A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202207859)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207859

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 January 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 8 June 2015. The property is a second floor two-bedroom flat.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident or any member of her family.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that the landlord “has a responsibility to maintain the external and internal structure of properties including fittings and services”.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that prioritises repairs into one of the following two categories:
1. Urgent – where the response time is within 24 hours.
2. Standard – where the response time is the next available appointment that is convenient with the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the [landlord], our own staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord has a complaints procedure that sets out a two stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord is required to acknowledge the complaint within two working days but there is no prescribed timescale for a full response. At stage two, the landlord is required to conduct either a service director (no prescribed timescale) or panel review (within 20 working days). The decision as to which approach to take is made by the landlord based on the detail of the complaint and the complaints procedure sets out a table to act as a guide in deciding the appropriate route.
The landlord’s complaints procedure explains that a panel review will be the appropriate route when:
1. The complaint “will require major works to resolve resulting in high costs of £5,000+”.
2. The complaint comprises “significant or repeated service failures by more than one service area”.
3. The complaint has wider implications for the landlord in terms “of published policies, financial liabilities, or will affect large numbers”. An example of the latter is with service charge complaints.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where an appropriate level of service had not been delivered, a discretionary payment can be made to the resident. In terms of the amount payable the compensation policy provides a compensation matrix which utilises a number of factors to determine the amount payable. These factors include:
1. The passage of time, including response times by the landlord related to the nature of the problem.
2. Amount of time taken by resident in addressing the issue.
3. Difficulty experienced by resident in dealing with the landlord.
4. The degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s responses to verbal/written communication.
The compensation matrix states payments for distress and inconvenience to be between £50 to £100 dependent on the degree of impact. The value of compensation for time and trouble ranges from £25 for low impact up to £150 for high impact to the resident.
The landlord’s decant policy explains that there are a number of reasons a resident may be required to move out of their home, on either a temporary or permanent basis. This includes where:
1. It is unsafe to occupy the property.
2. Where work required is harmful to the resident. This would include chemical or large-scale asbestos removal.
3. Major works are required to be carried out which cannot be done with the resident continuing to reside in the property. Examples of this include rising damp or structural issues.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord on 4 November 2021 to inform it that there was damp and mould in the children’s bedroom which, as well as affecting both the ceiling and walls, had also affected personal belongings. In addition there was damp and mould in the living room.
The landlord’s repairs logs noted that a decorator would be required to “carry out mould wash throughout the entire property”. It added that anyone with any breathing issues should not be in the property at the time of the mould wash and that windows should be opened to allow ventilation. The repairs log noted a start date of 1 December 2021 and an end date of 12 January 2022.
The landlord’s repair logs on 13 January 2022 noted there was to be follow on works to the bedroom which had followed plastering to the bedroom. The notes show this was “to carry out decoration works and mould treatment and stain block”. It was also noted that mould wash would be required to the hallway as well as the kitchen area.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord requested that its contractor inspect the property. The email communication noted that the extractor which was in the bathroom might not be appropriate. The communication also mentioned that the heat recovery unit in the property could be out of warranty.
A survey was carried out on the property on 23 February 2022. The surveyor’s report noted that the instructions provided had been to inspect the property for “potential dampness’s defects”. The surveyor’s report noted that black spot mould had been identified on the external walls of the property. The surveyor determined that the primary source of moisture and surface mould growths appeared to be from condensation “caused by excessive moisture production and inadequate ventilation”.
The surveyor’s report recommended that:
1. Trickle vents needed to be incorporated into the double-glazed windows. It added that whilst windows should ideally be of a uPVC type this might not be practical.
2. Any blocked/embedded airbricks needed to be cleared to allow the movement of moisture-laden air.
3. Heating thermostats were required to allow a constant moderate heat to be maintained throughout the property.
4. Whilst the resident had been advised to open windows, these had been left open for long periods which had a negative effect in terms of controlling condensation. The surveyor suggested that windows should only be opened for short periods which would also avoid heat loss and prevent coldness in the property.
The report included costings for the following suggested works:
1. Adequate protection be provided to the floors from the external door and work area.
2. The existing heat ventilation unit should be replaced with a new one.
3. The extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen should be replaced by new fans.
4. Insulation should be added to two of the bedroom walls which would be finished with plaster.
There is a gap in the records until the resident telephoned the landlord on 9 May 2022 to raise a complaint. The landlord’s undated note of the telephone call recorded that the resident had a lack of contact from the landlord’s operative who had visited the property on 23 January 2022. The landlord’s records do not show that anyone had attended the property on this date, and it would appear the resident was referring to the surveyor’s inspection which took place on 23 February 2022. The resident stated that she was informed that work would be needed and that a sub contractor would need to attend for some of the work. The resident added that she had been given the contractor’s telephone number and when she had contacted him he had initially informed her he had been off ill with Covid-19 and that her would chase up the matter. The resident had not heard back from the contractor so had messaged him twice in April 2022 however she had received no response back.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 17 May 2022. It noted that the resident’s complaint concerned the damp and mould in the property. The landlord offered compensation of £250 for the time and trouble and the lack of communication. The landlord stated:
1. It would have the sub-contractor contact the resident and make an appointment to get the outstanding works booked in. It added it would do this by 29 July 2022.
2. There were set processes and procedures which needed to be followed through when approving works and quotations. In addition it needed to have works agreed with the sub-contractor. This had led to further delays for the works to be commenced.
3. It accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication between its contractor and the sub-contractor. It added there had been a lack of contact between its operative and the resident.
4. Going forward it had provided the resident with a point of contact for the outstanding repairs. This would allow it to oversee the work and to make sure that the work was completed to a good standard.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 June 2022 in response to the stage one letter. The resident explained:
1. She did not consider the deadline of 29 July 2022 proposed by the landlord was good enough as the issue had been ongoing since she had moved to the property.
2. The contractor who had attended the property had suggested that a membrane should be put up in hallways and the bedroom, however only the bedroom and extractor fans had been agreed.
3. Her son was autistic and he kept touching the walls and putting his hands in his mouth. She also had a second child who was less than a year old.
4. The compensation offered at stage one was inadequate as she had lost furniture, clothes and shoes due to the damp.
5. The support received from the landlord was inadequate. She added it should have dealt with the matter correctly in the first instance.
6. She wanted to be relocated to a more suitable property fit for purpose.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 June 2022 acknowledging the response to the stage one complaint. It explained it would look at this again to see if should be investigated formally as a stage two complaint or whether it would be reviewed again at stage one. The landlord’s response did not provide any timescale of when it would reply to her by.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2022. She explained that whilst she appreciated the landlord’s offer of compensation it was not enough. She added that work had started at the property on 9 June 2022 and she had left the property and was residing with her mother. She added that she had been informed that the painter would be coming on 20 June 2022. This meant she would be away for a period of 12 nights in total. The resident added that as she had two small children, including one who was autistic, she wanted the matter dealt with urgently.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 June 2022. It confirmed that the complaint would be looked at, at stage two by a head of service and it would respond by 13 July 2022. The landlord also confirmed that the resident did not need to attend the review.
The landlord’s contemporaneous notes show on 20 June 2022 that its operative was sick and unable to attend the property. The note explained the work would be rebooked for 1 July 2022 and that someone should call the resident to advise her of this.
The landlord’s internal communication on 21 June 2022 explained that it would not make arrangements to store the resident’s possessions until a decant request had been accepted by the landlord. The landlord noted that it might be best to offer the resident some money to stay with family and friends. It would then attempt to decant the resident. The note also confirmed that the decoration work had been moved forward to that week, from the previous date of 1 July 2022.
The landlord issued the stage two response on 19 July 2022. It noted the ongoing concerns were the damp and mould which had not been resolved as well as a failure to communicate from both the contractor and sub-contractor. The letter explained:
1. The job had initially been raised in November 2021. Up until February 2022 there had been visits from its operatives to assess the damp. The landlord stated it would install a ventilation unit to resolve the matter and this was agreed to take place in October 2022. The landlord added its supervisor would attend and review the installation to determine if any further action was required.
2. The advance damp work on the property had been completed on 14 June 2022. Following this, decoration work had been scheduled on 20 June 2022 however this had been postponed until 1 July 2022 due to staff illness. The resident had been offered compensation to stay with her mother. It added the decoration work had been completed on 4 July 2022.
3. A liability form had been sent to the resident to allow her to claim for her lost belongings from the landlord’s insurer.
4. In terms of compensation the stage one response had offered her £250. Since this time the landlord wished to add a further £50 for the delays since stage one, a further £50 for the inconvenience and £20 for the missed appointment scheduled on 20 June 2022.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 18 August 2022 to refer her complaint to this Service. She explained that her son did not have a bed, which had been the case for a number of months. She added that the insurance company had not contacted her back by this time. The resident explained:
1. Work which the contractor had recommended when it had initially inspected the property in early 2022 had not been done.
2. The matter had been ongoing for a period of six years at that time.
3. The work to the front room wall and a kitchen cupboard shelf had yet to be completed at that time.
4. She wanted to be moved out of the property on the basis it was not suitable for her children due to the damp.

Events following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2022 to report the return of mould to the property. She added that the mould was present in the bathroom on the external wall as well as to the external wall of the bedroom.
The landlord’s logs show that its supervisor attended the property on 28 November 2022. No follow up works were noted as being arranged at that time.
The landlord’s repair logs show that a job had been raised by it on 23 February 2023 in relation to the damp and mould throughout the property, in the living room, bathroom and bedroom. A mould wash was scheduled for these rooms and this work was scheduled for 3 March 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord in early March 2023 to explain that she did not wish it to waste her time with further damp washes as the damp kept on coming back. Instead she wanted a damp surveyor to attend to the property.
The landlord’s repair logs do not show any further details as to if a surveyor had re-attended the property or whether any alternative works were scheduled to address the damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Following the stage one response the resident set out her request for the complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. Within her email the resident stated, “the only resolution I am willing to accept or consider is being relocated to a more suitable property fit for purpose and my child’s needs”. The landlord did not address the request for a transfer in its final response. The Ombudsman has not considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for a move in this report, as the landlord has not considered this point in its complaint procedure. However we have made a recommendation in relation to this issue which is set out at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

The landlord has provided this Service with its repairs logs which cover a period from 2015 onwards which pre-dates the resident having moved into the property. Whilst this Service has concentrated on the timescale pertaining to the resident’s complaint from the time the issue was raised in November 2021, it is clear from the repairs log that there have been several reports to the landlord for the same issue of damp and mould at the property. There are a number of instances of the landlord having undertaken mould washes as a means to resolve the issue.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt repairs by appropriate means which included mould washes, the reoccurrence of damp and mould in the same areas of the property (bedroom) are indicative that there may have been an underlying cause resulting in the damp and mould. Given this, the landlord needed to undertake a more thorough inspection of the property. Whilst the landlord did ultimately do this, this inspection by a surveyor did not happen until February 2022, more than three months after the resident had initially contacted it. This was not reasonable, especially as the survey took a period in excess of five weeks after the landlord had suggested that an inspection was to take place. The landlord has not provided its records on its communication with the surveyor or explained why there was a delay in the survey taking place. There is no indication that the inspection on 23 February 2022 was the first available appointment which was convenient for the resident which would have been in keeping with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy for non urgent repairs.
Following the inspection on 23 February 2022 the surveyor’s report noted that the “primary source of moisture and surface mould growths would appear to be due to condensation within the property caused by excessive moisture production and inadequate ventilation”. The surveyor recommended a number of works be undertaken in response to the damp and mould, primarily aimed at the ventilation.
In terms of the ventilation in the property the surveyor had been instructed to inspect the heat recovery unit in the property which the landlord had noted back in January 2022 was out of warranty. The surveyor had provided the landlord with a quotation for works dated 24 February 2022 including the replacement of this unit with a mechanical ventilation device. In addition the surveyor had quoted for the replacement of the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
The surveyor noted in respect of mould growth that whilst walls and ceilings had been previously cleaned, sterilised, and repainted using special products to prevent further mould growth, this was “only addressing the effect and not the cause of condensation and without dealing with the factors as mentioned above, the symptoms as described will persist/return”.
The surveyor also suggested that thermal material be installed into the bedroom walls as well as the walls of the stairs which had been found to be cold. It added however that it would need the occupants to be out of the property for safety reasons if this was required. In terms of the quotation provided to the landlord for works the surveyor had not added the cost of applying the thermal insulation to the stairs. Whilst the landlord did agree to the use of the thermal material to the bedroom walls as per the quote, there was no evidence that the landlord entered into any dialogue with the surveyor over the use of the insulation for the areas of the stairs. However as there was no indication of damp and mould to this part of the property, it was reasonable not to action this recommendation at that time.
Whilst the quotation for the works was provided in February 2022, the landlord has stated the ventilation unit was not installed until June 2022 and the decoration works were not completed until the beginning of July 2022. The landlord in its stage one response had explained there were normally delays associated following the receipt of a quotation for works before they were authorised and then installed. This was a generalised comment and not specifically about the particular circumstances of the resident’s case. In its limited records provided to this Service the landlord stated in part of an undated document (which followed the completion of works in July 2022) that “there are no notes to confirm the reasons for the delay”. This related to the period from November 2021 until the ventilation unit was fitted in June 2022. The document also stated, “it is likely that the [m]atter was passed to an operative and then back to the supervisor who then had difficulties getting the specialist damp contractor in to make a recommendation”.
Although the landlord referred in its stage one and stage two response to the breakdown of communication between its operatives and the resident which it stated contributed to the delays in the work being carried out, the operatives were ultimately acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore the landlord should have been more proactive in ensuring that the resident was kept fully updated on the situation with regards to the work.
The landlord offered an amount of compensation to the resident of £250 at stage one which was later increased to £350 at stage two, as well as a payment of £20 for the missed appointment on 20 June 2022. However it did not provide any further breakdown in terms of how it arrived at this figure or what the individual amounts were for the lack of communication, distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy specified that a medium level of impact would refer to “a number of errors being made. For example a repair that is repeatedly not resolved”. High impact referred to a situation where it was a difficult error to put right and where a mistake had impacted on the resident’s health, safety or security. An example had been provided where the landlord had “failed to deal with a repair, the impact of which has affected a customer’s health and safety”.
Under the landlord’s compensation matrix, the payments for detriment including stress/inconvenience were £75 for medium impact and £100 for high impact. The awards for time and trouble ranged from £85 to £110 for medium impact and £150 for high impact.
Whilst the landlord did make an offer of compensation to the resident as part of its internal complaints process, the amount offered by it, which was increased at stage two was not adequate to recognise its failings in this case. Neither did the landlord offer an amount in keeping with its own compensation policy. The landlord whilst repeatedly carrying out mould washes did not look initially into whether it could identify the underlying case of the damp and mould at the property thus meaning there was a delay.
Given the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son, the delays dealing with the damp and mould for several months would have had a high impact on the resident. In addition to the mould being present in his bedroom and on the walls, the resident explained that it had also covered his belongings in the room which she had had to dispose of. The resident added that her son had not been sleeping on his own bed for a considerable period of time. These issues would have impacted anyone, but this impact would have been increased given the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son.
In addition to making a compensation payment to the resident for the delays and distress and inconvenience the landlord had also made an offer of £500 via its insurers in terms of the resident’s liability claim for her personal belongings. This offer was accepted by the resident in settlement of her complaint.

The landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.

The landlord’s decant policy set out the grounds under which it would look at both a temporary and a permanent decant for the resident. Whilst the resident had explained that she was moving out of the property and staying with her mother whilst the works were taking place, not all of the landlord’s works would have necessitated the resident having to move out of the property.
The landlord’s surveyor had set out in his inspection report that, in terms of the thermal insulation in relation to the stairs, this would require the resident to be away from the property. The reason for this was on safety grounds as a tower would have been required to do the work. The surveyor did not specify that the thermal insulation to the bedroom walls could only take place whilst the resident was not residing at the property. Nevertheless as the insulation would have required finishing plaster to be applied before it was painted, and as the resident had small children, this would have been appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord confirmed that whilst it had not accepted the resident’s request to be decanted whilst the works were carried out, it did make a payment to the resident for the period she stayed at her mother’s. This was appropriate given the circumstances as there was no service failure.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

Following the resident having raised her original complaint, the landlord issued the stage one response within eight days. Although the landlord’s complaints policy did not set out the deadlines for its response, this timescale was well within the time this Service would consider to be reasonable.
Whilst the landlord initially acknowledged the resident’s request for the complaint to be escalated in keeping with its complaints policy, its later correspondence of 15 June 2022 provided the resident with a deadline of 13 July 2022 by which time it would respond to her. This was 20 working days following the date of its email. Although the landlord’s complaint policy did not set out a timescale for its response in the event of a service director review as opposed to a panel review the timescale of 20 working days was in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code which sets out that the response from the landlord should be provided within this timescale. However the landlord failed to adhere to this date, instead sending the stage two response some six days later on 19 July 2022.
Although the delay in responding was only six days, this was still a failing on the part of the landlord. The landlord did not update the resident after 15 June 2022 on the matter. Whilst it may have been awaiting for the work to be completed before responding to the resident, the stage two response did not set this out. Neither did the stage two response provide any apology for the delay. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience as she was unaware of the status of her ongoing complaint and whether the works would be completed prior to the provisional date she had been initially given at stage one. She was also not made aware of whether she would receive anything in respect of her lost belongings.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Very little information has been provided by the landlord in relation to the communication from its operatives including between its contractors and sub-contractors. The landlord has also not provided any notes of any conversations its contractors or subcontractors may have held with the resident about the ongoing works.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests as well as the complaints handling. These recording failures all amounts to a failing on the part of the landlord as they would have caused the resident further inconvenience and frustration over the time taken to resolve the issues which she had raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to decant the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord did initially attempt to carry out repairs by means of mould washes to the property to deal with the damp and mould it failed to look into the underlying cause of the damp and mould promptly. This is of particular concern given the history of reports of damp at the property, which the landlord did not take into account. This meant the landlord delayed in resolving the damp and mould issues in the resident’s property. This had a detrimental impact on the resident and her vulnerable children.
In terms of the landlord’s decision to decant the resident, there is no evidence that the works needed at the property required the resident to be out of the property whilst it was carried out. However the landlord acknowledged that the issue had caused the resident to temporarily move to her mother’s property whilst some of the work was carried out. It made a payment to the resident for this temporary decant.
There was a delay from the landlord at stage two of the complaints process. The landlord did not make an apology nor provide any explanation in terms of the reasons for the delay.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations which took place between the landlord’s operatives and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted details of any site visits and for the delays between it receiving the quote from the surveyor and for the ventilation unit to be installed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £350 on top of the amount offered of £370 in the stage two response, which it should also pay, if it has not previously done so. The further amount is comprised of:
  1. £200 for its handling of the damp and mould at the property.
  2. £50 for the failure in its complaints handling.
  3. £100 for its failure in its records keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should contact the resident in relation to her request for a transfer in order to consider alternative housing options.
The landlord should contact the resident to obtain details of any further concerns as set out in paragraphs 33 to 34 above which it has not previously considered as part of this investigation. It should then carry out a further inspection of the property to check the effectiveness of previous works and assess any further actions it can take.