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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202301212)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301212

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

28 March 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 handing of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, she resides in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat with her 2 children. The resident has advised the landlord in her complaint, and this Service that her son is non-verbal and has complex needs.
  2. On 7 December 2022 the resident reported a re-occurrence of damp and mould within her property, particularly in the kitchen, bathroom, living room and on the windowsills. The landlord responded on the same day and advised that a specialist would attend and investigate.
  3. On 20 December 2022 the resident raised a complaint, highlighting the impact that her living conditions were having on herself and her family. The landlord responded on 11 January 2023 and acknowledged that an inspection had not yet taken place, it agreed to chase this and offered the resident £50 compensation for her time and trouble.
  4. On 1 February 2023 the landlord inspected the property. It determined that the property was suffering from condensation, due to high levels of residual moisture trapped within the fabric of the building from previous leaks. Further investigations were recommended and completed on 6 April.
  5. While investigations were ongoing the resident continued to report the impact that her living conditions were having on herself and her family. This was supported by letters from social services. In addition to the impact upon their health, the resident also reported that her possessions had been damaged due to the damp and mould. As a result, the resident said she was sleeping on a bean bag in her living room. Furthermore, the property was suffering with a rodent infestation.
  6. In order for remedial works to be carried out the resident was decanted to her mother’s property in May 2023, the landlord advised that the works would take approximately 6 weeks.
  7. Dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and lack of progress the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord responded on 4 May 2023 and apologised for the “really poor service”; it attributed the delays to “unacceptable internal communication issues”. It committed to resolving the substantive issue and offered the resident further compensation for its poor communication and the distress caused to her, totalling £375.
  8. The resident refused this offer of compensation, the landlord provided a final response on 12 July 2023, it concluded that it did not adequately consider the emotional toll the situation would have had on the household. It offered a further £350 compensation, taking the total to £725. The resident accepted the compensation but continued to request a permanent move.
  9. In September 2023 the landlord discovered that the works were more extensive than anticipated, as a result it agreed to a management move. At the time of this investigation the resident is still decanted to her mother’s property while herself and the landlord continue to try and find a suitable permanent alternative.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s actions have impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will respond to reports and complete any remedial works/measures within a reasonable timescale. The timescale will depend on the severity and urgency of the problem and on the complexity of the solution and the remedial works required. At the time of this investigation the landlord is updating its service level timescales, however its repairs policy says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and standard repairs within 20 working days
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould says a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. It states a landlord should identify where a suitably qualified surveyor should be used and then act on the survey recommendations. The landlord in this case acted appropriately and arranged a survey with a suitably qualified surveyor, however, this didn’t take place until 1 February 2023, 8 weeks after the initial report. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. It would be reasonable to conclude that given the history of leaks within the property and the household vulnerabilities that this should have been considered urgent and inspected sooner.
  3. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under HHSRS, nor any associated risks to the resident and her family.
  4. The initial inspection report confirmed that the property was suffering from condensation and recommendations were made for immediate action. The landlord queried some of these recommendations and decided to carry out further investigations throughout March and early April 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord wanted to ascertain the source of the issue to carry out a full and lasting fix. While this was a reasonable approach from the landlord, it has admitted that internal communication issues led to further unacceptable delays.
  5. Once the landlord determined the scope of the works it appropriately followed its internal decant policy and it was agreed that the resident would temporarily move in with her mother. The resident made this decision on the understanding that the works would take approximately 6 weeks. While the landlord has compensated the resident and made a weekly decant payment, the resident remains at her mother’s house 10 months later, this is an unreasonable amount of time for the resident and her family to be displaced with no end date in sight.
  6. Furthermore, the evidence shows that it is not suitable for her to remain at her mother’s, the property is overcrowded and suffering from damp and mould issues which the landlord has been made aware of. The resident reports that had she known how long the works were likely to take she would not have taken the decision to move in with her mother. The crowded conditions are putting a strain on their relationship and exacerbating her son’s conditions. Evidence from support services confirms that he needs routine and a space of his own, which he currently does not have.
  7. Around September 2023 the landlord identified a long-term structural defect across the development which would result in further delays reinstating the property. While this is sometimes unavoidable, in this case, the resident had already been decanted for 4 months before this was discovered and in total it was 9 months after she made her initial report. This was an unreasonable length of time and demonstrates a lack of urgency to identify and resolve the core issue. The landlord also failed to revisit it’s offer of compensation to account for the additional detriment and substantial delay to the resident.
  8. Following the resident’s reports that her personal possessions had become damaged due to damp and mould, the landlord appropriately carried out a visual inspection. The evidence confirmed that several items had been affected, including the resident’s bed and clothing.
  9. The landlord has not disputed that its failures to carry out effective repairs within a reason time has contributed to the damage above. It appropriately considered its responsibilities and provided the resident with details of how to submit an insurance claim, this was in accordance with its compensation policy. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to recommend that the claim should only be submitted once the remedial works are complete. This caused an unnecessary delay and further distress to the resident.
  10. In March 2023 an application for a management move was made on the resident’s behalf. The application was made on the grounds of historical anti-social behaviour (asb) along with the damp and mould issues. This request this was denied by the landlord as the asb was deemed no longer an issue and efforts were being made to resolve the damp and mould. This is a decision that the landlord is entitled to make and was therefore reasonable at this time. The resident was provided with further guidance on her options.
  11. The evidence shows that around this time in March 2023 the resident was appointed a customer liaison officer. This was a positive step by the landlord and communication with the resident improved at this point with weekly contact. The evidence also shows that appropriate referrals were made to safeguard the resident and to try to provide further financial support following welfare concerns.
  12. Upon discovering that the long term defect would result in further delays for the resident, the landlord appropriately reconsidered a permanent decant. This was approved in early October 2023. Although this was a positive step and provided the resident with some resolution, the landlord was unable to provide any timeframe. The resident has informed this Service that she has been offered several properties since, but none have been suitable for her needs.
  13. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. Although the landlord’s offer of £725 compensation was in line with its compensation policy for a high impact failure, it was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.  While the landlord has sought to resolve the resident’s complaint by offering compensation, its offer was not fully proportionate to the cumulative circumstances and the significant prolonged impact on a vulnerable resident. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord has revisited its offer of compensation to account for the additional time, trouble or distress caused to the resident. Since this offer, a further 8 months have passed without any permanent resolution.
  15. Overall, the landlord failed to inspect the property for 2 months following the resident’s initial report in December 2022. It took a further 3 months to carry out investigations before it made the decision to decant her. During this period the resident and her family were living in damp conditions with the mould getting progressively worse. The resident told it that she was sleeping on a bean bag in the living room which was causing her a great deal of distress and discomfort. These conditions were also impacting her ability to provide suitable surroundings and a calm environment for her son. The subsequent decant and the additional delays associated with this have continued to impact the family.
  16. In summary, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it handled reports of damp and mould within the property. It failed to carry out its obligations and did not act with urgency, taking 2 months to inspect the property and a further 3 months to investigate. There were delays progressing repairs and a lack of active repair management, evidenced by it taking 9 months to identify a structural defect. Additionally, the landlord failed to assess the risk and have due regard to the family’s vulnerabilities. In total, 15 months have passed, and the issue is still having a detrimental impact upon the resident. Taken altogether, this constitutes severe maladministration and appropriate orders have been set out below to reflect the distress and inconvenience.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:

  1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,725 within 4 weeks, broken down as follows:
    1. £725 that it previously offered her for its repair delays and the distress and inconvenience caused, if she has not received this already.
    2. £1,000 further compensation in recognition of the significant additional delays and the resulting impact on her and her family of having to continue to live in an unsuitable property.
  2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to acknowledge and apologise to her for the further failings in its handling of her damp and mould reports identified by this investigation.
  3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to arrange a meeting to discuss her current housing situation. The purpose of this meeting is to ensure that it is fully aware of the resident’s requirements and to effectively manage expectations. It must also consider if there are any other options available to improve her current temporary arrangement.

Recommendations

  1. Review its damp and mould policy’s response timescale, considering those of other similar landlords, to ensure that the most serious reports are attended within a timescale that appropriately reflects the risk of harm to residents.