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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202305109)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305109

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

24 June 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property, including her concerns that it had not been addressed during the voids process.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is described as a house. The resident is vulnerable due to a mental health condition, which she disclosed to the landlord on her housing application form.
  2. In November 2022 the landlord classified the property as a major void, which meant that major repairs were needed before the property was relet. On 21 December 2022, after carrying out repairs, the landlord sent the resident a video tour of the property and after viewing the video the resident commenced her tenancy on 23 December 2022.
  3. On 5 January 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp in various parts of the property. The landlord’s operative inspected the property on 10 January 2023 and requested that a surveyor conduct a damp survey.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 19 January 2023, as she said the damp should have been identified by the landlord and treated before she moved into the property. She said that paint was peeling off the walls due to how wet they were and that she felt that this was making her children ill.
  5. The landlord’s damp and mould survey on 26 January 2023 noted that there was damp on various internal walls in areas where the external render was in disrepair. These areas included the hallway behind the front door, around the back door, and next to the electricity meter in the lounge (where it noted there were signs of water ingress too). It also noted condensation in the property and recommended the following:
    1. Full mould wash to all affected areas in all rooms.
    2. Ease and adjust timber front door.
    3. Check extractor fans in kitchen and bathroom.
    4. Repair blown render to front – left hand side of lounge window, around side timber door and rear of property.
  6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023 the landlord said that the property had not been in that condition during the void stage, that it had been in a lettable condition and there had been no issues with peeling paint. It apologised that damp and mould issues had appeared not long after the resident moved in but said it had not identified any service failure. It said it would commit to completing the recommended work by 3 March 2023.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 February 2023, noting that having looked closely at the viewing video the landlord sent her before she moved in it, showed damp on the walls. She also said that she had taken photographs of the damp within days of moving in. She said there was mould present in the property as well as damp and that she would like the landlord to acknowledge the stress and upset the situation had brought to herself and her children.
  8. The landlord’s contractor started work on the surveyor’s recommendations on 20 February 2023 and the work was scheduled to last 3 days. However, on 22 February 2023 and again on 1 March 2023 the contractor’s repairs records show that they reported that more time was needed as the internal walls were cold and wet which meant that paint and plaster were taking an excessive amount of time to dry and some walls were too wet to be painted at all. They said that “putting layers of paint on sodden walls will achieve nothing.” They also noted that the paint on the render had blown and would need to be investigated.
  9. In an internal email on 13 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the render was coming away from the wall as the operative was working on it, that it was a much bigger job than first thought and that patch repairs would not be effective. The contractor’s final record on the 15 March 2023 notes that there were outstanding repairs that would be referred to a manager and that the trickle vents on the windows would need repairs as they would not open.
  10. In its stage 2 complaint response on 17 April 2023 the landlord apologised for delays in completing the work but said that the delays were compounded by the contractors not being able to contact the resident on some occasions. It said it believed that the recommended work had been completed. It also confirmed that it had scheduled a meeting for 18 April 2023 with the resident, itself and its contractor to review the full specification of outstanding repairs and to agree on an action plan for follow on works.(with the external rendering being the main repair). It said it accepted that “the potential for mould and damp” should be checked during the void process and awarded a total of £275 compensation which it explained as follows:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience (which it said was the maximum allowed).
    2. £100 for the poor quality of work at void stage when [it] should have picked up on this issue (which it said was the maximum allowed).
    3. £50 for the partial delays from [it] in completing the above listed works.
    4. £25 for the delay in escalating the complaint and responding to you at stage 2.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response.

  1. Although we have not been provided with details of what was discussed in the meeting on 18 April 2023, the landlord has provided evidence that scaffolding was erected in order to carry out extensive repairs to the walls of the property which included replacing the render and installing insulation.
  2. The resident brought the complaint to this Service on 11 May 2023 as she did not believe that the compensation offered was reasonable or proportionate and was unhappy that the repairs had not been completed. She has since advised us that, after further delays the repairs were eventually completed in February/March 2024 and appear to have eradicated the majority of the damp. However some damp remained around the electric meter in the lounge, which the landlord has told us it will be investigating.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on her children’s health and her own mental health. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states: ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The resident has reported that, following the end of the internal complaints process (ICP), there were further delays in carrying out the agreed repairs to address the damp. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint about the further delays. This is in line with paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme which states ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property, including her concerns that it had not been addressed during the voids process.

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report into damp and mould, published in October 2021, highlighted the importance of landlord’s taking proactive action to ensure that issues such as damp are identified during the void process, so that properties are of a decent standard when residents move in. The landlord has a duty to ensure that its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard, which was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). For a home to be considered ‘decent’, it must be free of ‘serious’ hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies that could cause harm and include the presence of damp and mould. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 also states that a landlord must ensure its dwelling is fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy. The existence of any hazard as defined by the HHSRS is one of the factors that may be considered when assessing fitness.
  2. The landlord’s Lettable Standard also states that ‘when a dwelling is let for a new tenancy, it shall be in a clean and safe condition” and “that it will meet government standards and that it will be presented in a good condition’. In light of all of the above, the landlord should have ensured that the property was of a lettable standard and free from damp before the resident moved in. The landlord has advised this Service that the property was classed as a major void and it is evident that the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for the property to be inspected in order to confirm what repairs were necessary at the void stage. However, although the void inspection report from November 2022 includes repairs to blown and cracked plaster, the landlord failed to identify damp in the property or the poor condition of the render on the external walls. It would have been helpful if the report had included photographs of the property before and after the void works were completed and we will be making a recommendation that the landlord’s considers taking photographs of the property during the void process, both before and after void repairs are completed.
  3. The viewing video that the resident provided to this Service appears to show damp patches in the same areas of the lounge and hallway (including around the electricity meter) where the damp survey identified damp a month later on 26 January 2023. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that damp was present before the resident moved in and that this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have identified that there was damp present and addressed it before the resident moved in. The landlord also accepted in an internal email on 17 April 2023 that it should have identified and addressed the damp works during the void stage.
  4. Once the resident reported the damp on 5 January 2023, (after the landlord’s Christmas shut down), the landlord took appropriate steps to arrange for the property to be inspected within 5 days. Its decision to arrange a damp and mould survey following that inspection, when damp was identified, was also appropriate. The landlord made reasonable attempts to contact the resident after the inspection on 10 January and once contact was made the survey was completed within a week, which was reasonable.
  5. Although it is noted that there were a few occasions where the landlord was unable to contact the resident to arrange appointments, it is clear that the delays in completing the surveyors recommendations from 22 February 2023 onwards were largely due to the poor condition of the walls impacting on the contractors ability to complete the work. Once the landlord realised that the work required was more extensive than first thought its decision to hold a meeting with the resident and its contractor to establish a plan of action to carry out the work was appropriate. However, had the landlord correctly identified these issues during the void process they could have been resolved before the resident moved in. Its failure to do so meant that the resident was waiting an unreasonably long time for the repairs to be completed.
  6. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to identify the issues during the void stage and that it was partly responsible for delays in completing the work recommended by the surveyor. In its stage 2 response it appropriately acknowledged both of these failings. When there are accepted failings by a landlord, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord is sufficient to put things right and resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. The landlord took appropriate steps to broadly acknowledge its failings and to arrange a meeting with the resident and its repairs team to discuss the extent of the work required, and a likely timescale for completion. It has also changed its void process to include a damp and mould template for every property, which shows that it has learned from the resident’s complaint and taken appropriate steps to reduce the risk of this happening again
  7. However the £250 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response did not fully compensate for the impact its failings had on the resident and her children. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s individual circumstances as a result of her vulnerability, when assessing the impact of its failings and there is no evidence that it did so. The impact on the resident was significant. By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2023 the resident and her children had spent almost 4 months living in a damp property with cold, wet walls, which meant she was unable to be put carpet down or fully enjoy her new home as she had planned. Her concerns about the damp impacting on her children’s health also caused her distress and inconvenience and she felt that she was spending excessive amounts of money trying to heat and dry out the property. The fact that the issue should have been addressed before she moved in added to her frustration.
  8. In light of the significant impact on the resident and her children, this service has made a finding of maladministration and we will be ordering the landlord to increase the compensation for this part of the complaint from £250 to £900. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the landlord’s failings had a significant impact on the resident. Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right it failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It should be noted that the £900 compensation is in relation to the period up until the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 17 April 2023. The £25 compensation the landlord awarded for its late response will be addressed in the complaint handling section of this report.
  9. It is noted that the contractor’s repair notes said that the trickle vents on the windows needed to be repaired as they would not open. As the resident has advised that she Is not aware of any repairs to the trickle vents being carried out we will be recommending that the landlord inspect the trickle vents to see if repairs are needed.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. However its stage 2 complaint response was not issued until 49 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was not in line with its policy and therefore unacceptable. However it did appropriately acknowledge this failing in its stage 2 response and awarded £25 compensation for it.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommended that “Landlords should ensure they treat residents reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy. Throughout, the process should be customer-led, treating all customers with the appropriate level of empathy and priority in what can be a particular distressing complaint”.  It also recommended that landlord’s should ensure they avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that the property was let in a lettable condition and apologised that “the damp and mould issues have appeared not long after [the resident] moved into the property” and stated “nevertheless, no service failures have been identified.” As the landlord had access to the surveyor’s report at the time the response was issued, which indicated that areas of damp on the internal walls were linked to the poor condition of the render on the external walls, it is difficult to understand how the landlord reached this conclusion which will likely have left the resident feeling she had caused the damp and mould issue.
  3. Although the landlord appropriately noted in its stage 2 response that the issue should have been picked up during the voids process, it would have been appropriate for it to apologise for the inaccuracy of its stage 1 response and for it to have acknowledged how frustrating this would have been to the resident. However, it failed to do so. It would also have been appropriate for it to have referenced the viewing video that the resident had referred to in her escalation request and noted that it did appear to show damp on the walls before the resident moved in. However it failed to do so.
  4. The stage  2 response also lacked clarity as it said that it believed that the repairs had been completed but also said that it was arranging a meeting to discuss the outstanding repairs. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays in carrying out the surveyor’s recommendations and also said it was sorry that the resident had cause to complain. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have apologised for its failure to identify the damp and poor condition of the render during its void stage, and for incorrectly stating that the issues had not been present before the resident moved in. However, again, it failed to do so. The landlords responses at both stage 1 and 2 lacked empathy and failed to acknowledge the impact the damp and mould had on the resident and her children. As such, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the £100 awarded for inconvenience was the maximum it could award and likewise for the £100 awarded for is failings during the void stage. It is also of some concern that when the resident responded to the stage 2 response to say that she did not think the compensation amount was enough, the landlord responded to say that however much it would have liked to offer more it had to adhere to its compensation policy and also stated that “The amount of compensation paid is not meant to replace all that you have gone through while waiting for the repairs to be completed; we are aware that no amount of money can replace your frustration at the delays. It is only a gesture of goodwill advising you that we recognise we have failed and accepting our failures.”
  6. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which states that “compensation will reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result” and that it will also consider out of pocket expenses caused by the complaint event. It is also not in line with its compensation policy, which in addition to stating that its staff may make discretionary payments within their delegated authority level, also confirms that “In extreme cases where service failure has caused significant inconvenience to a resident, then an ex-gratia amount of compensation may be payable”. Given the vulnerability of the resident and the impact the failings had on her and her children, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered whether it was reasonable to limit compensation in these circumstances to £100, or whether it should have used its discretion to consider awarding a higher ex-gratia amount for its failings. However, there is no evidence of it having done so.
  7. Although the landlord’s initial compensation award of £25 for its late stage 2 complaint was reasonable, in light of the additional complaint handling failings identified in this report, we will be ordering the landlord to increase the total compensation awarded for complaint handling to £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration which adversely affect the resident but had no permanent impact.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property, including her concerns that it had not been addressed during the voids process.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failure to address the damp during the void process and for the impact this had on her and her children.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 compensation. The £1100 is comprised of:
      1. £275 already offered to the resident.
      2. An additional £650 in recognition of its maladministration in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property, including her concerns that it had not been addressed during the voids process.
      3. An additional £175 in recognition of its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Inspect the trickle vents on the windows in the property to determine if they require repair.
    2. Consider updating its voids process to include photographs of the property being taken at the start and end of the voids process.
    3. Provide an action plan to the resident, detailing how it intends to address any remaining damp and mould in the property.