ForHousing Limited (202306138)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306138

ForHousing Limited

28 March 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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bed house, owned by the landlord.
3. It is unclear when the resident made her reports to the landlord, however it conducted a survey on 14 September 2022 which found evidence of damp and mould throughout the property. She raised the first of 2 complaints on or around 8 February 2023 as it had not booked the recommended works. It commenced the works on 24 April 2023 and offered £250 in compensation.
4. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2023. She said some works were incomplete, other works were not as expected, and it had not reconnected the gas supply. It issued its stage 1 response on 18 May 2023 to state that it had completed the works in full. It did not address her other points.
5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 May 2023 as she was not satisfied with its handling of the remedial works, and it had not responded fully to her complaint. It issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2023. It apologised for the delays, said it had now completed all outstanding works, and offered a further £250 in compensation. It therefore offered £500 in total.
6. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response. She told us that it has now finished the works, but she does not feel it has compensated her adequately.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident stayed in temporary accommodation while the landlord was conducting remedial works, and she commented in her complaint that she was unhappy with the arrangements. The landlord did not respond to this, but we understand that it has now raised a separate complaint about this matter. Therefore, to avoid complication, this investigation will not consider this element of her complaint. If she is still unhappy following a final response from the landlord, she can ask us to open a new investigation.

Damp and mould

8. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould states that a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach, and its responses must be prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to communicate well between teams and departments, and to ensure one team or individual has overall responsibility for making sure it resolves complaints and reports relating to damp and mould, including follow up or aftercare.
9. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our 3 dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
10. The landlord’s survey of 14 September 2022 recommended remedial works including treating black mould, hacking off salts which had built up on several walls, and relaying insulation. It missed its original target date of 10 November 2022, at which point the resident asked it to schedule the works for 20 February 2023 to avoid disruption over Christmas. There is no record that it responded to her request or contacted her again until her first complaint in February 2023, which is contrary to the Spotlight report and was a failing.
11. The landlord apologised for the delay and said its contractor was short-staffed. It offered £250 in compensation and booked the works for 24 April to 5 May 2023. It also said it would arrange temporary rehousing during this period. It commenced the works in line with its plan and the resident was due to return home on 5 May 2023. She contacted it to say the property was dirty, there were loose wires hanging from the walls, and the bathroom tiles did not match. said the landlord responded to say it was due to finish the works that day and the issue with the tiles was cosmetic. It also agreed to arrange a deep clean but said the property was ready in the meantime and fit for habitation. The resident moved back in that evening, ahead of a bank holiday weekend.
12. In her second complaint of 11 May 2023, the resident said:
    1. The landlord had not refitted the skirting boards, reassembled the shower, or sealed the bath.
    2. The contractors had not reconnected the gas supply, leaving her without heating, hot water, and cooking facilities until 10 May 2023.
    3. It should have told her that the bathroom tiles would not match.
    4. There was plaster dust throughout the property.
    5. Some of the works differed from the report.
    6. It had communicated poorly.
13. The landlord’s stage 1 response was confusing. It stated that it had completed all the outstanding works, however its records show that it had arranged an appointment for 7 June 2023 to remedy the issues with the skirting boards, shower, and bath. It is not clear why it did not mention this in its response, given that the resident had specifically raised this in her complaint.
14. The landlord also said it would deal with its communication issues internally. However, it did not address the resident’s other complaint points, and it has only provided us with limited information to show the actions it took. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. We have made a recommendation regarding its record keeping, and we have investigated the adequacy of its complaint handling in paragraphs 21 to 24 of this report.
15. The landlord did not record the resident’s report about the gas supply. However, given the nature of the issue it is reasonable to infer that she reported this on 5 May 2023. It reconnected the supply on 10 May 2023. This was within 1 working day due to the bank holiday, but she had been without gas for 4 full calendar days. Its repairs procedure states that it will respond to emergency reports within 24 hours and urgent reports within 3 working days. It does not define either category. It is common industry practice to respond to a total loss of heating and hot water within 24 hours, however many social landlords will also consider factors such as the time of year and household needs. There is no evidence to show how it assessed the priority, thus it is difficult to determine the extent of inconvenience to her. The issue itself was human error. However, it would have been good practice for the landlord to check this at the end of the works, particularly as she moved back in when there were only out-of-hours services available.
16. There is no obligation for a landlord to replace fixtures such as bathroom tiles like-for-like unless a policy or contract says it will. There is no such term in the landlord’s repairs policy or the resident’s tenancy agreement. She was frustrated at the lack of consultation, and we encourage the landlord to be clear and manage expectations from the outset in future. However, there was no failing by the landlord.
17. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged the deep clean which it had agreed to. Its contractor stated that they had not left any debris in the property, and its repairs policy does not specifically require it to arrange a full clean. It is also understandable that there may be residual dust following structural works. However, it should have kept to its agreement.
18. The landlord explained to the resident on 19 May 2023 that remedial works may change, as contractors will review the recommendations and check that these are still appropriate. This is reasonable, particularly as it had conducted the survey 8 months earlier. However, it should have explained this to her at the time. The Spotlight Report requires that one person or team oversee reports and complaints about damp and mould, but there is no evidence that it appointed anyone to do this. We have therefore made a recommendation about this.
19. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint, she said it had failed to attend an appointment the previous day, and she was disappointed with how it handled the situation in general. It apologised for the delays and explained that these were due to a high volume of damp and mould reports, however it had recruited extra staff. It also apologised for the missed appointment and said it had reminded its contractors to contact residents if they cannot attend for any reason. It confirmed that it had now completed all the outstanding works and offered a further £250 in compensation.
20. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation. The Spotlight Report requires that a landlord’s remedy reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered a total of £500, which is in line with our remedies guidance. It explained what it had done to address the delays with its service provision and apologised for its earlier failings. In the circumstances its offer of redress was reasonable.

The associated complaint

21. The landlord’s complaints policy states that when it receives a complaint or escalation request, it will check its understanding to set the complaint definition, and it will address all the points raised. This corresponds with section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of April 2022 (the Code), which applied at the time.
22. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 18 May 2023 lacked detail. It said it had completed all the outstanding works, which was not accurate. It also briefly stated that it would look at its communication issues “in house”, however failed to respond to the rest of the complaint.
23. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 May 2023 to ask when it would respond to her other complaint points, and she repeated this in her escalation request. In its final response it said the purpose of stage 2 is to review how it handled the complaint, and “ensure that all the elements raised in the initial complaint were handled to completion”. However, it did not acknowledge the missing elements at stage 1 or attempt to rectify this.
24. The landlord’s responses were poor, and it did not comply with the Code or its own complaints policy. This investigation has therefore found failure regarding its overall handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould in the property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. We order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. It must pay this directly and not offset this against any arrears unless the resident agrees.
28. The landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with this order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

29. We recommend that the landlord also pays the total sum of £500 previously offered if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is on this basis.
30. The landlord should review its record keeping, to ensure that it can manage reports effectively and fulfil its obligations. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can fully investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records.
31. The landlord should also review its management of damp and mould reports, to ensure it appoints a person or team to oversee reports and complaints, including follow up and after care. This will ensure that it adheres to the Spotlight Report and will help it to manage cases effectively alongside its record keeping.