A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202003911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003911

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

22 December 2020

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 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident moved into the property in June 2018.
3. On 18 October 2018 the landlord received a report of mould affecting the windows and wall of the property’s bedrooms and living rooms.
4. A job raised for a mould wash on 2 November 2018 was cancelled after several attempts to make an appointment with the resident. A new work order was raised on 5 November 2018, and on 26 November 2018 a mould treatment on the wall and wash of the windows was completed. The operative noted that vents needed fitting and the gutters needed cleaning.
5. In a letter to the landlord’s complaints team, dated 20 February 2019, the resident’s sister explained that the gutters had not been cleared and air vents had not been installed. She said that the operative had noted a smell of damp in the property.
6. On 18 March 2019 the landlord called the resident to acknowledge the complaint but received no response. Later that day, an appointment was confirmed with the resident for 22 March 2019. This was to investigate the damp issues she raised.
7. Following a visit on 25 March 2019 the landlord’s contractor advised the need to carry out a damp survey by independent surveyors. It was noted that there “was clutter and property has not been vented properly”.
8. The resident informed the landlord, on 9 April 2019, that the surveyors had called her, but she had not been able to take time off work. The resident confirmed that she would call them back by the end of the week to make an appointment.
9. On 25 April 2019 the surveyor reported “no access when trying to survey”. On 26 April 2019, it was noted that the independent surveyors had not been able to get a hold of the resident, who had not contacted them. The landlord left a voicemail for the resident to contact the surveyors regarding the damp survey.
10. The landlord’s timeline details that between 26 April 2019 and 15 May several phone calls were made to the tenant asking for availability for a new appointment but there was no response. On 1 May 2019 the resident left the landlord a voicemail to say that she could not make a scheduled appointment. The landlord instructed the independent surveyors to make an appointment with the resident the next day by telephone. The independent surveyors attempted to call the resident on 2 and 5 May 2019 but received no response and left messages.
11. The landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2019 to advise that if there was no contact by 15 May 2019 the complaint would be closed. The resident returned the call and a survey was booked in with the independent surveyors.
12. The survey was completed on 21 May 2019. The landlord called the resident on the same day, who said that she was told there was a high level of mould in the property and asked what the landlord was going to do about it. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the property was let to her in that condition. The landlord advised that it was unable to investigate issues that happened when she took the tenancy (11 months previously). It confirmed that it would contact the resident once the survey was received in the next few days.
13. The report was submitted to the landlord by the independent surveyors on 23 May 2019. On 24 May 2019 the independent surveyor informed the landlord that he did not meet with the resident but met with her sister. He explained there was condensation due to high moisture, but he found no issues of damp. The independent surveyor was writing his report for the landlord.
14. The resident’s sister contacted the landlord’s chief executive and a local MP, amongst others, on 29 May 2019 to state that she was unhappy with the landlord’s management of the issue. She said that the matter had been ongoing for seven months with no guidance given to her sister, despite her sister being vulnerable. The resident’s sister explained how the mould affected her sister, and said that she wanted her sister permanently re-housed and compensated for the damage to her belongings and the distress caused. The resident attached a letter, dated 23 October 2018 to the landlord, in which she raised concerns regarding damp in the property and mould growth, which they believed were there when the property was let to the resident. It is not apparent if the landlord had originally received this letter.
15. The landlord updated the resident on 30 May 2019 with the outcome of the report: that a scope of works would be put together to deal with the condensation, but no damp was found at the property. Advice was given to the resident to manage the condensation.
16. According to the landlord’s timeline, on 31 May 2019 the resident’s sister contacted the landlord to say that its update contradicted what she had been told on site by the independent surveyor. A stage two escalation was made. The landlord’s and contractor’s timelines also say that on 6 June 2019 the resident refused access as she did not agree with the content of the report. She believed there was damp and not lifestyle-related condensation.
17. On 3 June 2019 the landlord told the resident’s sister that it was sorry she and her sister felt they had not been given a high level of customer service during the complaint. It noted that, whilst it may have not provided all the detail contained in the full report, its response of 30 May captured the information provided correctly. It noted that this information may not have been expressed during the time of the visit by the surveyor; however, the recommendations they made included advice to the resident in respect of condensation, which its response outlined. The landlord acknowledged the request to have the complaint escalated to stage two and advised that the resident and/or her sister would receive a response within 30 days on or before 12 July 2019.
18. On 4 June 2019 the resident’s sister explained that she was concerned that, in the report, the surveyor “went back on” what was advised verbally during the survey. She also expressed her concern that the case handler had previously not responded to the resident. Finally, the resident’s sister said that she arranged her own survey to review and provide a report with photographic evidence. She said that it “transpired from the independent report that the damp conditions/mould growth in the premises is due to continuous water ingress from fixtures and fittings including the WC, Boiler, that has causing the problem.” The resident’s sister referred to the new report being attached to her email (this report has not been provided for this investigation). She explained that the water fixtures and fittings were not checked during the landlord’s inspection and the surveyor only inspected the exterior walls to the premises for evidence of water ingress. The resident’s sister raised concerns that these “defects” were not “identified at void stage” when the property was re-let.
19. The landlord acknowledged the above correspondence on 5 June 2019.
20. The complaint was escalated to stage two on 19 June 2019.
21. On 24 June 2019 the landlord continued negotiations with the resident about the scope of the condensation works.
22. On 15 July 2019 the independent surveyors varied their report to include removing thermal plaster board in the property.
23. On 2 September the landlord instructed its contractors to proceed with their quoted works, including a mould wash and to install passive air vents.
24. On 10 September 2019 a kitchen/bathroom fans upgrade was approved. On the same day the contractor informed the landlord that they were not given access in the week prior to complete the work, which was arranged with the resident. It confirmed that it was awaiting contact from the resident to confirm when they could attend.
25. On 2 October 2019 the contractors attended to make good around the resident’s fans. They continued “making good” with mould treatment the next day.
26. The landlord informed the resident on 15 October 2019 that it had “completed the fan” but needed to “make good around them”. On 31 October 2019 the landlord returned to the property for further work, which were marked as complete at the property on 5 November 2019.
27. On 19 November 2019 the landlord sent the resident its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that an independent surveyor conducted the damp investigation and report and found no presence of damp. The surveyor had confirmed that they did not inform the resident’s sister that there was damp in the property. It assured the resident that it fully investigated the matter and, in this instance, found no evidence of damp other than ‘lifestyle condensation’ and attached a copy of the report. The landlord noted that the recommended works were complete. The landlord advised of how the resident could contact this Service if she remained unhappy.
28. The contractor’s timeline confirms that further reports and visits took place, namely regarding mould growth and a draught coming from a window. Repairs to the window were subsequently completed on 20 January 2020, and mould washes were carried out in the property on 31 January 2020 and 28 July 2020.

Assessment and findings

29. The resident’s tenancy agreement (and the landlord’s responsive repairs policy) details that it has a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. This includes the internal walls, floors and ceilings but does not include internal painting and decoration in individual premises. The tenancy agreement also details that the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of their home and personal possessions against all risks. It says the landlord will not pay for damage caused to the resident’s possessions or contents unless it is responsible for the damage. Based on this, the landlord has a responsibility to investigate the resident’s reports of damp and mould and whether this is the result of it needing to carry out a repair.
30. The landlord has arranged for multiple inspections in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, including an inspection and accompanying report by an independent surveyor. This report found that there was no damp present in the property, but there was condensation and mould and gave recommendations for works which could assist with this. The recommendations were that the landlord install passive vents to the bedrooms and lounge of the property, more powerful fans in the bathroom and the kitchen, and mould treatment. The report advised that “condensation is a problem that often relates to the construction of a building and is compounded by the living conditions of the occupant.” It explained that, to ensure that full benefit was gained from its remedial measures it was important that the resident assisted in improving the current conditions and explained how this could be done.
31. Although at times it was inhibited in doing so in a timely manner because it was not provided access, the landlord completed the works recommended and thus adhered to its obligations. However, the resident challenged the findings of the independent surveyor’s report arranged by the landlord, and referred to another surveyor’s report which she had arranged and given to the landlord. This investigation has not had sight of the second report, but the resident’s sister stated that damp and mould was found to be a result of “repeated continuous water ingress from fixtures and fittings including the toilet and boiler”.
32. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the report provided by its contracted independent surveyor, the second report provided by the resident’s sister appears to contradict it. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed that it had considered the second report, and explain why it relied on its own contractor’s and not the resident’s. The landlord failed to do this. If, for some reason, the report was not received by the landlord, it was nonetheless referred to by the resident’s sister, and the landlord should have followed the matter up with her or the resident.
33. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for two stages. Upon receipt of a complaint, an acknowledgement will be sent to the resident within two working days. The complaint will then be allocated to a caseworker who has a further three working days to contact the resident to discuss the complaint.  If residents are unhappy with the stage one reply, they are encouraged to let the landlord know ‘as soon as possible’. The complaint should then be escalated automatically to stage two. The stage two process makes provision for a complaint to be heard at either a service director review or review hearing, dependent on the detail of the complaint.
34. Based on the evidence, the landlord did not keep the resident updated on the status of her complaint following its acknowledgement, and it is unclear what the landlord considered to be its stage one response. When escalating the complaint to stage two, on 3 June 2019, the landlord advised that the resident and/or her sister would receive a response within 30 days on or before 12 July 2019. The stage two response was not issued until November 2019. Whilst it is understood that there was ongoing communication between the landlord and resident about the works, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated on the status of her complaint, in line with good practice. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was therefore not reasonable.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her home.

Reasons

36. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s statement that her surveyors report contradicts the landlord’s nor explained why it chose to rely on its own report. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated throughout her complaint and delayed unreasonably in providing its response.

Orders

37. In light of the service failures identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to:

1. Pay the resident £250 in acknowledgement of the service failure found in this investigation. This payment must be made within four weeks of the date of this report.
2. Provide the resident with a further complaint response, addressing the findings in the survey report she or her sister commissioned. This order is contingent on the resident providing the landlord with a second copy of the survey report if necessary. This response to the resident must be provided within two months of the date of this report. A copy of the response should also be provided to this Service.