 February 2023 and completed 7 March 2023. Although its repairs records do show these works as being completed no works completed records were provided by the landlord however, it has not been disputed by the resident that these works took place. The landlord also raised works for the fans to be installed by its operatives. There is confirmation the bathroom and kitchen fans were replaced around April 2023 from correspondence sent by the resident but the landlord repairs records did not log these repairs taking place. The landlord therefore has not provided evidence that confirmed either of these works being completed however it has not been disputed by the resident indicating that this was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  6. While there is evidence that once those works were identified they were completed within expected repair timescales, the resident reported to the landlord in May 2023 that the bathroom fan was leaking. The landlords repairs records show this as being completed on 21 June 2023, 42 days later.
  7. After the frequent visits to the residents property, the landlord on 7 February 2023 requested an independent survey to take place to investigate if there was any issues such as rising or penetrating damp. This was a positive step by the landlord given the frequency it was attending the property for mould treatments. This survey was conducted on 17 February 2023 and ultimately found no causes related to rising damp or penetrating rainwater but did find raised moisture levels in the bathroom which it recommended that the landlord instructed either a professional plumbing contractor and/or a specialist leak detection company, to attend the property and investigate the source of moisture, then rectify as required. At this point the landlord would be required to take action on those recommendations.
  8. The landlord instructed for its contractor to undertake the investigations and this was instructed on 8 March 2023 however the landlords records show these did not take place until 18 September 2023 which was 195 days later. The landlord’s contractor stated it had difficulty in contacting the resident and attempted a number of cold calls. The landlord and the contractor have not provided evidence of the attempts to contact the resident therefore this Service cannot determine the extent the resident was attempted to be contacted.
  9. Nonetheless although the landlord may raise works for its contractor to complete, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the repairs that are its responsibility in the property. The landlord would be expected to be monitoring the outstanding works and making contact with the resident or contractor once it becomes aware works have exceeded the expected timescales. There is no evidence the landlord did so.
  10. During this period of time the landlord’s records show further mould wash works in the kitchen and a bedroom were raised and completed in March 2023.
  11. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. However there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with reassurance of what it was doing to address the root cause of the mould.
  12. Although it is acknowledged the landlord attended the residents property on multiple occasions to conduct mould washes during the time covered in this investigation. Following the residents initial reports of damp and mould in November 2022 it took until 10 February 2023 for the first independent inspection to take place. This was not an acceptable period of time given the source of the mould had not been identified.
  13. The resident, following the second independent inspection which recommended further investigations, waited six months those to take place. This meant opportunities to identify potential causes of damp and mould or if any further works were required were unreasonably delayed and this would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. This is maladministration by the landlord.
  14. The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings within its stage 2 response and made an offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience it had caused. The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation consisting of £200 for its handling of the reports of damp and mould, £100 for its communication, £100 for its complaint handling delays and £50 offered for dehumidifier costs. Following contact by this Service the landlord conducted a review of its handling of the damp and mould and on 4 May 2024 offered the resident a further £365 for the costs of running the dehumidifier.
  15. While the additional offer for the dehumidifier costs is considered reasonable towards those costs, it is disappointing to note the review took place after the landlords complaint process and appears to have been prompted by contact from this Service. The amount of compensation offered to the resident for the damp and mould works being completed including its communication totalled £300 and falls below what this Service would consider reasonable.
  16. Given the delays incurred by the resident for inspections to be carried out, frequent delays in works being completed, the need to reattend completed works to the fans within a short time period and the distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident. The offer made by the landlord was not appropriate and it should pay the resident £600 inclusive of the £300 it had already offered.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlords stage one response was issued after 25 working days. This was outside of the landlords complaint policy timescale of 10 working days. The landlord failed to acknowledged this and although it offered the resident £30 in vouchers for inconvenience it failed to specify if the redress was being offered for the repairs delay, the complaint delay or both. For either issues however this offer is not considered reasonable by this Service.
  2. The stage two response was issued after 109 working days and significantly longer than the 20 working days stated in its complaint policy for a stage two response to be issued.
  3. The request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 was made by the resident on 21 April 2023 and acknowledged by the landlord the same day. Under the landlord’s complaint policy timescale of 20 working days it would be required to issue a response by 20 May 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 May 2023 and informed her it required an extension to 3 June 2023. It was not however until 26 September 2023 that the stage 2 response was issued. There is no evidence any further updates or notifications of further extensions were provided to the resident.
  4. Although the landlord requested an extension in June 2023 the extension reason was not explained to the resident and the subsequent length of time to respond at stage 2 to the resident was too long. This would cause the resident further distress and inconvenience especially given this was alongside the delays in the damp and mould works being completed. This was maladministration by the landlord.
  5. The landlord recognised the delay in issuing the stage 2 response and offered £100 compensation to the resident. Given there was no substantial reasons provided for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response and the landlord failed to provide any further extension updates to the resident after June 2023 the amount of compensation offered was not reasonable and the landlord should pay the resident £200 inclusive of the £100 it already offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a sum of £600 including the £300 previously offered if it has not already done so for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. Pay the resident £200 inclusive of the £100 previously offered if it has not done so already for its handling of her complaint.
    4. Provide this Service with confirmation of compliance with the orders made in this report.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews its repairs processes to ensure it has appropriate monitoring processes in place when requesting works or inspections and that it can respond to any delays.