Vivid Housing Limited (202338276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338276

Vivid Housing Limited

24 September 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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2023, stating that she had been raising her concerns about damp and mould since 2009. The exposure to damp and mould had caused health concerns, which she did not previously have. It had also caused damage to her belongings.
In its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, the landlord said that it found no failure in its service. It had made a visit to inspect the property, raised jobs to complete the work, and was waiting for the resident to supply dates for its contractor to attend.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 30 May 2023, stating that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 July 2023. It explained that in 2019 and 2020, it had often been unable to gain access to the resident’s home. She had frequently asked to reschedule appointments. It received no further contact until December 2022. Its response also included as follows:
1. It undertook a survey in May 2023, which resulted in a category 5 rating, the lowest risk. It stated that the property was habitable.
2. The cause of the damp and mould was condensation. She had supplied a range of dates for its contractor to attend and fit a new PIV ventilation system. It would arrange a further mould wash, following the installation of the PIV unit, which it believed would resolve the issue. It had done everything in its control to book visits and take action to resolve the situation.
3. She could make a claim for damaged belongings by providing details to its insurance team.
4. It set out its learning from the complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted reimbursement for her belongings, and a move to alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of Investigation

In the resident’s correspondence she stated that the damp and mould in her home had impacted her health. She asserted that the exposure to damp and mould had caused chest infections, sinusitis, asthma, panic attacks, and anxiety. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she can consider this via the courts.
The resident said that she had been reporting her concerns since 2009. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence dating back this far. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman when they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds. In this case, this did not happen, and it has therefore limited the extent to which this Service can now investigate.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
This investigation has, therefore, focussed on the records provided as evidence, dating from 2019, up to the landlord’s final response on 13 July 2023.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy, dated January 2022, says that it understands that damp and mould can have a significant impact on its customers. There are a number of factors that can cause damp, mould, and condensation and it must thoroughly investigate the root cause, find solutions, and monitor that they have been successful in addressing the issue.
The damp and mould policy also sets out its process for investigating damp and mould as follows:
1. It will complete a damp, mould and condensation questionnaire and identify any vulnerabilities. All repairs identified at triage will be raised and the case will be reassigned to the damp and mould team.
2. All cases will be visited by a damp and mould specialist within 2 weeks of the case being raised. Where there are vulnerabilities, it aims to visit within 2 working days. It will remain in contact with the customer every 6 weeks to check on condition.
3. It classifies damp and mould under 5 categories as follows:
  1. Category 1 for severe mould.
  2. Category 2 for moderate mould.
  3. Category 3 for minor mould.
  4. Category 4 where there is no mould present, but the resident has reported issues.
  5. Category 5 for low risk.
The landlord 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 mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her bathroom in May 2019. She reported that she was unsure whether the bathroom fan was working. Throughout 2019 there was evidence that the landlord booked, and rescheduled appointments at the resident’s request, but often failed to gain access. There was a similar pattern of appointments and unsuccessful access in early 2020. While we do not dispute the resident’s assertion that she was unaware of some appointments, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord attempted to inspect the property and accommodate her requests to reschedule appointments.
The landlord attended the resident’s home on 12 June 2020 and completed works to the bathroom. This included washing the wall tiles, renewing the mastic seal around the bath and raising an order to replace the extractor fan with a more powerful one. This demonstrates that it responded to the resident’s reports and took action to resolve the damp and mould in her bathroom.
Following further reports of damp and mould in December 2022, the landlord scheduled an inspection for 6 January 2023. The resident cancelled the appointment as it was too short notice. The appointment was rescheduled for 12 January 2023 but again cancelled by her. It asked her to provide dates for when she would be available. This was appropriate given the previous cancellations.
The resident contacted the landlord on 31 January 2023. She said that she had not received a call about a surveyor attending and appointments were being booked without confirming dates with her. It appropriately responded asking her to provide dates for when she would be available. This again demonstrated the landlord trying to accommodate the resident’s work commitments and attain an inspection date for access.
There was further evidence of failed appointments in February and April 2023. The resident again stated that she had been unaware of the appointments. The landlord booked an appointment for 9 May 2023, at her request, and sent a confirmation text message and email.
The damp and mould inspection took place on 9 May 2023. It referred to the property having double glazed units with working trickle vents. It said that there was mould spotting on the walls and ceilings in the living room and bedroom. The relative humidity levels were high despite the windows and all trickle vents being open. It needed to install a PIV ventilation system and undertake a mould wash. The cause of the mould was condensation.
Following the inspection, the landlord spoke with the resident on 12 May 2023. She advised that she could not take time off work and would let it know when she was available. It chased her on 17, 18, and 19 May 2023 for appropriate dates. A mould wash was booked for 25 May 2023.
The resident raised her complaint again on 18 May 2023, repeating that she had been reporting the issues since 2009. She reported having panic attacks and anxiety and that her home was unfit to live in. She said that the landlord’s surveyor had told her that she would have a special unit fitted to draw out the moisture in the air. She queried why she had to wait for 13 years for a solution that may not work.
The resident made further contact with the landlord on 24 May 2023. She stated that she was not able to make the appointment as she was unaware of it. It rescheduled the appointment to 9 June 2023, asking her to contact it if it was not suitable.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response, stating that it had raised the mould wash, as discussed on 19 May 2023. It had asked her to provide dates for the ventilation specialist to attend. It had inspected the property, raised jobs, and was waiting for her to supply dates for the work to be carried out.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the actions it had taken to try and resolve the matter. It was also appropriate that it requested dates from the resident given the previous appointment cancellations. However, it failed to address her claim that belongings were damaged or acknowledge her reported health concerns.
The landlord’s records of 26 May 2023 referred to waiting for the resident to provide dates, but that she had contacted expecting it to provide dates. It is evident that there was difficulty in scheduling appointments to complete the work with both parties expecting the other to provide dates. There was also evidence that the landlord had tried to discuss her complaint escalation request and again requesting a convenient date and time to make contact.
The landlord booked an appointment for 27 June 2023, at the resident’s request. It sent a reminder of the appointment on 17 June 2023.
The landlord’s records of 11 July 2023 referred to a conversation with the resident. She had mentioned that she no longer wanted to reside in the property as it was affecting her health. When asked what would resolve the situation, she said getting rid of the damp and mould and having the PIV unit fitted. It had, therefore, focussed on making sure it could get potential dates from her for fitting the unit, as getting a date agreed had been an issue. It was due to fit the PIV unit on 19 July 2023, however, it had not received confirmation from her. It also referred to:
1. There being a history of contact but no access.
2. It did not think it merited a decant but acknowledged her assertion that it was impacting her health.
3. It believed that the installation of the new PIV unit would mean the condition of the home was not so dependent on the customer ventilating the home herself.
4. It suggested that it fit the PIV unit, complete a mould wash, repaint, and monitor.
This demonstrated that the landlord had followed its damp and mould policy, inspected, looked at the root cause, recommended solutions and attempted to resolve the matter. However, given that there was a known difficulty with access, the landlord should have considered enforcing the tenancy conditions and taking measures to secure access. This would have been appropriate given that it had been made aware of the resident’s health concerns.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the resident made contact in 2019 to report mould in her home. It made repeated appointments to carry out an inspection, which were rescheduled at her request, to fit around her work pattern. It also included as follows:
1. Its inspection of the property in January 2020 indicated that the cause of the damp and mould was condensation. Recommended solutions included a mould wash, service of the ventilation unit and improvement of the extractor fan. It had been unable to gain access to undertake these works in 2020 due to the resident not being available.
2. She next contacted in December 2022 asking to make a complaint. Its records showed that repeated attempts to contact her, and visits made resulted in no access to assess the matter.
3. The survey of 2023 classified the issue as category 5, the lowest risk, and stated that the property was habitable. It recommended fitting a new ventilation system to manage the humidity and stop the build up of damp and mould. There were again further cancellations or changes to dates of visits by the resident. It had chased her to confirm suitable dates.
4. Once the ventilation unit was fitted, it would arrange a further mould wash and was satisfied this would resolve the issue. It would follow up and ensure there was no recurrent of mould in her home.
5. If she wished to claim for damaged belongings, this could be done with the information it had given her previously, by providing details in writing to its insurance department.
6. It had done everything in its control to book visits and take action to resolve the situation. Dates had often needed to be rescheduled at her request and it had needed to wait for new dates due to her work pattern. This had caused delays in completing the work to her home.
7. It empathised and said that it had learnt from her complaint and the service she had received. As a result, it would always check with customers that had a preferred method of contact and availability, so as to get the work completed promptly whilst still fitting around her schedule.
The landlord’s response demonstrates that it investigated its repairs records and the resident’s previous reports of 2019 and 2020. It was also appropriate to advise the resident that she could make a claim against its insurance with regard to her damaged belongings. Its response also demonstrates that it made multiple attempts to access her home to carry out an inspection. We acknowledge that the landlord tried to balance its need to inspect the property with the resident’s work commitments, which led to delays. As stated in paragraph 31, it could have considered enforcing the tenancy conditions given it was aware of reported health concerns.
The landlord installed the PIV unit on 19 July 2023. However, the mould wash was delayed until 14 September 2023, due to further cancelled appointments by the resident. It inspected the property again in December 2023 and no mould was found in the kitchen or bathroom, however, there was no mention of the bedroom or living room. The fans were tested and performing above the minimum requirement. It attempted to visit again in April 2024 but failed to gain access.
This demonstrated that the landlord has followed its damp and mould policy in monitoring the situation and attempting to complete further visits to assess the condition.
While we appreciate that the damp and mould would have been distressing for the resident, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and attempted to resolve the matter. This Service, therefore, finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should consider, where it is unable to gain access to a resident’s home and there are reported health concerns, whether it should enforce the tenancy conditions to gain access to inspect the property.