Accent Housing Limited (202327272)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327272

Accent Housing Limited

2 December 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns regarding the front door and fire safety.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a ground-floor flat. The landlord owns the building’s freehold. The resident purchased the leasehold of the property in 2021.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the evidence confirms that the resident’s wife has multiple sclerosis (MS), and the resident has a respiratory condition.
The landlord reports a repair to the bathroom ventilation fan was identified following an inspection in February 2022.
On 21 March 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were not functioning properly and were difficult to access for maintenance. He also reported the presence of mould in his property, with damp on the outside walls affecting other residents in the flats. He mentioned that he was suffering from severe bronchitis. A contractor had been scheduled to visit on 10 March 2022, but the resident missed the appointment because no specific time was provided.
The landlord arranged a follow-up appointment, and the bathroom fan was repaired on 5 April 2022.
Between May and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord regarding issues with damp and mould. The landlord responded, stating it was waiting for other departments to respond.
On 18 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again, expressing concern that the landlord seemed to have “run out of ideas” for resolving the damp and mould issue. The resident requested a damp and mould survey which was conducted on 7 November 2022. Following the survey, a recommendation was made to instruct an independent company to assess the damp and mould.
On 4 January 2023 a ventilation survey of the property was conducted, revealing high humidity levels at 76%. The surveyor also observed that the resident had a respiratory condition. As a result, the survey recommended an independent assessment of the property’s installations, which took place on 17 March 2023. Following this assessment, the landlord was advised to upgrade the extractor fans in both the kitchen and bathroom.
On 17 April 2023 the resident complained about ongoing mould problems that he claimed had been present in the flat since he purchased the lease. He stated that the landlord had not effectively addressed the issue and mentioned that other residents on the ground floor were experiencing similar problems.
On 3 May 2023 a stage 1 complaint response was issued. The landlord indicated that works had been raised to install new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, but the resident was unhappy with the fans supplied and refused the repair. It had rearranged the installation for 10 May 2023. the resident had previously declined the fan installations because they did not meet his expectations. The landlord would continue to be proactive in trying to establish any communal issues that it was responsible for repairs that could be a contributing factor to the mould.
The resident escalated his complaint on or around 30 June 2023. The resident confirmed that the landlord was aware of mould earlier than February 2022. He had not removed fans in the property and had only replaced the bathroom fan with a more efficient model.
On 24 July 2023, the landlord issued a stage 2 response, apologising for incorrectly stating that it was notified about damp and mould in February 2022. It acknowledged that it incorrectly said the bathroom fan had been removed when the resident replaced it. The landlord confirmed that the replacement fan had a lower output, contributing to the mould issue, but as the resident had replaced it, the landlord would not install a different model. The kitchen fan was scheduled to be replaced on 28 July 2023.
On 25 February 2024 the resident complained about the time the landlord took to replace the kitchen ventilation fan. He said the lack of appropriate ventilation in the kitchen had impacted his health and raised damp and mould in the property. The records show that the kitchen fan was installed on 23 April 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s options are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. After the landlord’s complaints process was completed, the resident raised further concerns about the front door and fire safety inspections. This did not form part of the complaint investigated by the landlord and has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
The landlord must be allowed to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before our service’s involvement. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint has been ruled outside of our jurisdiction. However, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident regarding his concerns to move this matter forward if it has not already done so. The resident can complain to the landlord if he remains dissatisfied with its handling of the matter.

Scope of investigation

The evidence shows that the resident has reported mould issues in his flat since 2021. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, usually within 12 months of the issue occurring. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for the landlord or an independent body to review the actions taken to address them effectively.
Considering this and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from February 2022, as the records indicate this was the beginning of events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint in April 2023. We have considered events following the landlord’s final response, as some repairs remained outstanding.
In his complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident reported that the damp and mould had caused or contributed to his and his wife’s ongoing health problems.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about their health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling damp and mould and the impact on health. However, this would more appropriately be considered by a court, where liability can be established.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs

The landlord has not provided a copy the lease agreement to this service. However, it has confirmed that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of the property and all external parts of the building, including ventilation.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to make emergency repairs safe within 4 hours. Repairs that are not emergencies will be attended to within 28 days.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy states that residents are responsible for arranging their own home contents insurance to cover loss of or damage to their personal possessions.
The landlord completed a visit to the resident’s property in February 2022. This service understands at that inspection, the landlord identified the bathroom ventilation fan needed repair.
A copy of that inspection report has not been provided to the Ombudsman. Therefore, it is not possible to verify:
1. when the problem was first reported by the resident and whether the time taken to inspect was reasonable
2. what repairs were identified at the time
In March 2022, the resident reported that the property was affected by damp and mould and was concerned about the impact this may have on his health. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment to determine the priority level for inspections and repairs. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The evidence indicates that the landlord completed repairs to the bathroom fan on 5 April 2022, which was at least 2 months after the resident reported the repair. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
Between May 2022 and June 2022, the resident asked the landlord to update him on what action it would take about the damp and mould. In response, the landlord told the resident to communicate with a specific officer and that the matter awaited updates from other departments before a response could be given. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a proactive approach to reports of damp and mould.
On 18 October 2022, the resident raised concerns about the return of damp and mould with the approaching winter and requested that the landlord conduct a damp and mould survey.
In November 2022, the landlord advised the resident to purchase a dehumidifier and open windows to ventilate the property. This was at least 8 months after the resident reported the damp and mould to the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been better for the resident if this guidance had been provided sooner. Furthermore, the landlord should have considered supplying the resident with a dehumidifier to help limit damage to the property and control mould growth.
The first damp and mould survey was completed in January 2023, 3 months after the resident’s request and 10 months after the initial report. The delay was neither reasonable nor unavoidable, indicating a failure by the landlord.
The surveyor reported that humidity levels in the property reached 76%, which was attributed to inadequate ventilation. The surveyor recommended that a ventilation company assess the extractor fans and propose necessary improvements. The report also noted respiratory issues within the household, indicating that the landlord should prioritise repairs and consider ways to assist the resident in mitigating the negative effects while waiting for those repairs to be completed.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould (October 2021) emphasised that landlords should adopt a risk-based approach. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord evaluated the household’s vulnerabilities. The lack of action in this regard constitutes a missed opportunity to assess the potential risks posed to the resident and his wife.
The property’s ventilation was inspected and assessed on 17 March 2023, 52 working days after the surveyor’s recommendation. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a surveyor to conduct an inspection, followed by assessments from an independent specialist and a ventilation expert. However, the delay in taking this action unnecessary delayed resolution of the damp and mould problem. Initiating it sooner would have helped prevent additional distress and inconvenience for the resident and delays in effectively resolving the issue.
The records indicate 5 follow-up appointments were scheduled between 14 March and 21 April 2024. These appointments were categorised as “contractor amendment” or “follow-on amendment.” The records lack sufficient detail to clarify the reasons behind the additional delays. It is unclear whether the landlord was solely responsible for these delays, as its stage 1 response indicated that the resident had refused the fan installation. Since we have been unable to contact the resident, we cannot verify his account of events.
The evidence indicates that a new bathroom fan was installed on 4 July 2023, 73 working days after the recommendation was made. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
The kitchen fan was installed on 23 April 2024, which was 279 working days after the recommendation was made. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a significant failure by the landlord and was not consistent with its policy.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in completing the repairs and apologised for this. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the resident ought to be compensated for the failures it had identified.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in handling the reports of damp and mould and its handling of the associated repairs. This is because there is no evidence that the landlord:
1. inspected the damp and mould within a reasonable time
2. assessed the risk to the resident as outlined in its policy
3. completed the repairs it identified within a reasonable time
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £400 compensation for these delays and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is consistent with this service’s guidance on remedies where there has been an adverse impact.

Record keeping

As noted throughout this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has not maintained adequate records. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail’.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) published in May 2023 states that ‘the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress’.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s record-keeping hindered the management of repairs. This affected the landlord’s ability to address the substantive issue and the related complaint, resulting in delays and contributing to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Several issues have been identified, including a lack of repair reports detailing the work carried out, missing inspection reports from February 2022, inaccurate responses to complaints, and repair records which lack meaningful detail. As a result, this service has been unable to conduct a thorough investigation to establish an accurate timeline of events, including the reasons for delays. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the front door and fire safety are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation comprising:
  1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, and time delay caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed unless the resident advises otherwise.
  3. Provide evidence of the above payments to the Ombudsman.
3. Complete a post-work inspection to check the damp and mould issue has been resolved, if it has not already done so.
4. The landlord should advise the resident on how to submit an insurance claim via its insurers for any damage caused to personal items.
5. The landlord must advise the Ombudsman of its intention regarding this order, also within 4 weeks.
Following the determination of case 202230744, the landlord was ordered under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to review its record-keeping practices. As the landlord has complied with this review and taken steps to improve its practices, no further orders have been made.