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

Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202309571)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309571

Sovereign Network Homes

28 August 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 damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord of a house, which she occupied with her husband and 3 children. The resident moved out of the property in June 2023.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property and the landlord’s surveyor carried out an inspection on 17 November 2022. Following this, a mould wash was carried out, new extractor fans were installed and a window was replaced. However, the resident continued to report that there was damp and mould in the property. The resident stated that her and her children had health issues due to the damp and mould and that 1 of her children had to be taken to hospital.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 5 June 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould and that no action was being taken. She stated that an operative had painted over the mould, rather than carry out a mould wash. The resident said that mould had damaged her belongings and that she had breathing difficulties due to the mould.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 June 2023. The landlord concluded that the time taken to carry out the damp and mould inspection fell well below its expected timescales and delays were incurred due to communication issues. The landlord apologised and said that the failings had been fed back to its contractor so that its service could be improved. The landlord offered the resident £85 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 June 2023 and said that she was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. The resident said that she felt her disability and mental health had been used against her.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 July 2023. The landlord stated that the inspections indicated that there was minimal mould identified and that this was likely to be due to poor ventilation within the property. The landlord apologised that the overall process took longer than expected. It acknowledged the resident’s health issues and stated that the checks that were carried out which showed that the mould was minor should have lessened the psychological and physical impact on the resident. The landlord advised that the resident may wish to pursue a personal injury claim. The landlord offered the resident an additional £70 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which brought the total amount offered to £155.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord to state that she was unhappy with the findings and that she had a recording of an operative attending who confirmed that there was mould in the property. The resident requested for the landlord to increase the total amount of compensation offered to £200 as she wanted to close the case, so that she could give her full attention to another unrelated case. On 31 July 2023 the landlord agreed to increase the compensation to £200 which was accepted by the resident.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 September 2023 and said that she did not pursue the damp and mould case because she was preoccupied with the unrelated case, but that she now wanted to pursue the issue due to the emotional distress and damage caused. The resident further contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 and said that she had medical records which showed she had respiratory issues due to mould. The resident also raised this with the Ombudsman on 1 October 2023.
  9. On 13 August 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that surveyors had attended her previous property and said that there was no mould despite the property smelling musty. She stated that approximately a year later, she reported the issue again and another surveyor attended who confirmed that there was mould in the walls and the air vents. The resident stated that she had pneumonia several times while living in the property and that she had to leave all of her belongings when moving so that mould was not taken to the new property. The resident said that in order to resolve her complaint, she should be compensated further by the landlord.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments about the effect damp and mould has had on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. It is generally accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if there was a direct link between any action or inaction by the landlord and any specific damage to the resident’s or her children’s health in this case. Matters of legal liability for damage to health may be better suited to a court or liability insurer to decide. The Ombudsman is able to consider any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced because 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 damp and mould in the property

  1. The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure dated February 2023 states that when a report of damp and mould is made, its contractor will contact the resident within 2 days to arrange a visit, which will normally take place within approximately 14 days of this contact. The policy states that the landlord’s damp project team will then review the contractor’s notes and can arrange further inspections by damp surveyors. Where an inspection is required, the surveyor will visit the property and determine the underlying cause of the damp, mould or condensation issue and arrange for any necessary works to be completed.
  2. The resident’s initial report of damp and mould has not been provided to the Ombudsman and the date this was raised is therefore unclear. The landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend on 17 November 2022 to inspect the damp and mould. The surveyor noted that while the resident complained of mould underneath the bathroom floor none, was visible as corex had been laid and taped up. The resident also reported mould under a cupboard in the bedroom, but none was found, and under a rug in the back bedroom, but again none was found. The surveyor did find that there was mould present on a window frame, that there were no extractor fans in the kitchen or bathroom, and that the kitchen required redecoration following a recent leak. It was noted that no mould was identified in the kitchen.
  3. The evidence indicates that a mould wash was carried out on 20 November 2023 to the bedroom windows and bathrooms and extractor fans were installed on 11 January 2023. The notes indicate that 2 prior appointments for extractor fan installation were delayed due to the resident being unwell on one occasion and the contractor injuring themselves on the second occasion. The landlord acted reasonably by following the recommendations made by the surveyor, and the works took place within a reasonable timeframe following the inspection.
  4. The resident further reported that daylight was visible in the loft and that there was a possible leak coming through the roof and affecting a bedroom. Again, it is unclear what date this report was made. The landlord should ensure that complete and accurate records are maintained so that an audit trail can be provided.
  5. The landlord took reasonable action by arranging for its roofing contractor to attend on 28 February 2023. The notes of this inspection state that there was no visible light or mould in the loft. It said that there was a leak in the bedroom, which was caused by a tank in the loft, and that this had been fixed.
  6. The resident further reported her concerns about damp and mould on 20 March 2023 and said that she had pneumonia which she believed was due to the mould. The landlord stated that it would raise a job with its sub-contractor in order to get a second opinion on the damp and mould. On 23 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that an order had been raised and that the sub-contractor would confirm the date of the property visit within 3 working days.
  7. Given that the resident had continued to report damp and mould, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange another inspection in order to obtain a further opinion on the severity of any damp and mould in the property. However, the evidence indicates that the landlord had no further contact with the resident about the issue, and the appointment was only scheduled after the resident raised her complaint on 5 June 2023. The landlord ought to have acted proactively with the contractors to arrange the inspection in a timely manner. The delay indicates a failing by the landlord to act in accordance with the 14-day timeframe outlined in its damp and mould procedure.
  8. The landlord appropriately identified this delay in its complaint responses and compensation was offered in recognition of this. Further consideration has been given to the amount of compensation offered below.
  9. An engineer attended to inspect the loft on 6 June 2023. The notes of this visit state that the resident had reported that roof repairs had not been done and that this needed to be checked. The engineer noted that there was mould in the loft that seemed to be spreading down the wall cavity and out of a vent in a bedroom. Following this visit, the landlord noted on 8 June 2023 that the water tank in the loft had already been repaired and that no mould was visible from the photographs taken by the engineer.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident by email on 9 June 2023 and stated that the contractors would be attending again that day, which was an appropriate action. The landlord said that “…the ventilation system was venting out a lot of mould causing damp smells in the property. I would like to see if we can switch this off to prevent mould being spread. Once confirmed they will clean down all mould they can visually see and access.” It is understandable that this would have been concerning for the resident.
  11. It is unclear whether an inspection report was completed following the 9 June 2023 visit. However, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with the engineer’s notes from the visit, which are relatively brief. These state that the property had been checked and there were no visible signs of damp and mould on the walls or ceilings. It said that there was a small amount of mould on an air vent and on a bedroom window. The engineer noted that the loft area had been checked and no issues were identified.
  12. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that during this visit, the vent cover was removed and no mould was found behind it or in the cavity walls. The landlord stated that no mould was found in the loft, but that there were several items in the loft that could not be moved to fully inspect. However, it stated that the engineers suspected that there may have been mould in the loft due to the water tank leak. The landlord stated that images taken on the 9 June 2023 inspection did not show mould, and the engineer’s suspicion was likely to be due to not being able to fully access the loft areas to rule out the loft being the root cause.
  13. The inspections on 6 and 9 June 2023 appeared to provide conflicting opinions on whether there was damp and mould in the loft and cavity walls. Landlords are entitled to follow the advice and opinions of suitably trained staff, and it was not unreasonable that it concluded that the mould was minimal following the 9 June 2023 inspection. That said, given the seemingly differing conclusions on the extent of the mould, it may have been reasonable to engage an alternative damp and mould specialist if the resident was remaining in the property. However, given that a management move was underway and the resident was moved to a new property on 19 June 2023, no shortcomings have been identified.
  14. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by carrying out a mould wash and installing extractor fans. While one inspection indicated that there was mould in the property, three others did not. However, there were unreasonable delays in arranging for the damp and mould to be inspected after the resident raised further reports in 2023.
  15. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether suitable remedies have been offered in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  16. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience due to the delays in arranging a damp and mould inspection and she was required to chase the landlord before action was taken. The landlord ought to have acted with urgency, particularly given the resident’s reports about her health. Further, the conflicting reports about the severity of the damp and mould are likely to have caused frustration and distress to the resident.
  17. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure to act within a reasonable timeframe, and it increased the amount of compensation in line with the resident’s request. The compensation amount of £200 for the delays experienced was in accordance with the Ombudsman remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected the resident and the amount is sufficient to “put things right”.
  18. The landlord identified that the delays were caused due to communication issues and it said that the service failings had been fed back to its contractor, who would endeavour to improve its service. This indicates that the landlord has taken learning from the complaint outcome, which was reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the reports of damp and mould.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s compensation offer to the resident of £200. The landlord should pay this to the resident if it has not already done so.