Anchor Hanover Group (202312182)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312182

Anchor Hanover Group

20 March 2025

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:

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Miscommunication about water charges for the property.
Handling of the end of the resident’s tenancy and the charges it has made for works to the property.

Background

2. The residents were joint assured tenants of the landlord. Their tenancy started on 1 September 2020 and ended on 2 April 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor retirement flat. For clarity, the word ‘resident’ is used within the report to describe the actions of both residents, either jointly or individually.

3. The landlord had no record of the resident’s health conditions. The resident has told us that they have a range of health conditions. These include heart failure, rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety and depression.

4. The resident first reported that the external guttering was leaking on 10 March 2021. The resident reported the issue to the landlord again on 7 September 2022. In reply the landlord said that it was aware of the issues with the guttering. It had scheduled for these to be cleared in November 2022, at the end of the leaf fall season. It said that it would continue to monitor these issues.

5. On 7 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report damp in their home. The resident said that this had affected both the carpets and the blinds. The resident also reported that water was coming in through the kitchen window due to a leak from the guttering above. The resident followed this up with the landlord on 6 December 2022. It arranged to visit the resident on 9 December 2022.

6. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 December 2022, enclosing photographs of the exterior of the property. The landlord told the resident that it had arranged for its surveyor to visit the estate on 4 January 2023. It said that the surveyor had viewed earlier photographs of the inside of the property. The surveyor had said that what they showed was “typical of condensation related mould”. The landlord gave general advice on heating and ventilating the home and provided a help sheet entitled “dealing with mould growth”.

7. The landlord completed a “don’t walk by” survey on 5 January 2023. It found damp patches in 2 areas on the external walls of the building. It recorded that it would monitor these and check them again on its next inspection. It further recorded that the guttering had been repaired.

8. The resident moved out of their home on or around 1 April 2023. The tenancy ended on Sunday 2 April 2023. The landlord completed its end of tenancy inspection on 4 April 2023. The landlord’s case notes show that the resident had initially given notice to move out of their home on 2 February 2023, extending this to 28 February 2023. The resident had continued to live at the property until the end of March 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 May 2023 to tell them that arrears were outstanding on their rent account following the end of their tenancy. In this it also said that following its inspection it had found that some redecoration was needed to the property and that this was rechargeable to the resident. The resident responded directly asking for details of the works needed and said that they had left the property clean and tidy. The landlord agreed to provide photographs and a schedule of the works to be done.

9. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 12 May 2023. In this the resident said:

The landlord’s inspection had been completed after they had left the property. They had removed all the carpets and left the property clean and free of rubbish. They had been unable to remove the mould from the windows.
The landlord had not dealt with the black mould within the property. The resident said that this had affected their health. Further, the resident believed that this had been caused by the leaking guttering.
The landlord had said, when they moved in, that they could do what they liked with the flat. The resident had decorated the flat and painted the doors white. The resident had also fitted new carpets and flooring.
The landlord had told them that water charges were included. The resident had recently received a large bill from the water authority.
The landlord’s contractor had broken the toilet. The landlord was aware of this, and had only completed a temporary repair.
The resident was very upset by the prospect of receiving a bill for works to the property.

10. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 May 2023. In reply it responded to each point raised by the resident. It said:

Mould and damp: It had visited the property following the resident’s initial reports and provided advice on cleaning the surfaces affected. It said that “the black mould was perceived to be surface mould caused by condensation”. It had arranged for its property surveyor to visit but, at the time of his visit, he had been refused access due to the ill health of the resident. It didn’t receive a request to rearrange the visit. Once the property was empty it was able to “establish that the mould on the windows and wall was due to condensation and air circulation”.
Water Charges: The officer identified by the resident denied that they had said that the water charges were included. It apologised if there had been a misunderstanding. The tenancy agreement set out that the monthly payments were for rent and service charges only. “Subsequent paperwork would have given an explanation and breakdown of these costs”.
End of tenancy property inspection: Its local manager had been unable to agree a convenient date with the resident, despite several attempts. It confirmed that a full inspection would only be carried out when a property was empty. It went on to list the items that it found needed to be done and provided photographs. These were:
1. Glossing of all woodwork (Doors, Skirtings all rooms) as these had been painted with emulsion and were stained with black marks, especially on the doors.
2. The walls in the living room, hallway and bedrooms were marked with holes. “These will be filled and repainted in magnolia to freshen up”.
3. The Kitchen required a couple of big holes to be filled, missing tiles to be replaced and again “freshen up with paint on walls”.
4. The kitchen door was to be re-hung the right way round.
5. Most of the electric sockets required cleaning as there was paint on them. It may need to replace some of these.
6. The flat required a full clean to be in a lettable state.
Recharges: The tenancy agreement says that the resident must leave the property in a state which meets its lettable standard. It accepted that the resident may have been unclear as to what that standard was. Its officer had “made every attempt” to arrange a visit to provide guidance. It said that the property had been left in a condition that was not acceptable. It would provide a detailed breakdown of the work needed. It upheld its decision to recharge the resident to “make good” the property.
Request for compensation and recharges to be removed: The landlord said it had tried to investigate the reports of mould and rectify any contributing factors in the property. It had tried to visit but the resident had been unable to provide access. It was unable to agree to the request for compensation. On the recharge it said that it “had acted fairly, with impartiality and within the terms of the tenancy agreement”.

11. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. They asked for their complaint to be escalated on 6 June 2023. The resident said that the landlord’s reply had been biased and incorrect. The resident said that the kitchen had not been tiled, and it was not their responsibility to retile it. Further the black mould had been due to damp and the other issues found were due to wear and tear. The resident said that they had left the property as asked, the local manager being on holiday at the time.

12. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2023. It apologised that it had not had the opportunity to speak with the resident before responding. It set out the details of the resident’s complaint and the outcome they wanted. It said that it had provided a detailed response at stage 1 and there was little to add to what it had already shared with them. It said it wanted “to try and give further clarity on why [it] believe[s] you have an obligation to pay the outstanding charges”. It said that:

The resident had highlighted 2 issues which they said contributed to poor living conditions. These were a broken toilet and damp within the property.
Its officer was aware that its contractor had broken the toilet. It said that the resident had told its contractor that they would be replacing the bathroom. The contractor had offered to replace the toilet or make a payment towards the replacement. It had been waiting for the resident to confirm what action they wanted the landlord to take, but they had not done so.
It had provided a detailed response at stage 1 about the mould and “therefore there is nothing further [it] can add”.
The charges outstanding were for:
1. rent arrears for the period they had extended their tenancy end date.
2. the condition the property had been left in and the work needed to bring it back to a lettable standard.
It was sorry that this had caused the resident distress and worry. While this was not its intention it was important that it discussed any charges outstanding.
It had agreed to the resident’s request to extend their tenancy termination date but had not agreed to this being rent free. They were liable for the charges outstanding on their account.
It provided a definition of what it considered to be a lettable standard. It said “we would expect a property to be handed back in the same condition as it was taken. New tenants should be able to move into the property without having to fill holes in walls, redecorate or clean the property. Unfortunately, your property was not handed back in a condition that would allow us to relet it without carrying out remedial work and cleaning it”.
It had provided photographs of the property as evidence that it was not left in a suitable condition. It considered the charges applied were both fair and reasonable. It could not waive these charges.

13. The landlord sent a revised version of its complaint response to the resident on 4 July 2023. This included confirmation that it had spoken with the resident on 15 June 2023. It noted that the resident had asked that it include the detail of the charges. It listed the outstanding charges as follows:

Rent arrears of £1,419.16
Recharge for works to bring the property back to a lettable standard: £2,880.

14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 July 2023 enclosing a copy of its empty property inspection form and its contractor’s invoice for the works carried out. The invoice showed a total charge of £2,880, including £480 VAT for redecorating and cleaning the flat. The landlord provided the following breakdown of the costs:

£350 for the removal and disposal of carpet underlay, blinds and lampshades.
£1700 for redecoration works throughout the property. This included the repair and preparation of walls and woodwork, mould removal to 2 window areas and rust treatment on the lounge radiator.
£350 for a deep clean of the property. This included all socket fronts as they were painted over with wall emulsion paint. Further the bathroom had needed extra attention.

15. In August 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to this service. The resident disputed the content of the landlord’s complaint response and said that they wanted the recharges removed. Further, the resident said that they had accommodated viewings of the property ahead of their move. They feel that the landlord did not give them an opportunity to do the works required themselves.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

16. The resident has told us that the presence of damp and mould in their home caused damage to their carpets and blinds. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”

17. This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for damage to possessions. It can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

18. The resident has told the Service that the issues complained of have had a negative impact on their physical and mental health. The resident highlighted the stress caused by receiving a bill for works to their former home, alongside the impact of living with damp and mould. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

Landlord’s obligations, policy and procedure

19. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.

20. Section 2 of the resident’s tenancy agreement captures the detail of the landlord’s obligations to carry out repairs to the property. This includes the maintenance of the exterior of the property, with specific reference to drains, gutters and external pipes. These reflect the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

21. The landlord’s website has information for its residents on how to report a repair. This provides examples of the type of repairs that it will deal with, together with how quickly it will do these. These are split into 3 categories:

emergency works to be completed within 24 hours.
urgent repairs to be done within 5 working days.
routine repairs to be done within 20 working days.

22. The landlord has a policy for recharging tenants. The policy gives examples where it may consider recharging a resident. These include “internal condition of the property does not meet the lettable standard, for example unclear properties and poor condition decoration”. It says that the local manager should speak to the resident where it is considering recharging them. The policy says that dependant on the situation it may offer the resident the option to remedy the problem. In these circumstances this is to be agreed with its repairs manager.

23. The landlord’s guidance for staff on managing resident’s moving in and out of its homes says that it should complete both a pre-void and an empty property inspection. It says that the pre-void inspection should be completed with the resident as soon after they have given notice that they are leaving as possible. The landlord should ensure that this inspection is completed and explain to the outgoing resident the importance of this. The guidance says that the form should still be completed even if access is refused. This is because it provides reminders for other actions to be taken such as booking electrical checks and checking property information.

24. The guidance says that the pre void inspection should be used to check the general condition of the property. The officer should speak to the resident about repairs or redecoration needed. It is also an opportunity to explain about the possibility of it recharging for works. It says that the landlord is to keep a record of the steps taken to arrange access with the resident on its internal systems. The landlord is to complete an empty property inspection form once the resident has moved out. This guidance refers to its recharge policy where the costs of works may be recovered.

25. This guidance also refers to new tenants. It says that new tenants are to be given information about any outstanding works, any decoration allowance agreed and photographs of the property when they move in.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

26. When investigating a case, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right and learn from outcomes.

27. 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 within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord must consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.

28. Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their property. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are prompt and reflect the urgency of the issue.

29. The resident first raised a concern that damp and mould was present in their flat on 7 November 2022. At the time they said that this was affecting both their carpet and blinds. They further raised a concern that this was linked to a leak from the external guttering, reporting that water was coming through their kitchen window. Following further contact from the resident the local manager arranged to visit the resident on 9 December 2022. No record of the outcome of this visit has been provided. It is however referred to in the landlord’s complaint response where it said that it had provided advice on cleaning the surfaces affected.

30. The resident provided photographs to the landlord on 22 December 2022 of the exterior of the property, showing dampness on the walls. The landlord replied to say that its surveyor would visit on 4 January 2023. Further, it said, the surveyor had seen earlier photographs and said that the mould was caused by condensation. The landlord again provided advice on managing condensation and sent the resident a leaflet on dealing with mould growth. While it was reasonable for the landlord to provide advice on managing condensation, it should have taken further steps. It would have been appropriate for it to clean and treat the areas affected by mould. It should also have arranged for mechanical ventilation in the property to be checked. These steps could have dealt with the immediate issue of mould growth. They would also have worked alongside the advice given to the resident on managing condensation, providing a basis to monitor the reappearance of any mould in the future. That it did not take these steps was a failure by the landlord.

31. The resident had also expressed a concern that the source of the damp was external following leaks to the guttering. An inspection by its surveyor was arranged, but when the resident did not allow access, the landlord did not take steps to rearrange this visit. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take proactive steps to rearrange the appointment, rather than waiting for the resident to make contact. That it did not do so was a failure.

32. Its external inspection on 5 January 2023 found areas of damp on the external wall. While the survey does not record the exact location of these, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out further checks to see if these were reflected inside the building, either in the communal areas or adjoining flats. Instead, it recorded that it would monitor these areas and check on its next inspection. This was not carried out until 21 July 2023. There was a failure by the landlord to act on its findings and either carry out further inspections or take appropriate remedial action.

33. The landlord did not take any proactive steps to address the resident’s concerns about damp and mould within their home. As outlined it should have arranged for works to remove the reported mould and pursue access for its a further surveyor to complete an inspection. That it did not act amounts to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports.

34. The landlord has shared its policy on damp, mould and condensation introduced in January 2024. This sets out its zero tolerance approach to damp and mould within its properties. It is not known if a similar policy was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. It is recommended that the landlord ensure that all its staff have received training on dealing with reports of damp and mould.

Miscommunication about water charges for the property

35. In their complaint, the resident said that they had been told that they did not have to pay for water. They believed that this was paid by the landlord. Since vacating the property, they had received a bill for the water charges through the period of their tenancy. In its complaint response the landlord has disputed the resident’s claim about what they were told. In evidence to this service, it has provided a document entitled ‘start of tenancy notes’. This is a record of the information provided to the resident when they viewed the property in August 2020. This also lists works to be done to the property ahead of the resident moving in. This records that the resident was told that they had to pay for their own gas, electric and water usage. It is unclear if these notes were made at the time of the conversation with the resident or were recorded later. Within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that there may have been a misunderstanding on this point. It appropriately apologised for this misunderstanding.

36. The resident’s tenancy agreement has a breakdown for the monthly charges for the property. There is a list of 4 defined headings with charges only shown against rent and service charge. There is no charge shown for heating and hot water or water charges. Section 1 point 7 of the tenancy agreement refers to water charges. This is marked as “if applicable”. It says that “where the landlord collects charges the resident must pay water charges to it as shown in the charges listed above”. As no charge is shown it can be determined that the landlord was not responsible for the collection of the water charge. The resident would therefore have been liable to make payments direct to the relevant water supplier.

37. The Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. The position of the resident and the landlord about the information provided when they accepted the tenancy differs. The tenancy agreement clearly sets out charges that were in place. The water charge is not included. As the landlord offered the resident an apology through its complaint response it is considered that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

Handling of the end of the resident’s tenancy and the charges it has made for works to the property

38. As outlined above the landlord has a recharge policy. This sets out the circumstances where it may recharge a resident and includes charges following the end of a tenancy. The resident’s tenancy agreement includes a clause of 5.2 that sets out what is expected of them when ending their tenancy and moving out. The landlord is entitled to recover costs where a property is not left in a good lettable condition. The tenancy does specify that this is subject to fair wear and tear. In considering the resident’s complaint we have used our dispute resolution principles to consider if the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances.

39. The resident told the landlord that they intended to leave the property on 2 February 2023. This was extended to 28 February 2023 before being extended again to the end of March 2023. Despite this extended period of notice the landlord did not complete a pre-void inspection. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that “despite several attempts” its local manager had been unable to arrange a visit to carry out an inspection. No evidence has been provided by the landlord of its attempts to contact the resident or of any discussions it may have had with the resident prior to them vacating the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept records of its unsuccessful contact. That it did not do so is a failure in its record keeping.

40. As the landlord did not complete a pre-void inspection, in line with its guidance to staff, there was no opportunity for it to discuss with the resident its expectations or identify items that the resident should clean or repair before leaving the property. It completed its empty property inspection on 4 April 2023 but did not contact the resident until 11 May 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident directly after its inspection to discuss the issues highlighted and give an opportunity for the resident to arrange for the repairs themselves. That it did not do so was a failing.

41. Through its complaint responses the landlord set out what it considered to be a lettable standard and the works that it had found needed to be carried out. Both the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policy for recharging resident’s refers to the property meeting a lettable standard. There is no evidence that the resident was told what its lettable standard was. The tenancy agreement is clear that this is subject to wear and tear. Wear and tear may be defined as “the gradual damage that happens to something over time due to normal use”. The inclusion of redecoration within the works recharged to the resident, specifically referring to a need to “freshen up” the property indicates that it did not appropriately consider wear and tear through the 3 years of the resident’s tenancy.

42. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord gave a definition of what it considered to be a lettable standard. It said that it expected a property to be handed back in the same condition as it was taken. This does not recognise wear and tear through the period of the tenancy and is contrary to its tenancy agreement. As such this definition is inappropriate.

43. Further within its stage 2 response it addressed the resident’s report that it did not complete a repair to their toilet following damage caused by its contractor. The landlord said that it was waiting for further contact from the resident as they had said that they intended to replace the bathroom. This is an inappropriate response. The landlord has a clear responsibility to keep its properties in good repair and it should not be setting an expectation that its resident’s will carry out significant repairs within their homes.

44. In its breakdown of the charges the landlord has said that it had to remove carpet underlay, blinds and lampshades from the property. The landlord’s own records made at the start of their tenancy show that the underlay was in place when the resident moved in, along with blinds that it later removed. It is therefore not unreasonable for the resident to have left these in place. The landlord has raised a charge for a deep clean to the property, referring to the removal of mould and rust to a radiator. These are alongside the charge for redecorating the property throughout. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to seek alternative quotes for the works it said were needed to the property. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so to show value for money in the costs it was looking to recover. Further, as outlined above it also did not give the resident the opportunity to carry out the works themselves, or to arrange for their own contractor. It would have been fairer in the circumstances for the landlord to have done so.

45. While the landlord is entitled to recharge the resident for repairs to the property after they have left its actions lack fairness. It did not discuss the issue with the resident in advance, despite the resident having given almost 3 months’ notice of their intension to leave. There was also a delay in it contacting the resident about its intention to recharge them, and a further delay in confirming the amount it intended to charge. It is considered that there was maladministration in its handling of this issue. The landlord must reconsider its decision to recharge the resident for works to their former home. It is suggested that the charges for redecoration, considering wear and tear, and the removal of underlay that was in place when the resident moved in should not be made. The landlord should further provide its rational for applying the charges it intends to pursue.

Determination

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

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s miscommunication about the water charges for the property, which resulted in the resident receiving a large water utility bill.

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the end of the resident’s tenancy and the charges it has made for works to the property.

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:

Apologise to the resident for the failures identified within this report. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
Pay the resident £350 compensation calculated as follows:
1. £250 for its failure to address the reported issues of damp and mould.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by it recharging repairs to their former home.

50. The landlord must review its decision to recharge the resident for works to their former home. It should consider the recommendations of the Service. Where it intends to pursue a charge against the resident it must provide its rationale for applying each charge. Copies of its communication with the resident must be provided as evidence of its compliance.

51. Within 16 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:

52. Carry out a review of its policy and practice around recharging residents for works to their former homes following the termination of their tenancy. The landlord should consider the failings identified in this report. It must:

Review the applicable policy and procedure. As part of its review, it must consider how it can ensure fairness in the implementation of its recharge policy.
The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area or landlord.
Provide training for the relevant staff on recharging former residents.
Provide a copy of its review report to the Ombudsman, together with its training schedule for staff as evidence of its compliance with this order.
The review and action plan should be shared with its governing body for its consideration.
Commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after it has finalised the report, to ensure changes in practice have been embedded

Recommendations

53. The landlord should ensure that all its staff have received training on dealing with reports of damp and mould.

54. The landlord should consider the introduction of a checklist to be used with new tenants to ensure that advice is given about utility providers and other local services.