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

Brighter Places (202406094)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406094

Brighter Places

21 February 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The resident’s request for a permanent decant.
    3. Arranging a quotation appointment with its contractor.
    4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2, she did not raise concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the damp and mould in her home. Her escalated complaint was about its failure to explain whether it would permanently decant her and having difficulties in arranging a quotation appointment with its contractor. The landlord did not investigate its response to the residents reports of damp and mould in its stage 2 response and this issue has not exhausted its complaints procedure.
  3. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. As the resident did not raise the issue of damp and mould in her request for a stage 2 escalation and there is no evidence of a complaint handling failure, her complaint about its handling of her reports of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, though throughout the course of her complaint she told it that 1 of her children had asthma.
  2. A contractor completed a stock condition survey of the property in June 2023 and provided its report to the landlord on 27 July 2023. It recorded a moderate level of damp and mould in the property. Another contractor completed a damp and mould inspection on 22 September 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 8 October 2023. She told it that she was unhappy with the condition of the property. She said its contractor had told her that her home required major works. She was concerned the damp and mould was affecting her children’s health. She requested a permanent decant because she felt it would be impossible to remain in the property while major works were completed. A decant is a when a resident is required to move from their permanent home to alternative temporary or other permanent accommodation, normally due to repairs, renovation or disposal of property.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 November 2023. It apologised for the delays in completing the outstanding repairs and poor service experienced by the resident. It said its damp and mould team were waiting for quotes to enable it to complete the work. It asked her to contact its contractor to arrange a visit for it to complete a quotation.
  5. The resident responded on 10 and 11 November 2023 and said she was not sure whether the landlord was offering her a permanent decant following its complaint response. She requested escalation of her complaint on 13 November 2023 because she did not feel the stage 1 response to be sufficient. She also said she was frustrated at the amount she had to contact it to get it to fulfil its duties.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 November 2023. It apologised that its stage 1 had not addressed the resident’s request for a permanent decant. It said that it would not need to decant her to complete the outstanding damp and mould repairs. It confirmed that if a decant would have been required it would have been a temporary measure. It asked her to contact the contractor directly but also said it would arrange for its damp and mould team to contact it to arrange the outstanding quotation appointment.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 15 May 2024 because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She wants the landlord to arrange for a permanent move to a 3-bedroom property in a suitable area.

Assessment and findings

Request for a permanent decant

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021 recommended to landlords that where extensive works may be required, landlords should consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy allows it to move residents when it needs to complete extensive repairs that would leave their property uninhabitable. It gives examples as an unusable bathroom or kitchen, carbon monoxide, structural instability, use of less than 50% of the property and severe damp and mould. The expectation is that such moves should be temporary for a period of no more than 6 months. Under the policy it treats permanent moves as management moves, although from January 2023 its internal transfer list closed. This means that residents requesting a permanent move must identify and bid on any interested properties using the Home Choice website for their local area.
  3. After its contractor completed a stock condition survey in June 2023 the resident telephoned the landlord on 29 June 2023. She told it that the contractor had said she would need to move out to allow the landlord to complete the required repairs. She asked it for a permanent decant. It told her it did not have an open transfer list, and its contractor had not reported that a decant would be required. Given the resident had asked for a permanent move it was appropriate that the landlord told her that its transfer list was closed.
  4. The contractor provided its report to the landlord on 27 July 2023. It had found a moderate level of damp and mould but did not mention a decant. The landlord had not identified what specific repairs needed to be completed at that time so it would not know whether a decant was required.
  5. The landlord e-mailed the resident on 8 August 2023 and asked her to clarify who had advised her that she required a decant. This was because it had no record it had given her that advice. She replied and named the contractor who had completed the stock condition survey. She said the contractor had told her it would include the need for a decant in its report to the landlord. As its contractor had not told the landlord it needed to decant the resident it was reasonable that it clarified this with her. It missed an opportunity to explain its decant policy to the resident at that time and to tell her that it, not its contractors were responsible for deciding if a decant was required.
  6. The landlord shared the stock condition survey report with the resident at her request sometime between 22 August and 8 September 2023. She responded on 8 September 2023 and said that the information it had given her was insufficient. Following the outcome of the stock condition survey the landlord arranged for a contractor to complete a damp and mould inspection to identify what repairs it needed to complete.
  7. The contractor completed its damp and mould inspection on 22 September 2023. It recommended that the landlord complete repairs to several areas of the property. It did not say that the landlord would need to decant the resident to complete those repairs. The landlord shared a copy of that inspection report with the resident.
  8. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she said the damp and mould was affecting her son’s asthma. She requested a permanent decant to ensure her and her children were safe and well. She said a temporary decant was not an option because that would have a severe impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing.
  9. When investigating the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord noted that she had asked for a permanent decant. However, it did not address that in its stage 1 response which left the resident uncertain about its position. She e-mailed the landlord on 10 and 11 November 2023 and said she was unsure whether it was offering her a permanent decant.
  10. The landlord put its failing to address the resident’s request for a permanent decant at stage 1 right when it confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it did not need to decant her for it to complete the damp and mould repairs. It also told her that any decant, would have been a temporary measure with her expected to return to the property. While its position reflected its decant policy it missed an opportunity during its investigation to explain why a decant was not required. It did not address the concerns the resident had raised about the disruption the works would cause her. It should have explained to her the level of the works that it would complete and how it would minimise any disruption to her. From the evidence provided to this Service it has not shown that it had considered the individual circumstances of her household in making that decision. For those reasons, there has been service failure in its handling of the resident’s request for a permanent decant.
  11. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience its delay and failure to explain its position caused the resident. That amount falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time stated that it could pay £10 per week to recognise low impact distress and inconvenience. The amount is also in line with that policy given it took over 9 weeks after the damp and mould survey to confirm to the resident it would not decant her.

Quotation appointment

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommended that landlords should keep residents informed. It states that residents should be given a choice of appointments times and reasonable notice. Wherever possible, landlords should also avoid leaving external contractors to arrange appointments with residents directly, so they are fully aware of all issues and the onus is not on the resident to report these.
  2. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in 2023. However, it has provided evidence to show that it self-assessed against the recommendations of the October 2021 spotlight report throughout 2023 and 2024. It also noted that when the landlord produced its July 2024 damp and mould policy it developed it in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.
  3. The landlord sent a copy of the damp survey to a contractor on 2 October 2023 to request a quotation for completing the recommended repairs. During its stage 1 investigation the landlord contacted the contractor who said it had tried to attend the property at the start of November 2023. It said the resident had not allowed it access because the time was not convenient for her. It is not recorded that the contractor gave the resident advanced notice, and it did not arrange a new date with her. In only becoming aware of that visit during its complaint investigation the landlord did not show it had an effective monitoring arrangement in place with its contractor.
  4. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that the resident had tried to contact the contractor, but it had failed to reply to her. It again asked her to contact the contractor directly but also said it had asked its damp and mould team to contact it to ask it to call her. Rather than putting the onus back on the resident it would have been appropriate for it to have made contact with its contractor as part of its complaint investigation. That would have allowed it to either provide the resident with an update in its response or have arranged an appointment for her.
  5. The contractor completed its quotation on 8 December 2023, over 9 weeks after the landlord’s request. As this delay in arranging a quotation prolonged the resident’s experience in living with damp and mould there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of that issue. It did not act reasonably when it put the onus on the resident to contact its contractor. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by its delay in arranging a quotation appointment. The Ombudsman has not made the more serious finding of maladministration in this case. This is because the quotation appointment was completed shortly after it issued its stage 2 response. 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it should acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provided a response within 10 working days. If it requires an extension to that time it should agree that with the resident in advance. It should acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 3 working days and provide a response within 20 working days of the date the resident asked it to escalate their complaint.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould in the property and its response to arranging repairs on 8 October 2023. She requested a permanent decant to a 3-bedreoom property because the damp and mould was affecting her children’s health. The landlord should have acknowledged that complaint by 13 October 2023 and provided its response by 20 October 2023.
  3. Due to issues with its e-mail software the landlord was unaware of the resident’s complaint until 25 October 2023. It acknowledged it the same day though it told the resident it has received her complaint on 24 October 2023. That information was incorrect. The landlord is responsible for ensuring its computer systems function correctly, so it was not appropriate that it took almost 3 weeks to acknowledge her complaint.
  4. The landlord did not contact the resident to agree an extension and provided its stage 1 response on 10 November 2023. It was not appropriate that this was 3 weeks after it should have responded and a further 2 days longer than the 10 working day timeframe from the date it acknowledged the complaint.
  5. The member of staff who issued the stage 1 response told the resident that they were leaving the landlord’s employment that week. They said her point of contact would be its feedback team or damp and mould team or if those teams were unable to deal with her enquiry, they would be able to direct her to the correct department. They did not provide her with any contact details for those teams. The letter ended by telling her that she should contact them if she had any further questions about their complaint response. The resident told this Service that left her uncertain on who to contact for further information about her complaint response. It would have been appropriate for the member of staff to have given her a direct point of contact for after they left the landlord’s employment.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her the complaint to stage 2 on 13 November 2023. She said its stage 1 response was not sufficient and it was unclear whether it would be offering her a permanent decant.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 acknowledgement and response within timescales. It did not apologise for the delays experienced by the resident at stage 1.
  8. The landlord failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint procedure during stage 1. As it did not apologise for those delays in either its stage 1 or stage 2 response there has been service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The delay caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase up a response to her complaint and it led to her waiting 3 weeks longer than she should have for the stage 1 response.
  9. An order is made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a permanent decant.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of arranging a quotation appointment with its contractor.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for its failings in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for making apologies.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation broken down as follows:
      1. £100 in relation to the decant request.
      2. £100 in relation to the quotation appointment.
      3. £50 in relation to complaint handling.
  2. It should provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of this decision.