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

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202323266)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323266

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

31 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and subsequent pest issues.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint will also be considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat. She lives in the property with her partner and 2 children.
  2. On 26 June 2022, the resident reported that she had to keep cleaning away mould that kept recurring. She said she had a young poorly child living in a damp environment, and the issue was getting worse.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 17 November 2022 as she said the damp and mould issues were ongoing. She said the landlord had completed 2 mould washes, but the issue kept recurring. She said her son has asthma and it was impacting his breathing.
  4. In its stage 1 response on 2 December 2022, the landlord said it had provided a point of contact to oversee the outstanding works. It offered £100 compensation to recognise the resident’s time and trouble taken. It said it had provided further staff training for record keeping and reinforced its service standards with its contractor.
  5. In an email on 12 December 2022, the resident said she escalated the complaint on 5 December 2022. The Service has not seen a copy of this correspondence. On 13 January 2023 she chased the complaint and said the damp and mould was ongoing.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 February 2023 and apologised for the delayed response. It said it had offered the maximum amount of compensation for inconvenience. It offered an additional £50 to recognise its failure to respond to the escalation request. It said it would not look at loss of personal belongings within its complaint process and provided a liability claim form.
  7. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a stage 2 response. Following correspondence from the resident, in which she also raised concerns about an infestation of mould mites, the Service contacted the landlord on 2 April 2024 and asked it to issue a stage 2 response.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 April 2024. It recognised the issue was ongoing for a long period and said it completed the damp and mould works on 13 December 2023. It had not received any further reports of pest issues following advice it provided on 27 October 2023. It revised the previous compensation and offered £800 comprised of £450 for time and trouble, £100 for stress and inconvenience, £100 for communication, and £150 for complaint handling failure.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as she said the damp and mould was ongoing and she wanted the landlord to resolve the issue. She said she had washed the mould off numerous times and redecorated, but it kept recurring. She was unable to purchase furniture due to the reoccurring mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and subsequent pest issues

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy, it will complete any remedial works/measures, following a report of damp and mould, 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. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete eemergency repairs within 24 hours, standard within 20 working days, planned within 90 days.
  2. The resident initially reported damp and mould on 26 June 2022 and the landlord arranged an appointment on 28 July 2022, but the appointment was cancelled as the resident reported they had COVID. Such delay was unavoidable, and the landlord would not be responsible. As the resident cancelled the appointment, she should have contacted the landlord to rearrange it. There is no evidence to confirm whether she further pursued the repair. The landlord raised a further work order on 15 October 2022 to address the damp and mould and it attended on 7 November 2022. It is unclear what prompted the landlord to take action at this stage. It would have been helpful for the landlord to monitor the repair following the cancelled appointment to ensure the work did not remain outstanding for a prolonged period.
  3. A contractor attended on 23 November 2022 and said there was a condensation problem in the property, but no current mould growth as a mould wash was recently completed. He said the ventilation should be upgraded, redecorated as necessary, and it should advise the resident on balancing heating and ventilation. The resident reported on 13 January 2023 that the damp and mould was ongoing. On 7 February 2023, the resident said the mould wash was not effective. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord had acted on the contractor’s findings to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould, which was unreasonable and delayed resolving the issue in full.
  4. The repair records on 9 March 2023 outlined works identified by a survey, including:
    1. Identify and rectify all pipe leaks within the property.
    2. Reduce all adjacent ground levels so they are minimum 150mm below the damp proof course level.
    3. Remove all stored items that were externally against the walls.
    4. Re-mastic the windows.
    5. Specialists to undertake further investigations into the moisture levels within the floors and walls.
    6. Arrange for accelerated drying with dehumidifiers, including for hacking off plaster as required if excess moisture is present within the walls and floors.
    7. Upgrade the kitchen and bathroom extractors.
    8. Complete a mould wash.
    9. Advise the resident to reduce the amount of furniture/storage within the property, especially against the walls.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not provide a copy of the survey. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it did not have an obligation to share the inspection report. Nonetheless, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss the findings and provide a schedule of works to assure the resident it was taking sufficient action to resolve the issue.
  6. The repair records show the landlord fitted weep vents mastic around the windows, completed a mould wash, and removed the dirt covering the damp proof course on 31 March 2023. It overhauled the extractor fan on 14 April 2023 and fitted a drain to prevent water ingress on 18 May 2023. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord completed the full list of works recommended in the survey, so the Service cannot confirm that it fulfilled its repair obligations in full. The resident reported the damp and mould was ongoing on 21 August 2023 and 9 October 2023, which the landlord may have prevented if it had completed all the recommended works. 
  7. The landlord completed a further damp inspection on 16 October 2023. It identified condensation and mould in the bathroom, kitchen, and bedrooms and found high levels of humidity and condensation on most windows. It noted the recent repairs and mould treatment may have helped. It recommended to move the items in the neighboring garden away from the wall, remove a tree, upgrade the extractor fan, repair the guttering, and complete a mould wash. It is of concern that several of these works were identified in the previous survey and remained outstanding.
  8. The landlord completed several repairs between 3 November 2023 and 13 December 2023, including replacing the extractor fan, completing mould washes, resealing the windows, and reconnecting and clearing the guttering. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it completed the damp and mould works on 13 December 2023. However, on 11 December 2023, a contractor identified the broken gutter was the cause of the mould and follow-on work was required. The repair records show the landlord replaced the broken union joint in the guttering on 10 June 2024. As such, the works were outstanding for a further 6 months after the date the landlord considered the matter to be resolved.
  9. The resident told the Service that the damp and mould issues are still ongoing. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord has completed several of the works recommended by the surveys, including reducing all adjacent ground levels, removing a tree, removing items from the exterior wall, providing advice to the resident regarding storing items against the walls, and completing further investigations into the moisture levels within the floors and walls. As the landlord did not provide the resident with a schedule of works, she was unable to advocate for the completion of these works. An order has been made for the landlord to ensure all necessary works are completed to resolve the damp and mould in full.
  10. The damp inspection on 16 October 2023 stated the resident reported she was not using the kitchen due to mould mites. The landlord’s environmental services policy states that if there is an infestation at a resident’s property, it is their responsibility to arrange removal either via the Local authority or a private contractor unless expressly stated as part of a lease agreement. The landlord may take remedial action at its discretion. In this case, as mould causes the occurrence of such pests, the landlord should have sought to resolve the root cause of the matter. It was appropriate that a pest contractor provided advice to the resident on 30 October 2023 about how to manage mites. The landlord said it had not received any further reports.
  11. In view of the evidence, it is clear that the landlord exceeded a reasonable timeframe to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident initially reported damp and mould on 26 June 2022, and she said the issue is still ongoing, so the matter has remained unresolved for over 2 years. It is of particular concern that the landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s reports between June 2022 and March 2023, as it only completed mould washes rather than assessing the underlying cause. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate it has completed all the works recommended in the surveys, or provided a suitable reason why it would not.
  12. It is evident the issue has caused the resident distress and inconvenience, particularly due to her reports the damp and mould was impacting her family’s health and had damaged her belongings. She also experienced time and effort pursuing the matter to ensure the landlord completed the necessary repairs. In its final response, the landlord offered £450 compensation for time and trouble, £100 for stress and inconvenience, and £100 for communication. In view of the extended period the issue has been ongoing, the additional 6-month delay in repairing the guttering that the landlord failed to acknowledge, its failure to complete all the recommended repairs, and the associated impact on the resident, the compensation was not sufficient.
  13. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the identified failings. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £400 to recognise the additional impact on the resident.
  14. In her complaint to the Service, the resident said she wanted to be reimbursed for damaged personal items. The landlord’s compensation policy strongly advises residents to take out home contents insurance to insure personal possessions, and they can pursue a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance if they think the landlord is liable for damages. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord signposted the resident to its liability insurer to claim compensation for the damaged belongings. It is reasonable for the landlord to have liability insurance to cover negligence claims, as a way of managing these costs and the Ombudsman cannot consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer or the outcome of any insurance claim in our investigation as we can only investigate the actions of the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue its response within a further 10 working days. It should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident initially raised a complaint on 17 November 2022. The landlord issued its response on 2 December 2022, which was within its response timeframe.
  3. The resident said she then requested to escalate the complaint on 5 December 2022. She chased the complaint twice before the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 February 2023. It apologised for the delayed response as a staff member was on leave. It revised its compensation offer the same day, but did not offer its stage 2 response. The resident continued to chase the complaint and contacted the Service on 7 October 2023 as the landlord had not sent its final response. 
  4. The Service told the landlord to issue a stage 2 response on 2 April 2024, which it did on 11 April 2024. It therefore took over 16 months to issue its stage 2 response, which was an unreasonably excessive delay. This also delayed the resident’s referral rights to the Service for independent review. The landlord offered £150 for its complaint handling failure, which was not proportionate to the length of the delay, so a further £150 additional compensation is warranted.
  5. It is positive to note that the landlord said in its final response that it was assessing its process to improve the complaint service, indicating that it has learned from the outcome of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and subsequent pest issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £800 already offered, within 4 weeks the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £400 for the additional failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. £150 for the extensive delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
  2. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide to the resident and the Service a detailed schedule of works outlining the remaining repairs to be completed and anticipated completion dates. It should reinspect the property if necessary to establish the required repairs.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service within 8 weeks to confirm it has completed the necessary works to resolve the damp and mould. It should also confirm that it has undertaken a post-works inspection.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm she has the necessary information to enable her to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance for items that were damaged by damp and mould.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of damp and mould reports to ensure it promptly completes surveys and raises the necessary follow-on work. It should ensure it can easily identify if recommended works remain outstanding. It should also provide residents with a schedule of works to manage their expectations.