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

Aster Group Limited (202324151)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324151

Aster Group Limited

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the residents concerns around the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The process of temporarily rehousing the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling. 

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under an assured tenancy. The landlord is a housing association. The resident is diagnosed with depression and anxiety.
  2. The property was a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The resident moved into the property on 28 July 2021, and she moved out of the property on 3 January 2023 on an emergency basis. The resident lived in the flat with her children. The resident was pregnant when she reported damp and mould to her landlord, when the resident filed a complaint to the landlord, she had subsequently given birth to her youngest child.
  3. The resident first reported mould in the property to her landlord in October 2021, and she made three further reports to her landlord about mould in 2022. The resident said the landlord cleaned the mould in two rooms and repainted the affected area, but the mould quickly came back. In October and November 2022, the resident and her health visitor raised concerns about the mould.
  4. On 11 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. In her complaint the resident expressed dissatisfaction for the following:
    1. The landlord had previously told her the windows in the property needed changing due to the condensation they were causing, but it had not conducted these repairs.
    2. Mould was present in the bedrooms, so her and her young children had been sleeping in the living room together.
    3. She felt the landlord had been ignoring her concerns about damp and mould in the property, and the landlord only offered to inspect the property after her health visitor intervened. She felt the inspection date the landlord had suggested, 3 January 2023, was not sufficient in the circumstances.
    4. She had told the landlord she was pregnant, but the landlord didn’t prioritise the repairs after learning this.
    5. She wanted the windows in the property changed, and compensation for the stress caused to her and for items damaged by the mould.
  5. On 3 January 2023 the landlord assessed the mould and concluded that the property was uninhabitable due to the mould. The landlord then took steps to temporarily rehouse the resident and her children on an emergency basis.
  6. The resident was offered to be rehoused in a hotel on a temporary basis, but she decided to stay in her mother’s home instead. The resident stayed in her mother’s home for around 4 weeks.
  7. On 6 January 2023 the landlord told the resident they were unable to respond to her within their usual timescales and would aim to respond to the complaint by 20 January 2023.
  8. On 14 January 2023 the resident provided additional details to her complaint, saying:
    1. She had thrown out her sofa, beds, a chest of draws and children’s toys due to the mould.
    2. The landlord had attended the home on 3 January 2023, noting the mould was an emergency due to her newborn baby. She felt the landlord had failed to consider on previous occasions, when she had reported mould, that her eldest child was also living in the home.
  9. On 20 January 2023 the landlord formally responded to the resident’s complaint via a stage one response. The response contained the following:
    1. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint as it said building fabric issues had contributed to mould in the property.
    2. The resident had already been temporarily rehoused, and it agreed to keep her updated about the rehousing process, and if any moves would be temporary or permanent.
    3. The landlord’s surveyor was managing the case as a high priority, and they were working to bring the property back to a lettable standard.
    4. The landlord offered an apology and £250 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  10. On 2 February 2023 the resident requested her complaint be escalated to a stage 2 process, noting:
    1. She was not satisfied with the £250 offered by her landlord. She said the money offered did not cover the cost of the possessions she had gotten rid of due to the mould.
    2. She had not been offered suitable emergency accommodation by the landlord. This had led to her having to sleep in her mother’s living room with her children for 3 weeks.
    3. The process had caused her stress and had affected her mental health.
  11. On 8 February 2023 the resident moved into a 3-bedroom property on a temporary basis. In February 2023 the landlord identified a property the resident could move into on a permanent basis. The resident’s move into this property was delayed due to repairs to the property’s boiler. The resident moved into this home on 06 April 2023.
  12. On 6 March 2023 the landlord responded to the resident via a formal stage 2 response. In this response the landlord said:
    1. It had been in phone contact with the resident about the temporary rehousing process.
    2. The landlord would look to find a suitable property for the resident to move into permanently. It said if a suitable property was identified prior to the completion of works on the original property, then it would support her in a permanent move. If a suitable property had not been identified or if the resident rejected a property the landlord suggested, then she would have to return to the original property.
    3. A suitable home had been identified by the landlord, and it would facilitate a viewing for the resident.
    4. The compensation offered was sufficient and in-line with the landlords policies.
  13. On 14 October 2023, the resident contacted this service. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and mould, the temporary rehousing process and the level of compensation she had been offered.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. At the time the resident reported the mould, the landlord operated a damp, mould and condensation policy, this policy has since been updated. Under the policy if a resident reports damp and mould in their home the landlord will conduct an assessment survey within 10 days of the report. This assessment will be conducted by a surveyor, or someone with similar skills and experience. All reports of damp and mould are to receive an assessment survey.
  2. If issues persist then a technical survey will be conducted within 10 days of a resident’s further report. The technical survey will be conducted by the landlord’s surveyor, someone of a similar skillset or an external surveyor. Following the technical survey a report will be produced. If the surveyor identifies any building defects linked to damp, mould and condensation then this can be reported to the landlord as a repair.
  3. The landlord operates a policy relating to temporarily rehousing residents. When a resident needs to be temporarily rehoused the landlord aims to find accommodation which will cause minimal disruption, is suitable for the family and is cost effective. The landlord is required to consider a resident’s vulnerabilities and protected characteristics, and to make any necessary reasonable adjustments during this process.
  4. On occasions where the landlord has no suitable properties to move a resident into, it can consider using hotels and holiday rentals.
  5. The landlord’s lettings policy commits to ensuring the properties it lets are safe, and in a clean condition.
  6. The landlord operates a compensation policy. When damage is caused to a resident’s possessions from negligence by the landlord, or a contractor, then it will compensate the resident by repairing or replacing items.
  7. The landlord can also offer financial compensation. On most occasions the landlord will offer residents compensation of between £50 to £250, this figure will be assessed against the impact events have had on the resident. The landlord can also offer compensation in excess of £250, on occasions where this decision has been signed off by senior staff members.
  8. The landlord operates a complaints policy which states the landlord will handle complaints in-line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).

Legislation

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it becomes aware a repair is required. Landlords must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water, sanitation and heating.
  2. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to maintain properties which are free from hazards, and are to be considered fit for human habitation. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould

  1. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should: 
    1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
    2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage. 
    3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould. 
  2. The resident says she had issues with damp and mould 2021. The resident’s complaint made in December 2022 related to the Landlords actions following her report of mould on 9 October 2022. As such, it is fair and reasonable for the Ombudsman’s investigation to consider events which happened on, and after, 9 October 2022.
  3. On 9 October 2022 the resident told the landlord mould and condensation she had previously reported had gotten worse. The resident said the property was adequately heated and ventilated, but she was having to wipe condensation from the windows twice a day. This led the resident to believe the windows were contributing to the damp and mould in the property.
  4. On 17 October 2023 the landlord sent a carpenter to assess the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a carpenter to assess the windows, given the resident had raised the windows as a specific cause of concern. However, as the resident had also reported damp and mould in the property, the landlord should have taken timely action to also address the damp and mould the resident had reported. It was inappropriate for the landlord to not consider this, given this Service’s spotlight report advises landlords to conduct a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould.
  5. The landlord’s policy on damp, mould and condensation says when it receives reports of damp and mould it will conduct an assessment survey within 10 days. On this occasion the landlord did not record that an assessment survey was needed until 30 November 2022, and the assessment took place on 3 January 2023. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate as it conducted an inspection 79 days after the resident made a report of damp and mould. As such, the landlord acted outside of its own policy.
  6. The resident complained to her landlord on 11 December 2022. In this complaint the resident said the landlord had not taken appropriate action following her previous reports of damp and mould. She complained that the date she had been given for an assessment, 3 January 2023, was not appropriate. In her complaint the resident said she had a newborn baby at the time and the landlord was not prioritising this. The landlord had a duty of care towards the housing needs of the newborn baby, and should have noted the specific vulnerabilities linked with the child’s age.
  7. The resident said her landlord was aware a newborn baby and a young child were living in the home. Records from the landlord’s repair logs showed it was aware mould had previously been present in the bedrooms of the property. The resident said the mould in the bedrooms had gotten so bad that she and the children had to sleep in the living room together. The resident’s Health Visitor also raised concerns with the landlord about the impact mould could have on the children.
  8. The landlord’s action in taking 79 days to conduct an inspection suggests it did not prioritise the resident’s circumstances, or consider the potential risk to the children. The Ombudsman considers the landlord to have failed to give due regard to its duty of care towards the resident’s household, given the specific vulnerability of the newborn child. Of particular note is at the time in which the resident filed her complaint, December 2022, a Coronial Preventing Future Deaths Report had been published relating to the death of Awaab Ishak. This report highlighted mould in the family home, where the landlord was a housing association, as being a contributory factor in Awaab’s death. At the time of his death Awaab was a young child.
  9. After the landlord received the resident’s complaint, internal communications showed it struggled to find a surveyor employed by the landlord to conduct an assessment. This challenge mainly centred around annual leave over the Christmas period. Such challenges are understandable, however the landlord did not take appropriate steps to rectify this, such as instructing an external surveyor or specialist. The landlord’s actions were unreasonable in this regard as it prolonged the period of time in which the resident and her family lived in potentially unsafe conditions.
  10. The resident said she had to throw away her sofa, beds, a chest of draws and children’s toys due to the mould. The landlord bought the resident a replacement sofa and two beds due to the damage. The landlord also offered the resident £250 in compensation in its stage one response, which it later said the resident could use to replace damaged items.
  11. The landlords offer to replace the sofa and beds was fair and reasonable when considering the damage was caused by the mould, which the landlord had admitted responsibility for in its stage one response. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to decline to replace the other items the resident reported as damaged. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines it will repair or replace items damaged by its own negligence, as such it should have offered to replace the additional items. Another reasonable step the landlord could have taken would have been to advise and support the resident to make a claim with its own liability insurer.
  12. The resident was not satisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord. She said she did not feel the £250 offered covered the costs of the items which had been damaged, and it did not reflect the stress she had experienced. Her landlord said this was the maximum amount of compensation she could be offered and advised her to file an insurance claim under her content’s insurance. This response was inappropriate as the landlord’s policies allowed for compensation in excess of £250 on occasions where this was approved by a senior member of staff. Considering the landlord had been slow to act, and that the resident’s home had been deemed uninhabitable, the landlord should have considered a higher compensation figure.
  13. Based off the evidence the Ombudsman has been provided with, the landlord’s compensation offer did go some way to address the failings identified in this report. However, the landlord’s offer did not adequately reflect the level of distress caused to the resident. The resident lived in a home where there was a high risk of harm occurring to her and her children, as the property they lived in was classified as being uninhabitable.
  14. The landlord had accepted responsibility for its service failure in its stage one and two responses, so the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to either put right any damage caused to the resident’s belongings, or to raise a claim on its own insurance policy for the damaged possessions.
  15. This Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould after considering:
    1. The landlord failed to give appropriate consideration to the length of time it took to inspect the damp and mould.
    2. The landlord did not show due regards to the resident’s, and her family’s vulnerabilities.
    3. The landlord failed to consider the risk to the resident and her family from living in an uninhabitable property for an extended period of time.
    4. The landlord did not provide adequate compensation and advice about the resident’s damaged goods.
  16. In light of the finding of maladministration by this service, the redress offered to the resident by the landlord has been assessed as insufficient.
  17. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £600, after identifying that the resident and her family suffered distress and inconvenience for a prolonged period of time. The landlord knew the resident had mental health conditions and had children and a newborn child as part of the household. When considering these factors, the Ombudsman has found that £600 is appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary rehousing process

  1. On 3 January 2023 the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to conduct an assessment. The resident said at this point the mould had covered all of the walls and ceilings in the bedrooms, and the surveyor advised her to leave the property there and then as the home was unsafe. After completing the assessment, the surveyor told the landlord the home was uninhabitable, and the resident needed to be temporarily rehoused on an emergency basis. Considering the extent of the mould, the decision to rehouse the resident was appropriate in the circumstances, and in-line with the landlords obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord’s policy on rehousing residents says it will aim to temporarily rehouse residents to properties which are suitable for the resident’s household. When the landlord does not have a suitable property within their stock, they can utilise hotels and holiday rentals.
  3. The resident was rehoused on an emergency basis, and as such the landlord would not have had time to put provisions in place prior to the move. When she was advised to leave the property, the resident decided to stay with her mother, as she did not want to go to a hotel which the landlord had offered to house her in.
  4. The resident felt a hotel was not suitable for her as she had a newborn baby. The resident’s concerns in this regard were understandable. However, the landlord offering to house the resident in a hotel for the short term was in-line with its policies, and was also reasonable considering it had not had the opportunity to pre-plan the move.
  5. The resident said she was only expecting to stay at her mother’s home for a short period of time, but she ended up staying with her mother from 3 January to 8 February 2023, which was inconvenient. During this time communication records show that the landlord was actively trying to find suitable emergency housing for the resident. Whilst it was inconvenient to the resident to stay with a relative, the landlord acted reasonably as it had made an offer of housing her in a hotel and was actively seeking an alternative property.
  6. On 8 February 2023 the landlord moved the resident into a 3-bedroom home on a temporary basis. The resident was only eligible for a 2-bedroom home due to the size of her family, and this is why the landlord offered the 3-bedroom home to the resident on a temporary basis. When staying in the 3-bedroom home the landlord identified a suitable property for the resident and began arranging for the resident to move into this home. The landlord acted reasonably as it housed the resident in the short term, and also took steps to find a new property for the resident. This was in-line with her preference to not return to the original property.
  7. The resident experienced delays in moving into her new home, she was unable to move into this home until 6 April 2023. The delays centred around unexpected repairs which the landlord identified after inspecting the property’s boiler. The landlord communicated this to the resident and kept her informed about the progress of the repairs.
  8. This delay would have caused inconvenience to the resident, however the landlord’s actions in this regard were reasonable. It acted in accordance with its lettings policy, which outlines the landlord’s responsibility to ensure properties are deemed to be safe at the start of a tenancy.
  9. The Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the temporary rehousing process, as it acted reasonably and in-line with its own policies.

The landlord’s complaint handling process

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy operates in compliance with the Code. The Code states landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. On this occasion the timeframe of the landlord’s complaint responses were not compliant with the Code.
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 15 December 2022, this was within the timescales set out in the Code. After a landlord acknowledges a complaint, under the Code they should complete a stage one response within 10 working days, this can be extended if required. On 6 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her they required further time to complete a stage one response. The Code allows for an extension of 10 working days so long as the timescales of an extension, and the reason for the extension, is clearly explained to the resident. The landlord said they required an extension as the staff member overseeing the complaint needed more time to finish the investigation as they were waiting for a response from a sub-contractor.
  3. The landlord took 14 working days to inform the resident that it required an extension to complete its stage one response. This was not in-line with the Code which requires landlords to respond to complaints within 10 working days of their own acknowledgement. The Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure as the landlord’s actions were not compliant with the Code.
  4. The landlord completed its stage one response on 20 January 2023, this was 11 days after it notified the resident that it required an extension. This response was not in-line with the standards outlined in the Code which allows for 10 working days to complete an extension. The landlord’s actions in this regard were a shortcoming rather than a service failure. The landlord missed the target by one day, so the inconvenience to the resident would have been limited. Furthermore, on 14 January 2023 the resident supplied the landlord with additional details about her complaint, as such the landlord would have required additional time to consider this information.
  5. On 2 February 2023 the resident indicated they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response. The landlord asked the resident to clarify if she wanted the complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint. The resident confirmed she wanted to progress the matter to a stage 2 complaint on 22 February 2023. The landlord did not need to clarify this with the resident, and it should have taken the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as an escalation request.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 24 February 2023. It then provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. Its actions in this regard were inline with the Code which allows landlords 20 working days to complete their stage 2 responses.
  7. This Service has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling process after considering:
    1. The landlord’s stage one extension notification was delayed by 4 days.
    2. The landlord failed to properly identify the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage one response as an escalation request, this resulted in a delay in the landlord producing a stage 2 response.
  8. In light of the finding of service failure by this Service, an order of £50 redress has been made. Compensation of £50 is in-line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the detriment caused to resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary rehousing process.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £650 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures to inspect the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord may deduct the £250 it previously offered from this amount, if already paid.
    2. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 6 weeks of this determination the landlord should write to the resident setting out its position on refunding her damaged possessions. If the landlord’s position is that it will not refund or replace the items, then it is to provide the resident with a copy of its insurance details to enable her to make an insurance claim.
  3. The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order by 24 January 2025.