Town and Country Housing (202337583)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337583

Town and Country Housing

30 January 2025

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 response to damp and mould in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a building that is owned and managed by the landlord. The resident bought the lease and took up occupation at the property in September 2022.
4. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord between March 2023 and January 2024. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord by telephone on 29 November 2023. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with the timescales taken for someone to respond to the damp and mould issue he had reported which had been going on for over a year.
5. The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 14 December 2023. It said that the complaint was about the time taken to resolve the damp and mould within the property, as the issues had recurred during poorer weather. Additionally it said:
   1. its service had been acceptable.
   2. it had logged the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property on 19 March 2023 and it had arranged an inspection to take place on 6 April 2023.
   3. it had rebooked the appointment to take place on 26 April 2023 when it noted that the issues may have been caused by debris in the guttering which it cleared during the inspection appointment.
   4. its inspection sought to rule out other possibilities and concluded that as the resident had treated the property for mould it would need to wait to see if damp and mould reoccurred to find the cause.
   5. it considered the matter to have been resolved and it closed the matter and informed the resident to report any further episodes of damp and mould.
   6. the resident had reported mould in the home again on 16 November 2023 but there had been delays in processing repairs due to an increase of reports submitted at that time of year.
   7. the resident had submitted a complaint on 29 November 2023; however this was not processed as it was made within 21 days which was its agreed service time frame for raising repairs.
   8. it had booked an appointment for its specialist damp and mould team to conduct a survey and a mould wash on 20 December 2023. It had notified the resident of this during a conversation it held on 12 December 2023.
   9. it did not uphold the complaint as it had arranged a repair within its service level agreement, and it had offered an action plan to resolve the mould within a reasonable timeframe.
   10. it would ensure it found a permanent resolution to the mould in the property.
6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure on 31 January 2024 and the landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 13 February 2024. It summarised the information it had provided in its stage 1 response. Additionally it said:
   1. as a leaseholder it was the resident’s responsibility to address the internal repair and maintenance of the property and for the landlord to upkeep the communal areas and building fabric.
   2. it would address damp and mould if it was caused by an external issue, but it would not generally carry out a visit without there being reasonable evidence of an external issue being the cause.
   3. it had previously completed an inspection of the exterior of the property, and it had cleared the gutters.
   4. it had completed a mould wash in the property which was an error as internal repair obligations fell to the resident as a leaseholder.
   5. it had not seen anything to suggest that the cause of the mould was due to an external cause.
   6. it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property for any external issues that may be a contributing factor since the resident had escalated the complaint.
   7. the surveyor found that there had been vegetation near the air bricks and walls and an overspill from the guttering. The surveyor did not conclude that these had caused damp and mould but had arranged for these to be removed or cut back and the guttering cleared.
   8. it appreciated that by attending to the internal issues in November 2023, without there being evidence of any external issues it may have caused some confusion, and it apologised for this.
   9. it agreed with the outcome in its stage 1 response as it had acted within its policy timescales, and it had addressed any external causes of damp and mould.
7. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 27 June 2024 setting out that the landlord has ignored damp and mould surveys which point to rising damp. Additionally he reported that his attempts to speak to the landlord had failed and his callback requests had been ignored. The resident is seeking a further assessment and a formal review of the matter and for the damp and mould issues to be resolved. The Ombudsman wrote to the resident on 12 November 2024 to acknowledge his request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. The resident said that his partner’s asthma and health had been affected by the damp and mould. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because it is difficult to determine what caused or made a health issue worse based on a review of the housing file. In personal injury claims, the parties will appoint Independent medical experts to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. Where the injury/health condition or its cause are disputed, the resident and the medical expert may give oral testimony which can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the impact of the damp and mould on health is better dealt with via the court under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme.

Damp and mould

9. Under the terms of the resident’s lease the landlord is responsible for keeping the main structure and the building managed areas in good and substantial repair and condition. It also says that the resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the apartment in good and substantial repair.
10. The landlord completed works to the guttering at the property between December 2022 and February 2023. It is not clear whether the landlord did so in response to the resident’s reports. However it was appropriate for the landlord to complete works to clear any blockages in the guttering in keeping with its repairing obligations and to prevent water penetration and damp.
11. The resident reported damp and mould in the property to the landlord on 19 March 2023. The landlord subsequently inspected the property on 26 April 2023. It is not clear why the landlord rearranged an appointment from 6 April 2023. Consequently, it took the landlord 26-working days to complete the inspection. This was 6 working days later that the 20-working day timescale contained in the damp and mould policy in place at the time.
12. The landlord inspected the downpipes at the property and completed works to clear blockages to 4 of the 11 pipes on 26 April 2023. The landlord also ensured that the overflow pipes were running into the ground, and it noted that there did not appear to be any other issues causing damp to the brickwork. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment of its qualified contractor to assess the condition of the property and for it to clear the blockages. However, it noted that as the resident had internally treated the property for mould it may require further investigation if further episodes of damp and mould were reported. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
13. There is no evidence that the resident reported further concerns about damp and mould until 16 November 2023 and again on 29 November 2023 in his stage 1 complaint. The landlord arranged a further inspection of the property to take place on 20 December 2023 which it coordinated with its specialist damp and mould team. As the resident was responsible internal repairs, there was no obligation on the landlord to inspect. It would be up to the resident to have the issue assessed and for the landlord to inspect the building and external parts to see if it was responsible to repair under the terms of the lease.
14. The Housing Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021, which recommends landlords adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. When assessing the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of damp and mould, the key elements are whether the landlord was proactive in identifying the cause of the damp and mould, the actions taken by the landlord to treat, remove and combat the mould, as well as adherence to the landlord’s relevant policies and expected customer service standards. The landlord’s decision to establish and forward the investigation to a specialist damp and mould team was encouraging and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report – even in a case where it was not responsible for internal damage.
15. The landlord completed a damp and mould report during its inspection of the property on 20 December 2023. The landlord’s decision to inspect the property to proactively identify the causes of the damp and mould was in keeping the Ombudsman Spotlight Report 2021 recommendations and entirely appropriate. The landlord recorded external signs of damp, but it noted that the external condition of the property was good. It noted leaking or blocked guttering and leaking or loose rainwater downpipes. Additionally, it recorded that the external floor level was below the damp proof course level. It also noted that the damp and mould was located at a low level in the bedroom walls as well as around the window and on the ceiling. It recorded that the resident used dehumidifying equipment because damp was rising from the bottom of the walls inside the property. However, it did not link the external repairs with the repairs in the resident’s home.
16. It is evident that the landlord had noted signs of damp in the property. Additionally, it recorded that damp was rising from the bottom of the walls. However, there is no evidence that it created a plan to address the presence of damp and mould in response to its survey. Alternatively, there is no evidence that had written to the resident about the inspection outcomes and/or its specialist’s assessment of the property and the survey. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and detail whether it considered the internal problems were caused because of the external issues. That was a failure.
17. The landlord made arrangements to complete further works to clear the guttering which was reasonable under the circumstances. It is evident that an appointment it had scheduled for 22 December 2023 had to be rearranged due to snowfall. However, it rearranged the appointment to take place on 4 January 2024 which was appropriate under the circumstances. Notwithstanding this, the landlord did not clear the guttering until 30 May 2024, over 5 months after it had identified the guttering repair. This was unreasonable and outside of its routine repair policy timescale of 28 calendar days.
18. It is unclear whether the resident had submitted further reports of damp and mould to the landlord prior to referring to it when he escalated his complaint on 31 January 2024. However, the landlord reassessed the property on the same day. The landlord noted that the main affected area for mould was on the external walls of the bedroom. It noted that it was unlikely to be rising damp due to the level of the ground and because there were no signs of excess moisture which, when tested, were at low levels. It recorded that the presence of moisture was likely to be a ventilation issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to have used measuring equipment, and for it to have completed a further assessment of the property. Notwithstanding this, the landlord’s assessment that the presence of rising damp was “unlikely” and that moisture in the room was “likely” meant this fell within the resident’s obligations under the lease.
19. The survey noted that the windows were closed at the time of the inspection and that the bathroom extractor fan isolator switch was turned off. It also identified that external shrubs obstructed the wall and should be cut back to prevent air bricks from being blocked. The landlord subsequently raised a works order the next day, on 1 February 2024, to check the downpipes for blockages and for partially blocked guttering it had identified to be cleared. It was appropriate for the landlord to have raised repairs to address the communal repairs in keeping with its repairing obligations and policy timescale.
20. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 13 February 2024 by explaining that its surveyor had found there to be vegetation near the air bricks and walls and an overspill from the guttering. It said that it did not conclude that this had caused damp and mould but that it had arranged for these to be removed or cut back and the guttering cleared. It was appropriate for the landlord to have made arrangements to clear potential causes of damp and mould in keeping with its repairing obligations. Furthermore it was reasonable for it to explain the actions it had taken following its assessment of the property to the resident in its complaint response.
21. The landlord additionally explained to the resident that it had not seen anything to suggest that the cause of the mould was due to an external cause. Furthermore, that it would only address the causes of damp and mould if the causes were identified as an external issue for which it was responsible. The advice the landlord provided was within its repairing obligations under the lease. However, its most recent assessment contradicted the survey that it had completed 2 months previously which had noted signs of rising damp. The landlord failed to address the contradictory advice in its response. It also failed to reassure the resident that its recent assessment of the condition of the property was accurate. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken a resolution focussed approach to the matter by suggesting that it would obtain a further opinion from an independent specialist. This would have ensured that its conclusions that there was no rising damp, nor external causes of damp and mould in the property, were correct.
22. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not address the failings this investigation has identified when it reviewed the matter in response to the resident’s complaint. It therefore missed the opportunity to consider the impact of its response to the damp and mould and recognise that it had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter. Furthermore its failure to investigate the presence of damp and mould further in light of the contradictory advice contained in its surveys was a missed opportunity to rebuild the resident’s confidence in its repairs service.
23. Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
24. This Service considers that an award of compensation is due to be paid to the resident. Therefore, an award of £200 is ordered below as proportionate compensation for the detriment that had been caused to the resident. This award is in keeping with this Service’s remedies guidance, where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged repairs and/or had not fully put them right.
25. In light of the unclear determination about rising damp at the property we have ordered the landlord to arrange for a further inspection to be completed by an independent specialist and for the outcome of the inspection to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. Additionally we have ordered it to apologise to the resident in writing for its failings.
26. The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman that shows that it reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (October 2021) in March 2023. It has confirmed that it has implemented a damp and mould policy and created an action plan to address the issues it identified in the review. We have therefore not made any further orders for the landlord to review its approach to damp and mould.
27. The Ombudsman also previously ordered the landlord to carry out a senior management review of its handling of repairs, damp, and mould. This was in relation to checking its records for data accuracy and reviewing its policy, procedures, and staff training in relation to reports of repairs, damp, and mould, including to ensure staff were aware of its legal obligations to ensure residents’ properties were safe and free from hazards. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the case already determined. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any further orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

28. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. did not provide an acknowledgement of the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt.
    2. did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 29 November 2023 until 14 December 2023 which was 1 working day later that the 10-working day policy target timescale.
    3. said that it would not process the resident’s complaint because it had been made within its agreed repairs service timeframe. However it provided this advice in its complaint response which was contradictory. Notwithstanding this, the advice was not in keeping with paragraph 1.4 of the Code which says a complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request.
29. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. This Service has ordered the landlord to pay the resident an award of £50 in keeping with our remedies guidance in recognition of its minor failure which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the completion of damp and mould repairs.
       2. £50 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

3. Arrange for an independent specialist to inspect the building and the property to assess the potential presence and cause of rising damp, and whether any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property. This may result in the landlord having to complete a consultation under s.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If it does, the landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure that this process is started within 28 days of the date of the survey.