Broadland Housing Association Limited (202222966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222966

Broadland Housing Association Limited

1 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
2. Response to reports of damp and mould.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident moved into the property via the mutual exchange (MEX) process and holds an assured tenancy.
On 22 November 2022 following a request for a MEX, the landlord completed an inspection of the property. The inspection noted that although the doors in the lobby and kitchen were missing, the property passed inspection.
On 9 January 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said that she was unhappy with the condition of the property as there were a number of issues, which included:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A capped radiator within the porch.
3. Blown windowpanes.
4. Bathroom walls were bubbling.
5. A hole in the floorboards, which the previous resident had laid laminate over.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, which said:
1. It did not normally undertake repairs to a property which have been involved in a MEX until one year had passed after the exchange. However, the repairs reported related to the property being wind and watertight.
2. Its records confirmed that the resident had reported all the repairs, except the hole in the floor, so it had raised an order for this also.
3. It could provide the resident with a dehumidifier to help control the damp and mould.
4. Although it did not uphold the complaint, it would provide feedback to the housing team to ensure that all repairs were raised prior to a MEX going ahead.
On 23 January 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that no repairs had been completed within her property and that her belongings and health were affected.
On 27 January 2023 the landlord repaired the radiator in the porch.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord repaired the hole in the flooring.
On 9 March 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that she was still being affected by the damp in the property and that the walls in the property were damp and the windows were allowing water in.
On 16 March 2023 the resident contacted her MP. The resident said that she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed any repairs, and that her property was full of damp and mould which had damaged her carpets and belongings.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord responded to the MP and confirmed that it had spoken with the resident and discussed the outstanding repairs and would monitor the damp and mould.
On 11 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould as it was continuing to damage her belongings and she wanted something done.
On 19 April 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection of the property. The inspection report said that:
1. The resident had to keep washing down the mould but was not sure if it was killing the spores.
2. The radiator had been fixed.
3. The windowpanes were blown and the temperature of the bath water needed to be inspected.
4. There was a damp smell but after testing the walls, it did not register any damp, except for one section of skirting board. This had been referred to a senior surveyor.
5. In relation to the damaged items, the resident had asked for £130 plus a contribution to the carpets. The landlord offered £180 compensation in response to this.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord completed a repair in relation to the bath water.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the stage 2 complaint panel process.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord attended the property and completed a further MEX inspection. As 3 internal doors were needed, the property did not pass the inspection.
On 5 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with an updated stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. It was writing to the resident following her letter to the MP.
2. Although the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, the resident said she did not want to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
3. Although it offered £300 compensation, this did not include all damaged items and would ask the surveyor to inspect the damage and make an updated decision.
On the same day, the resident said she wanted her complaint to go to stage 2 of the complaints process as she wanted the damaged items replacing.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord inspected the resident’s property to reassess the level of moisture. The inspection report said that:
1. The smell of damp, which was detected in the first visit, was not apparent on this visit.
2. Meter readings from the affected area had also reduced and no mould was present.
3. The senior surveyor had determined that the mould was condensation related.
4. It had discussed the damaged items and priced them up with the resident.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord re-inspected the resident’s property. It noted that the condensation had continued to improve with a dehumidifier running and windows open. The landlord said it would raise an order to fit humidistat fans and check the window seals.
On 19 May 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and said that she had been given £30 towards the cost of running a dehumidifier, and £270 compensation for damaged items. The resident said that this was not good enough and wanted to know why she was allowed to move into the property. The resident also said that the landlord would not allow her to complete a MEX unless the internal doors were replaced, despite them not being there when she moved in.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord conducted its stage 2 complaint panel hearing.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The letter gave a detailed summary of the events to date and concluded that:
1. The resident’s complaint should have been escalated to stage 2 sooner than it had.
2. The landlord should have rebooked the cancelled appointment for the window repairs sooner than it did.
3. The damp and mould was condensation related and there was no evidence of rising or penetrating damp.
4. On 25 April 2023, a payment of £300 was paid and on 16 June 2023, a payment of £60 was paid.
5. In summary, it found that:
  1. The £300 compensation paid in relation to the damaged belongings was fair and reasonable.
  2. The complaint was not escalated correctly and a second findings letter should not have been issued. The landlord offered £150 compensation.
  3. The time taken to escalate the complaint was unreasonable and outside of the target timescales. The landlord offered an additional £150 compensation in view of this.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord completed a further MEX inspection. It was noted that 2 out of 3 internal doors were missing and one internal door handle was missing.
On 20 March 2024 the resident informed the Service that she remained in the same situation. On 9 April 2024 the resident further informed the Service that she was supposed to have new windows, the damp and mould treated and a new fan system installed, however her furniture was continuing to be affected by mould.
On 31 July 2024 the landlord provided the Ombudsman with an update. The landlord said that the resident had raised a disrepair case, which had not yet gone to court. An inspection was completed on 22 May 2024. A number of issues were identified and the landlord states that all works are scheduled to be completed by 26 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s approach.

The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.
When investigating a complaint, 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:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation.

As part of her complaint, the resident has said that her and her partner’s health was affected by the presence of damp and mould within her home. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can be damaging to health, particularly for those who are young or vulnerable. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the specific health conditions of the resident or her partner. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to a court or liability insurance process to determine. This is in line with 42f of the Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman is also aware that the resident raised a new complaint in February 2024 about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. As the complaint relates directly to the issues reported in December 2022 the full period will be considered as part of this investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a mutual exchange.

The landlord’s repair procedure states that it prioritises repairs in a number of different repair categories. These include:
1. Category B – Repairs, such as issues with windows, will be completed within 60 days,.
2. Category D – Repairs, such as damaged flooring, will be completed within 120 Days.
3. Category E – Repairs, such as internal doors that need repairing, will be completed within 365 Days.
The landlord’s MEX policy states that where there is minor damage caused to the property, the resident (presumably the outgoing resident) will be required to repair the element of damage before the exchange is approved. It further states that where damage or neglect is identified, the resident (presumably the outgoing resident) will be required to make payment for any works needed to restore the home to an acceptable condition.
The landlord stated within its stage 1 complaint response that it does not usually complete repairs to a property following a MEX, until 1 year has passed. However, as the repairs would affect the property further it would arrange for them to be completed. It is unclear why the landlord said this as its MEX policy does not reflect this, and there is also no reference to this within its repair policy either.
Despite the response, it is positive to see that the landlord confirmed it would complete the reported repairs. It would not have been reasonable for the resident to have to wait for 1 year, just because she moved via a MEX. Furthermore, despite initial inspections being completed, it is not always possible to identify all repairs visually, especially if they are located in areas which are covered by furniture or decorations. However, items such as missing doors should be identified in a MEX inspection and the incoming resident should not have been held responsible for replacing these items.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its repair records; however, they do not give an insight into when repairs were raised, what repair was reported and when they were completed, therefore it is difficult to determine whether the repairs were completed within its published timescales.
It is essential that landlords keep accurate and clear contemporaneous repair records so that they can monitor repairs effectively and ensure they fulfil their responsibilities. The lack of clear records in this case would have made it more difficult for the landlord to monitor the repairs at the resident’s property and may have contributed to delays. Although the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a summary of the repairs, it should consider reviewing its process for recording repairs, unless it has already done so since this complaint, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website.)
In relation to the radiator in the porch and the hole in the flooring, the landlord states that these repairs were completed within 18 and 56 days respectively of the resident’s stage 1 complaint, which was in line with its published timescales. While it is not clear what date the repair was first raised, based on how soon the complaint was raised after the resident moved into the property, the timescale would not be significantly different.
In relation to the missing doors, based on the MEX inspection report dated November 2022, it was noted by the landlord that 3 internal doors were missing. However, it is not clear what action the landlord took in order to rectify this. There is no evidence to show that orders were raised, or whether it asked the outgoing tenant to rectify this.
The inspection dated February 2024, identified that the 2 out of the 3 internal doors were missing and there is no evidence to suggest that the doors were fitted within this period. An additional survey in May 2024, also identified that internal doors were needed. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair remained outstanding for the full period, which is a failing. The resident had to chase for the doors to be fitted, causing her inconvenience over a prolonged period of time.
Furthermore, while the landlord’s repair policy states that repairs of this nature will be completed within 365 days, the Ombudsman does not consider this to be a reasonable timeframe and would expect to see evidence that it was attended within a reasonable timeframe, which is normally 28 days for routine repairs.
In relation to the windows, the resident reported that they had ‘blown’, which indicates an issue with the panes of glass and allows condensation to form between the double glazing. In March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it would attend at the end of the month to measure up for new glass. This appointment was cancelled and rescheduled for August 2023. This was significantly outside of the 60 days timescale set within its policy, which was an unreasonable delay.
While the landlord acknowledged within its stage 2 complaint response that the appointment in March 2023 should have been rescheduled sooner, it is a concern that the complaint investigation failed to identify that the resident had initially raised the issue in December 2022 and it remained outstanding for at least 8 months. Furthermore, the inspection in May 2024 also confirmed that the windows remained outstanding. This was a failing and meant that the resident had to live with windows that needed repairing for longer than necessary, causing her distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman draws the landlord’s attention to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out what the Ombudsman considers are the best practice principles of “putting things right” where there have been failings. This includes the principle that any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to award compensation for the delays associated with the repairs was unreasonable given the extensive amount of time that they remained outstanding.
The Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the repairs remaining outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which can be found on our website, states where a landlord has acknowledged its failings but failed to put things right, payments of over £100 are recommended. In light of the length of time it took for the landlord to address the repairs raised in the resident’s stage 1 complaint and that the internal doors remained outstanding in February 2024; the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation and space heating and heating water.
The Housing Act 2004 ensures landlords are responsible for assessing hazards and risks within their rented homes. When assessing any such hazards and risks, the assessment should be considered in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould growth are potential hazards that may require remedy. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from a hazard to be fit for human habitation.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed).
The landlord’s repair procedure categorises damp and mould as a category A hazard, which should be attended to within 30 days.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, and share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on the next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations promptly.
When a resident reports a repair such as damp and mould, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to take prompt action and inspect the property at the earliest convenient opportunity. It is then expected that the landlord has a process in place to follow up on any repairs that have been identified and carry out further investigative work if it is needed. It is important to note that when trying to resolve issues with damp and mould, it can sometimes take time to find the right solution and different repairs may need to be attempted to fully resolve the problem.
Following the resident’s report of mould in December 2022, the landlord was obligated to arrange an inspection. The landlord did not do this. It is also of concern that when the landlord was investigating the resident’s stage 1 complaint that it failed to identify that it had not acted upon the resident’s report, and it was not until the resident contacted her MP that it finally took action.
As part of the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord stated that it inspected the resident’s property on 30 March 2023, however no reports or records have been provided to evidence this.
The landlord did inspect the property on 11 April 2023; however, this was 5 months after the resident’s initial report of damp and mould. This was a failing as the delay meant the resident had to live with damp and mould with no proposed resolution for a long time.
The evidence shows that landlord completed 3 damp and mould inspections in April and May 2023, and said that the cause of the mould was condensation related. While it is positive to see that the landlord was conducting inspections and monitoring the levels of condensation, it is of concern that the landlord did not take any preventative action to try to reduce the condensation and mould within the resident’s property.
The landlord said that a mould wash was booked for the 31 March 2023, however this did not happen and it was not until the final visit in May 2023 that the landlord said it would raise an order to fit humidistat fans and check the windows. The resident informed the Ombudsman in April 2024 that although a fan system had been partially installed, it had not been wired in.
It is clear that the landlord does not have a robust procedure in place to monitor outstanding works and ensure that any damp and mould related improvements are completed within a reasonable timescale. This is a failing and has led to the resident continuing to be affected by the damp and mould within her property.
It is also of concern that the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint investigations did not identify the failures associated with the handling of the damp and mould and primarily focused on the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings. And while the landlord should be trying to put things right for the resident, unless the works to resolve damp and mould are completed, it will continue to affect the resident’s property, which the landlord may be liable for, if it fails to take appropriate action.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord’s repair policy states that residents are responsible for insurance cover for their own furniture and belongings. The compensation policy states that the landlord will not pay for any claims that would otherwise form part of residents’ home contents insurance. It also states that if damage has been caused by the landlord’s failure to achieve a solution, then it will pay the value of the replacement of the damaged property.
While the policy states that the landlord will not cover the cost which may form part of a home contents claim, a landlord is entitled to assess a resident’s request for compensation internally, outside of its public insurance procedures and in this case, the landlord determined that it was reasonable to pay the resident £300. The landlord should contact the resident and discuss the reports of additional damaged belongings which were not considered as part of the landlord’s previous offer of £300. The landlord can either assess the claim itself or provide its public liability insurer’s details. If the landlord assesses the claim itself it should explain the reasons for its decision in writing to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £3 per day for the use of a dehumidifier. The resident states that she was given £30 towards the cost, however the landlord’s final complaint response states that it paid £60. It is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine whether this was fair and reasonable, as the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to show how it calculated the cost. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to review its records and determine when the dehumidifier was supplied and when it was collected and ensure that the resident is reimbursed for this period accordingly, in line with its repairs policy.
Finally, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to effectively deal with the reports of damp and mould. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord on multiple occasions that her belongings and furniture were being affected by the presence of damp and mould with the property and had to continually chase for a response. Furthermore, the landlord failed to monitor the case for many months and in April 2024 the resident was still being affected.
Based on the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies as set out above, in recognition of the significant amount of time that has passed, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the damp and mould in her property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints process and stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be investigated by a panel of 2 board members and an executive director. The target time for a hearing is 20 working days and a written response will be provided with 3 working days of the hearing.
In relation to stage 2 escalations, the policy states that when escalating a complaint, it will tell residents that it is going to do so. However, if a resident does not consent to this, it will not escalate the complaint, but it will advise the resident that there can be no continued correspondence on the matter, and residents will not be able to escalate their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman and the complaint will be closed.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It should also identify any learning to ensure the failings are not repeated. As previously detailed, it is of concern that the landlord’s investigation process failed to identify a number of failures, and therefore it was unable to put things right effectively for the resident and learn from the outcomes.
In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, at stage 2 of its process, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint should have been escalated sooner and there were delays in arranging the stage 2 complaint panel. In order to put things right, the landlord offered a total of £300 compensation.
The landlord’s offer of £300 was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, and while there were additional complaint handling failures, they are not enough to increase the amount already offered. Therefore, £300 is considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property following a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to write to the resident and apologise for the failures identified within this report within 4 weeks of the date of the determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1150 made up of:
1. £200 for the failures identified with the landlord’s handling of repairs following a MEX.
2. £300 offered as part of the stage 2 response, if it has not already done so, for the resident’s damaged items.
3. £350 for the distress and inconvenience associated with the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
4. £300 offered within its stage 2 complaint response, for failures identified with its complaint handling, if it has not already done so.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination and:
1. Assure that it monitors the progress of the outstanding repairs and ensures they are completed in line with the schedule of works.
2. Contact the resident and discuss the reports of additional damaged belongings which were not considered as part of the landlord’s previous offer of £300. The landlord can either assess the claim itself or provide its public liability insurer’s details. If the landlord assesses the claim itself it should explain the reasons for its decision in writing to the resident.
3. Review its records and determine how long the dehumidifier was in use for and reimburse the resident accordingly and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord can deduct any money already paid for the dehumidifier from the total.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
2. Review its record keeping practices in relation to inspections, repairs and communications, including in light of the findings of this report and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, unless it has already done so since its final response to this complaint in June 2023.
3. Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report in damp and mould within 12 weeks of the date of the determination, unless it has already done so since its final response to this complaint in June 2023.
4. Review its processes in relation to completing repairs following a MEX to ensure that repairs identified as necessary following an MEX inspection are either completed by the landlord or the outgoing tenant before the new tenant moves in.