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

Aster Group Limited (202327751)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327751

Aster Group Limited

30 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Mould in her shower room.
    2. Her request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 19 February 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. The resident lives there with her 2 children, both of whom are asthmatic.
  2. The property has a main bathroom, containing a bath, and an ‘en suite’ shower room attached to the master bedroom. The resident told the landlord that her and her children primarily use the shower room to bathe.
  3. On 3 May 2023, the landlord requested a surveyor’s inspection of the property due to “extensive black mould” in the shower room. The surveyor inspected the property on 18 July 2023. The surveyor found damp in the wall by the shower which they said could possibly be due to a leak. They said this needed further investigation and that the mould could be treated once the damp issue was resolved.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 September 2023. She said she had been living with damp and mould in the shower room for 3 years which the landlord had failed to address. She said there was “no air in the flat” and likened it to a greenhouse, which was affecting her children’s asthma. She said one of her children was sleeping in the lounge as their bedroom was so hot it was difficult to breathe. She asked the landlord for a management transfer to a more suitable property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2023. It said that:
    1. A surveyor had inspected the property for condensation and mould on 17 November 2022 and recommended a new ventilation system was installed.
    2. The resident had declined this as the works would reduce the amount of storage space in the property.
    3. A further inspection of the shower room had been requested on 3 May 2023, but it had been unable to contact the resident and arrange this until 18 July 2023.
    4. Following that inspection, it had asked a contractor to visit the property and quote for works. The contractor had not attempted to contact the resident until 23 August 2023. This had been too long and represented a service failure which it wished to offer her £50 compensation for.
    5. The contractor was attending to quote for the works on 27 September 2023.
    6. It had referred the resident to the local authority to be placed on its housing register and given the appropriate banding for a transfer.
  6. On 12 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response. She said that she felt the compensation offered was insufficient and that she still wished for the landlord to grant her a management transfer.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It said that:
    1. It agreed with the findings of the stage 1 response.
    2. Its contractor had now completed the works raised following the inspection of 18 July 2023.
    3. It was unable to offer the resident a management transfer through the complaints process, but that a member of its housing team would contact her to discuss this further in the next week.
    4. The ‘standardised sum’ it awarded as compensation for service failure had recently increased from £50 to £75. It was therefore increasing its offer of compensation to £125 – which included a further £50 for the inconvenience caused.
  8. On 24 November 2023, a member of the landlord’s housing team advised the resident that it did not consider her eligible for a management transfer. They said that the damp and mould issue had now been resolved and overcrowding alone did not meet the criteria for a management transfer.
  9. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint on 11 January 2024. She said that the landlord’s compensation offer remained insufficient. She claimed the leak from the shower had led to a huge increase in her water bills and that she had been forced to replace items such as towels and robes and repeatedly redecorate the shower room due to the mould.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to experiencing issues with mould in the shower room for “over 3 years”. At the time of complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it would “usually only investigate complaints made within 6 months of the event becoming evident”, but that this could be extended to 12 months “in exceptional circumstances”.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response provided a timeline dating back to September 2021. However, it is apparent that earlier mould issues were linked to a leak from the flat above the resident’s property and were fully resolved in January 2022. There is no evidence that the resident reported any further mould issues until 8 November 2022. This investigation will therefore examine events from 8 November 2022 onwards only.
  3. The resident has also told the Ombudsman that mould in the shower room has returned since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 November 2023. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this further mould, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.
  4. When bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident also referred to costs incurred due to the mould including decorating the shower room and replacing damaged towels and robes. She also said that her water bill had dramatically increased due to the leak from the shower. There is no evidence that she raised these costs with the landlord during its internal complaints process to enable it to consider them and respond. This investigation is therefore also unable to consider these. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to discuss submitting a claim for these costs to its insurer.

Mould

  1. On 8 November 2022, the landlord raised an order for an inspection of mould in the shower room. Its surveyor completed the inspection on 17 November 2022. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ‘mould and condensation procedure’ which sets a 10 day timeframe for inspections to be completed.
  2. The surveyor said they would arrange a contractor to quote to wash down the mould on the bathroom ceiling and paint it with mould proof paint. There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair logs that this work was ever completed.
  3. The surveyor reported that there was “No extractor in shower room. Vent system not working”. They said that they would be “working out a solution for a extraction unit”. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order to replace the mechanical ventilation system in the property on 9 February 2023. However, according to its stage 1 complaint response, the resident “refused” this work on 27 February 2023 because the new wall mounted unit would impact her storage space.
  4. The landlord has said that its records indicate that it “invoiced off” the fitting of the new mechanical ventilation system on 6 April 2023. However, this does not correlate with its stage 1 complaint response, or the findings of its surveyor’s later inspection of 18 July 2023 – which indicated there was no ventilation in the bathroom.
  5. The landlord’s policy says that where an inspection “identifies insufficient ventilation within the property consideration should be given to improving ventilation… by the installation of window trickle vents, passive wall vents and installing or upgrading existing extractor fans”. Although the shower room does not contain any windows, there is no evidence the landlord considered the other options available, or an alternate mechanical ventilation system.
  6. Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to consider residents’ wishes when undertaking repairs, it is still responsible for ensuring the property meets the decent homes standard and is free from hazards. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to address the ventilation issues. Particularly given it was aware the resident’s children were asthmatic.
  7. The landlord raised an order for another mould inspection of the shower room on 3 May 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that it booked an appointment with the resident for 26 May 2023, but was unable to gain access to the property. The landlord rebooked the appointment for 18 July 2023. This was over 2 months after it had requested the inspection. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that the failed appointment of 26 May 2023 contributed to this, even this date was significantly past the landlord’s 10 day target.
  8. During the inspection of 18 July 2023, the surveyor found damp in the walls surrounding the shower which required further investigation. They said that mould treatment to the shower room should be carried out once the works had been completed. This was in keeping with the landlord’s mould and condensation procedure, which says that if mould is due to a repair or defect issue in the property the landlord should carry out mould removal once it has rectified the issue.
  9. However, the landlord’s policy also says that the mould clean can be carried out in advance of the repair “on a case-by-case basis”. The property inspection template used during the inspection asks, “Do any occupants have any health concerns / vulnerabilities that make them more susceptible to damp and mould?”. The surveyor answered no to this, despite the fact the resident’s sons being asthmatic. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recognised the higher risk this presented and brought the mould clean forwards based upon this.
  10. The surveyor also noted that “the extractor fan is not working”. As previous inspections had identified that there was no extractor fan in the shower room, it is likely this was a reference to the mechanical ventilation system. The surveyor included a “lack of fixed ventilation” as part of the likely causation of the mould. The landlord asked its contractor to check this as part of the works order, but it is unclear from the evidence provided for this investigation exactly what work was carried out in this regard.
  11. The landlord asked a contractor to visit the property and provide a quote for works to the shower room. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord identified that the contractor had taken until 23 August 2023 to attempt to contact the resident. It acknowledged that this was an unreasonable delay and represented service failure. Its offer of £50 compensation for this single failure was reasonable and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  12. The landlord’s contractor eventually attended the property on 27 September 2023. It provided its quote to the landlord on 6 October 2023, which the landlord approved 2 days later. The contactor completed the works on or around 23 October 2023 when the mould wash was carried out. This was over 3 months from the surveyor’s inspection, which had identified the required works. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it should complete “batch repairs” which it defines as “minor works repair or any defect typically completed within larger in nature” within 60 days. The landlord failed to meet this target.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had to decant the resident following the mould wash due to the fumes involved. It said it was “pleased to be informed we responded as expected to your requirements and decanted you to prevent further issues”. There is no indication the resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the fact the landlord decanted her, or its handling of this process.
  14. In summary, following its inspection of 17 November 2022, the landlord has not provided evidence that it took appropriate steps to install ventilation in the shower room and address the mould. The landlord then delayed unreasonably in arranging the further inspection that it had requested on 3 May 2023 and failed to recognise the vulnerability to mould in the household. The works to the shower room were not completed within the timescale the landlord’s policy allows.
  15. Although the landlord acknowledged service failure in its contactor’s delay in contacting the resident, it failed to acknowledge any of these other failings. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding of maladministration.

Management transfer

  1. The landlord’s management transfer policy says that “A management transfer request suggests the applicant is in urgent need of a transfer and/or has a housing need that cannot be met by the local authority who have the statutory duty to re-house and who offer a choice-based system”.
  2. The resident asked for the landlord to give her a management transfer as part of her original complaint. She said her family needed a better property which fit their needs.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had “passed the family across to the local authority to be placed on the housing register under the appropriate banding”. This was in keeping with its policy which says that “A customer who requires an immediate move will be referred to the Local Authority Housing Team. Any customer being considered for a management transfer must already be registered or be applying to their Local Authority housing list and then be actively bidding.”
  4. It would still have been appropriate for the landlord to clarify the grounds on which it would offer a management transfer and its view on whether the resident met these. In failing to do this, the landlord did not make its position clear. This caused the resident to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process partly on the basis that she was still requesting a management transfer.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to provide any further clarity on its position. It stated that “There are policies and procedures that must be followed regarding rehousing which are outside the remit of the complaint’s procedure”. This is at odds with the landlord’s management transfer procedure which states that “customers should be supported to access the complaints procedure should they be dissatisfied with management transfer decisions”.
  6. The stage 2 response said that a member of the landlord’s housing team would contact the resident “sometime this week to discuss this issue further and provide a clear picture of the next steps to take”. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that a member of its housing team did not contact the resident until 24 November 2023 – 3 weeks after its stage 2 complaint response.
  7. During this call, the member of staff clarified that the landlord would not offer a management transfer as it had addressed the mould issue. They stated that overcrowding alone did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. This was in keeping with its policy. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the local authority to pursue a move through their choice based lettings scheme.
  8. It is unclear why the landlord could not have communicated this to the resident in its stage 2, or even stage 1, complaint responses. In failing to do so it did not sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations or provide clarity on its position within the complaints process. The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of mould in the resident’s shower room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £475 compensation composed of:
      1. The £200 offered during its internal complaints procedure.
      2. A further £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of mould in the shower room.
      3. A further £75 for the service failure in its handling of the management transfer request.
    2. Have the shower room inspected by a suitably qualified person to determine:
      1. If there is sufficient ventilation in the room.
      2. If not, then what options are available to improve ventilation.
      3. Whether it should carry out a further mould wash and paint.

The landlord should write to the resident confirming the above.

  1. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reminds surveyors conducting property inspections of the importance of correctly recording any vulnerabilities in the household when risk assessing the presence of mould and determining at what point to carry out a mould wash.