Amplius Living (202326029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326029

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

13 September 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The tenancy started in May 2019. The landlord is a housing association which owns the freehold of the property. The landlord advised it has no record of any health vulnerabilities for any member of the household.
The resident initially reported damp and mould at the property on 23 October 2020. She says she experienced issues from the start of her tenancy. The landlord treated the resident’s reports as a complaint, apologised for its repair service failure and advised it had “arranged a property manager to address the issues.” It credited the resident’s rent account with £50. The resident says the landlord did not attend the property to complete its first inspection of damp and mould until 2021. She described the landlord’s communication as poor and said no repairs were started to resolve matters.
On 20 March 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint with the landlord. She advised the damp and mould was getting worse. While the landlord had completed another property inspection in 2022, she says the landlord failed to provide her with any updates of the action it would take to remedy the issues. This included that a plant was growing through an internal wall of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 March 2023. It apologised for delays to complete repairs to the damp and mould at the property. It informed the resident that it would contact her directly to arrange appointments to complete the necessary work.
The resident remained dissatisfied following receipt of the landlord’s stage 1 response. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 31 March 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 14 September 2023. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the time taken to organise the required repairs at the property.
2. Required roofing work had now been completed.
3. It understood further work was required to the property’s damp proof course. It was working with its contractors to identify the root cause to rectify the issues for the resident.
4. Apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delays to complete repairs and offered £100 compensation.
The resident brought her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service on 30 October 2023. She said there had been damp and mould at the property since moving in in May 2019. While the landlord had inspected the property in 2021, 2022, and 2023, it had done nothing to remedy the problem since her first complaint in October 2020. Her complaint became one we could formally consider on 21 May 2024.
During communication with the resident on 28 August 2024, she informed us that the landlord decanted her family from the property on 12 August 2024. She remained in an Airbnb, arranged by the landlord, while it completed damp proofing repairs. The resident said household members had experienced issues with their health and her children had required time off school due to frequent coughs and colds. She considered the presence of damp responsible. Furthermore, she considered the landlord should provide compensation for loss of earnings while she took time off work.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note from the resident’s correspondence that she expressed concern that the presence of damp and mould at the property affected the health and wellbeing of household members. We do not doubt these comments. She also considered compensation was due for loss of earnings.
While we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. We are therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her or her families health, or personal finances.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This obligation is acknowledged in paragraph 2.6 of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not supplied evidence of its actions to remedy the resident’s reports of damp and mould on multiple walls in the property in October 2020. It is therefore unclear what action, if any, the landlord took to inspect and address the resident’s concerns at this stage. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. The landlord’s failure to provide this information indicates poor record keeping and information management practices.
While we are not assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint, it is not disputed that she raised the issue of damp and mould in October 2020. Nor is it disputed by the landlord that inspections of the resident’s property were completed in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Although the landlord has not supplied evidence of the 2021 inspection, it is reasonable that we consider and assess the landlord’s its actions to provide the resident with a lasting repair. Therefore, our investigation has considered the landlord’s actions from the resident’s original report and complaint in October 2020.
However, apart from confirmation of its offer of £50 compensation in August 2021, the landlord has not provided any relevant repair records to explain its actions between October 2020 to August 2021. This has further affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events and indicates a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s relevant repairs policy has pre-assigned categories for prioritising repairs. The response times range from 4 to 24 hours for a priority repair and within 20 to 30 working days for a routine repair. The landlord’s policy is silent in regard to how it decides which repairs will be completed within 20 or 30 working days.
The resident says she continued to chase the landlord for repair updates in 2021 to 2022. She says the landlord’s communication remained poor at this time. She says she frequently washed the mould from the property’s walls herself. It is unclear from the evidence supplied by the landlord what action it took after it acknowledged its failure in August 2021. However, there is evidence it completed a property inspection 7 months later, on 1 March 2022.
Given the resident’s reports of an ongoing damp and mould issue, it is unclear why the landlord has not been able to demonstrate the actions it took to remedy the resident’s concerns. Nor has it explained the delays at this time to complete a property inspection or begin repairs. The delay to complete an inspection or start repairs was not appropriate. It did not demonstrate the landlord adhered to its responsive repair timescales and left the resident in conditions she considered to be affecting the health of household members.
The landlord’s inspection report of 1 March 2022 identified multiple repairs that may have been contributing to the property’s damp and mould. This included:
1. Clean and clear a blocked gully.
2. Install an extractor fan.
3. Remove and fix roof tiles and roof lead flashing.
4. Rake out and point mortar to external brickwork.
The report recorded photographs of water staining, black mould, damage to the resident’s decoration and wallpapering, and the image of a plant growing through an internal wall. The landlord also took a photograph of its moisture meter readings. This identified the walls as “at risk.” Given this information, it is unclear why the landlord has been unable to demonstrate the steps it took at this stage to investigate the damp or how plants were able to penetrate the property’s internal wall. This did not demonstrate a landlord meeting its LTA 1985 obligations.
There is evidence the landlord raised a roof repair on 1 March 2022 and works were recorded as completed by 7 March 2022. This included clearing the blocked gully. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s responsive repair timescales.
However, we note that the extractor fan and mortar repairs remained outstanding. There is evidence between March 2022 to May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to reschedule the fan installation. She advised she would contact the landlord. Consequently, the landlord awaited the resident’s availability. It was therefore reasonable for this particular repair to remain outstanding at this stage. However, there is evidence as of 5 November 2022 that the mortar repair also remained outstanding.
The landlord’s repair records state the mortar repair job was not completed in March 2022 due to “adverse weather.” While this explanation is reasonable, there is no record of how the landlord monitored this repair or how it communicated any plans to reschedule this work with the resident. A delay of approximately 7 months was not appropriate. It demonstrated poor communication and the landlord’s failure to complete a responsive repair within its repair policy timescales.
On 11 April 2022 there is evidence the resident contacted the landlord. She asked for an update regarding damp and mould work. She reminded the landlord it had been 6 weeks since its last visit and asked for an update on proposed repairs. No evidence has been supplied by the landlord which explains the cause of any delays. Nor has it supplied evidence of its communication to provide an action plan and repair timescales to the resident. This demonstrates poor communication by the landlord which did nothing to improve the resident and landlord relationship.
There is evidence on 14 December 2022 where the landlord informed a damp and timber preservation specialist that it had not received a report for the resident’s property. It is therefore a concern that the contractor advised the landlord that it never received an order from it to complete a survey. This demonstrated the landlord’s failure to effectively monitor outstanding repairs or the actions of its contractors. This was not appropriate and further demonstrates the landlord’s record keeping failures and failure to complete repairs within its responsive repair timescales.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. There is evidence in this case that staff failed to appropriately record or monitor outstanding work until the resident chased for updates. These delays led to the resident experiencing further time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
There is evidence on 15 December 2022 which confirms the landlord had previously been aware of plants growing through the internal wall of the resident’s property. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what action it took, if any, to inspect or assess the original reports. What is of concern to us is the landlord’s records refer to the incident happening in 2014 when a former resident occupied the home. It states the work was “closed as the previous customer carried out the work themselves.” No evidence has been supplied which demonstrates the landlord inspected the property’s walls itself or completed any work to prevent it happening again. This did not demonstrate a landlord meeting its obligations under the LTA 1985.
On 13 January 2023 a specialist damp and timber preservation specialist completed an inspection of the property. Its report advised the landlord of:
1. Rising dampness in the walls of the property.
2. The presence of black mould in the property.
3. The benefits of fitting a more powerful extractor fan in the bathroom and ground floor wet room.
4. The need to hack off internal plaster, insert waterproofing fluid to the mortar, and reinstate incorporating waterproofing.
The resident says the specialist contractor informed her in January 2023 that the property’s damp proof course needed urgent attention. She says it advised her that it considered the work essential and should be done before other repairs. The resident says the contractor said this was necessary to prevent the damp and mould recurring. It is therefore unclear from the evidence supplied why the landlord did not start works in line with the contractors recommendations or communicate its proposed action plan with the resident.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. Given the ongoing reports from the resident which started in October 2020, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it considered its obligations under HHSRS or consider the increased risk to the resident and household members.
The resident considered it necessary to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP in March 2023. She considered the landlord’s communication poor and it had failed to start and or complete repairs to remedy the damp and mould since October 2020. On 9 August 2023 there is evidence the landlord identified additional work required at the property. It said it had only become aware of these repairs having identified failures made by its complaint handler. The repairs included:
1. To install a new fan in the upstairs bathroom.
2. Overhaul a fan in the downstairs wet room.
3. To install a new fan in the kitchen.
4. Plaster works to the halls, stairs, and landings.
5. Additional roofing works to the chimney, vents, gutters, and roof verge.
6. Mould washes.
7. A new front door and frame.
The landlord’s internal communication on this date discussed the resident’s “insistence” that it complete damp proofing work, as identified by the specialist contractors. There is evidence the landlord questioned whether this work was necessary and believed the damp proof course had been renewed 12 years prior. However, it states that there was “no guarantee to be found.” This does not demonstrate the landlord having effective record keeping practices in place and contributed to its delayed decision making.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to consider previous work, it has to demonstrate how it ensured the resident was kept informed of any potential delays or justification of its decision making processes. The evidence indicates the landlord’s communication was poor and she expressed dissatisfaction regarding this. This caused her further time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
We note the landlord’s evidence states it attempted to contact the resident between July 2023 to October 2023. The landlord states, “after 10 attempts” and the resident’s refusal to engage, it closed a job to strip wallpaper and mould wash walls. There is further evidence in January and April 2024 where the landlord states there had been “multiple failed appointments.” The resident disputes this.
The resident says:
1. She repeatedly chased the landlord for updates and continued to wash the mould herself. She could not afford to continue taking time off work and needed the landlord to address the root cause of the damp and mould.
2. She explained the landlord had completed multiple surveys since 2021 but done nothing each time to address matters. She explained she was exhausted by the amount of time it had taken to raise and repeat her concerns to the landlord.
3. The landlord’s specialist damp and timber preservation contractor said it was pointless completing internal work without first fixing the damp proof course. Therefore, she requested call backs from the landlord to discuss the order of proposed repairs as she sought to minimise disruption and further loss of earnings. The resident says the landlord did not return her calls.
While we acknowledge water penetration issues are often difficult to detect, the time taken to remedy the resident’s repair was unreasonable. The landlord was put on notice in October 2020 that the property was experiencing damp and mould. Furthermore, it had historic records that plants had penetrated the property’s internal wall. However, there is no evidence of the landlord’s actions to investigate or resolve this issue. Also, it was unreasonable for the landlord to fail or delay orders for specialist damp surveys and delays to implement the recommendations made within these reports. These delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Although it is reasonable to seek a second opinion, the timeframe between these actions was unreasonable. There is evidence that one specialist returned twice between 2022 and 2023 and a second contractor in June 2024. Given that the landlord had received reports from 2020, it is unclear why she was only decanted in August 2024. Therefore, she had experienced damp and mould conditions for almost 4 years.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used. This includes sharing the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
Had the landlord adopted the approach set out in these recommendations, it may have avoided the service failings identified in this report. Although it is not disputed the landlord made attempts to fix the property’s roof, and there are disputed access issues, this was not sufficient mitigation for the landlord’s identified delays and failures. It had been put on notice from October 2020 yet failed to demonstrate taking the required action to provide the resident with a permanent remedy until August 2024.
In summary, the landlord’s failures amount to severe maladministration. The landlord failed to show a clear repair audit trail, failed to demonstrate an effective action plan strategy throughout its handling of her repair, and its poor communication caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience pursuing the matter with the landlord. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to evidence that it had completed the repairs in a reasonable amount of time. Nor has it demonstrated that it has successfully resolved the repair.
We have therefore determined it appropriate to order the landlord to provide financial redress which recognises the resident did not have full enjoyment of the property. A 10% amenity loss calculation has therefore been applied. It is reasonable for us to consider the resident’s first report of damp and mould on 23 October 2020 to the date she was decanted, 24 August 2024. A total of 198 weeks.
To achieve the amenity loss calculation, we have considered the weekly rent for the property in 2019 and 2023 of £119.06 and £139.19, respectively. The average of which is £129.12 per week. While we recognise that this will not provide an exact rent average for the years in between these dates, it is a reasonable sum for us to use in the circumstances. Therefore, the loss of amenity calculation has been calculated as follows:
1. 10% of the rent for 198 weeks at £129.12 per week = £2,556.58
Based on our findings, the landlord is also ordered to pay the resident an additional £1,000 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, a resident can expect a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This is appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint on 20 March 2023. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect the landlord to acknowledge her complaint by 27 March 2023 and provided its stage 1 response by 3 April 2023. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord achieved both these deadlines. This met the expectations of the Code.
However, while its response was within expected response timescales, it provided little information to the resident. Its resolution was a vague explanation that it would contact her directly to arrange an appointment to complete the repairs. No information was provided to inform the resident when she could expect a call, or what learning the landlord had taken from her complaint.
Furthermore, the landlord’s correspondence suggested that it had commenced the closure of the resident’s complaint. This did nothing to provide the resident with reassurance that her repairs would be addressed nor improve the landlord resident relationship.
Paragraph 5.4 of the Code (April 2022) states where the problem is a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident. Given she had raised the same issue in 2020 and reported that no work had been undertaken to remedy the problem, the landlord failed to comply with the expectations of the Code. Its stage 1 response in particular, failed to demonstrate a thorough investigation of previous complaints and property inspections. Nor did it provide the resident with an action plan to remedy her repair needs.
Paragraph 5.10 of the Code (April 2022) states on receipt of the escalation request, landlords must set out their understanding of issues outstanding and the outcomes the resident is seeking. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
There is evidence the resident first asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 31 March 2022. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect an acknowledgement by 10 April 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 2 May 2023. The landlord failed to achieve either of these timescales. This was not appropriate and not in line with the landlord’s complaint’s policy or expectations of the Code.
Furthermore, between 31 March 2023 to 27 July 2023 there is evidence of 7 occasions where the resident informed the landlord of her continued dissatisfaction and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its ICP. While there is evidence the landlord continued to communicate with the resident, it failed to provide her with any escalation acknowledgement. This was not appropriate and demonstrated a complaint handling training need.
There is evidence on 9 August 2023 that the landlord identified the complaint handling failures and discussed the matter internally. However, no evidence has been supplied to demonstrate what action the landlord took to provide training or apply learning from the identified failures. This did not demonstrate a landlord taking steps to put things right to minimise a similar failing recurring.
The landlord provided a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 9 August 2023 and its stage 2 final response on 14 September 2024. We note the landlord’s improved complaint handling process at this stage and its communication with the resident on 7 September 2023 to request a complaint response extension. However, given the resident’s original escalation request of 31 March 2023, the landlord’s final response was 95 working days beyond its stage 2 complaint response timescale.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response on 14 September 2023 apologised for the inconvenience of the delayed repairs and offered £100 compensation. However, there was no apology or separate offer of compensation for the identified complaint handling failures. Given the landlord had recognised and discussed its failures internally, it is unclear why it took no action to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles encourage learning from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to acknowledge its complaint handling delays, and failed to set out what steps it would take to prevent similar failings happening again. This was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate recognising the effects its failures had on the resident and would therefore be unable to learn from it.
In view of this, the accumulation of complaint handling service failures requires a finding of maladministration. The landlord has failed to address the detriment caused to the resident and is ordered to pay the resident £200. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to write to the resident and apologise for the findings of this report.
2. Pay the resident £3,756.58 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £2,556.58 in recognition of the loss of amenity caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property.
  2. £1,000 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the property. £100 offered at stage 2 can be deducted from this sum, if already paid.
  3. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case to find what went wrong and what it would do differently. This should be presented to the senior leadership team and a copy supplied to us within 8 weeks. It should include assessment against the Ombudsman’s damp and mould, repairs, and knowledge and information management Spotlight reports, unless the landlord can demonstrate it has done these within the last 12 months. The report should include:
1. An assessment of the landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to reports of damp and mould, both before and after inspections are carried out. This should include how it will ensure that repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale.
2. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping residents updated with repair information and or complaint responses.
3. It should consider any identified staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, and maintains repair records. This should reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.