Hyde Housing Association Limited (202336156)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336156

Hyde Housing Association Limited

3 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:
1. Repairs to a kitchen cabinet door.
2. Reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The resident moved into the property, a flat in August 2020. The defect liability period for the property ended on 28 July 2021. This is the period of 2 years after the property is built when the developer is expected to put right any defects in the structure of the building.
In January 2022 the resident said she raised a complaint with the landlord about a number of issues within the property, which included chipped kitchen cupboard doors, damp within the bedroom and a broken bathroom fan.
In May 2022 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response, which addressed the complaint issues raised.
In January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she had mould developing in her bathroom. The landlord said it would forward the email to the developers.
In February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that contractors had been to paint her bathroom with anti-mould paint and that the developer agreed her extractor fan needed replacing but she had not heard from anyone.

On 20 November 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord about the damp and mould within her property. The resident said that she had previously reported damp and mould and that the landlord had replaced her extractor fan and painted anti-mould paint in the affected area, but she had continued to be affected by mould. She further explained that the mould was affecting her belongings, and every room was now affected. The resident said that she thought her flat was insufficiently insulated and that she had an extremely high gas bill as a result of trying to keep the property warm.
On 8 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, which said that:
1. It did not have any record of the resident previously reporting damp and mould within the property.
2. In order to investigate the reports, it had arranged for a heating assessment to be completed on 11 December 2023 in order to identify whether this was the cause of the damp and mould. It confirmed that if the heating was deemed to be the cause, then the resident would be responsible for carrying out the necessary repair.
3. It had also arranged for a surveyor to attend on 13 December 2023 and check the property’s insulation and provide the resident with a report which would help determine if the landlord or the resident needed to complete any repairs.
4. It did acknowledge that there was a delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation.
On 9 December 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident sent a copy of an email to show that she had previously reported issues with damp and mould and that she wanted the landlord to replace her damaged belongings and increase the compensation.
On 13 December 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property and said that it would arrange for a camera survey to be completed at the front and rear of the block to determine whether the wall cavities were dry and clean.
On 22 December 2023 the resident says that mould specialists attended her property and painted over the affected areas with a specialist anti-mould paint.

On 28 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, which said that:
1. It had identified that it should have communicated better with the resident about what action it was going to take in relation to her reports of damp and mould.
2. It had arranged for an independent heating consultant to attend the property on 10 January 2024 to complete a heat loss survey. The survey would determine whether the heating was sufficient and make recommendations if not.
3. It would not compensate the resident for the damaged belonging as the resident had not raised any reports with damp and mould in the 6 months prior to her formal complaint.
4. In order to put things right, it increased its compensation offer to a total of £200, which was made up of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process.
  2. £50 for the complaint handling failures from the stage 1 complaint.
  3. £50 for the delays in completing the planned inspections.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 9 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and reported further internal issues with damp and mould, which she said were due to the weep holes on the exterior of the property being blocked.
On 21 January 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that she had been affected by mould since she moved into the property in August 2020 and that she had informed the landlord in January 2023 that mould was affecting her bathroom due to an insufficient bathroom fan. She explained that she had had to chase the landlord on multiple occasions, and although the extractor fan was replaced, she reported in November 2023 that she had been experiencing serious issues with mould.
The resident further explained that although the landlord had arranged for anti-mould paint to be applied, it kept returning and that she had to have a dehumidifier running all day and that the mould was affecting her belongings and she had developed a persistent cough.
In January and February 2024, the resident and landlord were in communication in relation to the damp and mould within the property and the issues with the kitchen unit cupboard.
On 11 March 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that it needed a cherry picker in order to access the guttering at the property, so it might take longer than it anticipated to carry out the repair. The landlord also said it would return to look at the blocked hole vents in the brickwork.
On 20 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and sent pictures of damp within her bedroom and the wet wall outside.
In April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about guttering that was constantly dripping and explained that this was where the damp patch was forming in the bedroom.
In May 2024 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that the damp and mould within her property was affecting her and her flatmate’s health.
On 12 June 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord was repairing the guttering, but the landlord had not given her any information.

Jurisdiction

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a kitchen cabinet door.

What we 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 Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
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 [landlord’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”.
The evidence shows that the resident’s complaint, dated 13 January 2022, contained details about the issues she had with one of her kitchen cupboard doors. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2022 which addressed this point.
However, there is no evidence to show that this complaint was escalated to stage 2 and therefore has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Furthermore, if a complaint had been escalated to stage 2 and exhausted the internal complaint process, it had not included in the complaint points which the resident raised to the Ombudsman for investigation and is therefore outside of our jurisdiction.
If the resident wishes to pursue her complaint about the kitchen cupboard doors, she should contact the landlord to raise a new complaint and refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation.

As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her health was affected by the presence of damp and mould within her home. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with 42.f. of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

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

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to handle repairs, for which it is responsible, appropriately by completing them in a reasonable time and providing regular communication and updates to the resident about the works. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for delay and the expected date of completion.
However, it is usual for a shared owner to have responsibility for repairs within their property. This is confirmed in clause 3.4 of the resident’s lease, which states that the resident is responsible: to repair and keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition (except in respect of damage by risks insured under clause 5.2, which relates to the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it keeps the building insured). The landlord’s responsibility to repair, decorate and renew the structure of the building is confirmed in clause 5.3 of the lease.
Based on the evidence provided, it seems that the resident’s understanding was that the landlord would be responsible for repairs within her property. However, the sales process requires a potential buyer to obtain appropriate advice about the conditions of sale and having proceeded with the sale, the resident accepted the obligations under her lease. If the resident is dissatisfied with the advice she was given during the sales process she may be able to contact her legal representative who assisted with the sale to discuss this.
As the resident is a leaseholder, when she reported an issue with damp and mould, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord followed its repairs procedure, which states that while it does not generally hold responsibility for maintaining internal areas within a leasehold property, advice will be provided in relation to damp and condensation and is limited to verbal advice to residents.

In this case, the evidence shows that following contact in February 2023, no further issues were reported until the resident raised a formal complaint on 27 November 2023. The landlord arranged for its contractor to complete an inspection at the property on 11 December 2023. This was to assess whether the heating and insulation within the property was sufficient. The contractor cancelled the inspection on the day, stating they were the wrong person to carry out the inspection. This is evidence of poor handling of its contractors and repairs process. However, it was right the landlord apologised in its final complaint response and put this right by arranging a further inspection for 10 January 2024, which was completed.
Between December 2023 and January 2024 the landlord’s specialist damp and mould contractor painted the resident’s bedroom wall twice. It also agreed to complete a survey of the front and rear elevation walls. This was an appropriate response because it was seeking to work with the resident in order to identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould within her property. The landlord’s survey of the resident’s property and the external parts of the building was completed on 28 February 2024. The landlord was expected to survey the external parts of the building in line with its responsibilities to maintain these areas under the lease. This was 93 days after the resident raised that the damp and mould had gotten considerably worse throughout her property. This survey should have been completed within 28 days of the repair being raised. Although the landlord was not responsible for redecoration within the resident’s property, it was reasonable for it to arrange this in view of the delay in it completing the survey.
The landlord shared its survey of the building with the resident on 6 March 2024. It stated it had rectified a number of blocked weep vents in the brickwork and that the evidence of damp was likely to have been caused by in incorrectly installed, leaking gutter. The landlord then said it would look into further blocked vents that the resident had stated had not been repaired per its inspection. It was appropriate the landlord shared the results of its survey and that it continued to engage in completing the outstanding repairs in order to resolve the issue of damp and mould at the property.
In March 2024 the landlord explained to the resident that the repairs to the guttering were delayed as it required a cherry picker in order to carry out the repair. It was reasonable that the landlord communicated the delay to the resident. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the works to the guttering did not start until early June 2024. This is over 3 months later, and the resident has stated that the landlord has not communicated during this time in respect of these works or the outcome of them. This is evidence of poor communication and poor handling of the landlord’s repairs processes.
The Ombudsman requested for the landlord to provide an update of its repairs to the guttering, and any further related works completed to the resident’s building as she has stated that the damp and mould remains to be an issue throughout her property. The landlord has not provided this information. Therefore the Ombudsman will make an order for the landlord to arrange an independent survey to review the damp and mould in resident’s property which is to then be shared with both the resident and the Ombudsman.
F or the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This includes the poor levels in its communication and delays in carrying out works. The landlord has also failed to adequately recognise the significant adverse impact caused to the resident which the resident states remain unresolved.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation in an effort to put things right for the resident. Whilst this is positive, the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation the landlord offered to be sufficient, in view of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of its errors. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 in compensation. This is in addition to the £250 it awarded in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made failures adversely affected the resident. Also, where the landlord has attempted to put things right, but its offer has failed to provide a proportionate offer of compensation.

Determination

After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a kitchen cabinet door, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days from the date of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration by expressing a sincere regret for errors in its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould.
The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £350 within 28 days of this report. This is in addition to the £250 it offered in its stage one and 2 complaints process.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £250 compensation it awarded her in its stage one and stage 2 complaints process if it has not already done so.
The landlord is to carry out a post inspection of the repairs to the guttering and other associated works it completed to the building in June 2024, if it has not already done so. It should share the findings of this inspection with the resident in writing.
The landlord is to arrange for a survey to be carried out by a damp and mould specialist to review the property in respect of the damp within 28 days of this report. It is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, which it is to share with the resident. These follow-on works are to then be carried out within a further 12 weeks.
The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with the above orders within the timescales set out.