East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202311856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311856

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

20 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a leak.
2. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s offer of compensation.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement, and the landlord is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom home which the resident has occupied since 2016. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities, their child has a disability.
On 12 November 2022 the resident reported that there was mould present in their child’s bedroom around the window frames. On 9 January 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking into their hallway via a flat roof covering their porch. This leak caused damage to the resident’s personal property and exacerbated the damp and mould.
On 17 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. The resident said:
1. the landlord had conducted repairs to guttering on the porch roof which had not been effective
2. the mould growth had gotten worse
3. water was leaking into the porch which had damaged personal possessions, including specialist equipment for their disabled child
4. carpets, wallpaper and furniture had become damp and affected by mould
5. they were concerned the damp and mould was impacting their child’s health
6. they asked to be compensated for items which had been damaged
In its stage one response on 28 March 2023 the landlord said:
1. its contractor was not able to access the property on 23 January 2023
2. a contractor would attend the property on 10 April 2023 to complete repairs to the roof
3. the landlord had to delay the roof repairs due to ongoing separate repairs in the kitchen
4. the landlord had arranged for a mould treatment to occur on 17 April 2023, and for windows in the property to be resealed on 28 April 2023
5. the landlord declined to compensate the resident for any damage to their items as it encourages residents to take out contents insurance
On 28 March 2023 the resident escalated their complaint as they were unhappy with the landlords progress and its comments about access to the property on 23 January 2023. The resident said they had cancelled the repairs appointment due to a medical appointment.
In its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023 the landlord said:
1. scaffolding had been installed and it had arranged for roofers to repair defective areas of the roof on 19 June 2023
2. it would conduct additional repairs to the exterior windows on 5 July 2023
3. it had assigned a senior member of staff to oversee the repairs
4. it offered the resident £840 compensation, comprised of £250 for the time and trouble, £350 for damage caused to the resident’s items and £240 to redecorate the hallway, living room and bedroom
On 3 July 2023 the resident contacted this Service as they were dissatisfied with the time the landlord had taken to deal with the damp and mould. The resident was also dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reported leaks

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend most repairs via an appointment-based system, where appointments are agreed with the resident in advance. For emergency matters the landlord will attend within 24 hours. The landlord commits to keeping residents updated about the progress of repairs.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair.
On 9 January 2023 the resident told the landlord water was leaking into the property via a flat roof over the porch. The resident said the landlord had repaired the gutters on the porch roof on 12 December 2022, and they suspected this work contributed to the leak.
On 10 and 13 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to bring forward repairs to fix the leak as they were concerned that damage to the property, and their possessions, was getting worse. The resident asked for the landlord to attend outside of school pick up times.
The landlord arranged to attend the property on 23 January 2023, which was 14 days after the resident reported the leak. This was not appropriate. The landlord ought to have treated an uncontained leak into the resident’s home with urgency.
On 23 January 2023 the resident called the landlord and asked for the appointment to be rescheduled for medical reasons. The landlord re-scheduled the appointment to 15 March 2023, which was 51 days later.
Again, this was not appropriate, considering the leak was causing damage to the property and the resident’s possessions. The significant delay between the two appointment dates would have caused the resident distress and could have increased the damage to the property and the resident’s possessions.
On 15 March 2023 an operative attended the property and said they were unable to access the property as no one was home. The resident contacted the landlord at around 10am on 15 March 2023 and said they were not home as they had been on the school run, and said that they had asked for an appointment outside this time. Considering the landlord’s repairs policy includes that appointments should be made in line with a resident’s availability, it was inappropriate for the landlord to send an operative at this time.
The landlord sent a senior member of staff to inspect the property on 18 May 2023. This was inappropriate, as it took the landlord 129 days to conduct an inspection. Furthermore, the landlord did not produce a report from this inspection. Had it produced a report the landlord would have had a better idea of its next steps, and it could have shared this with the resident.
In its stage one response the landlord committed to starting repairs to the roof in the week commencing 10 April 2023. The landlord explained there had been delays in starting the work to the roof as it was conducting pre-planned cyclical repairs to the resident’s kitchen. For this repair, kitchen fitters needed access to the property so scaffolding couldn’t be installed, meaning the landlord had to delay any repairs to the roof.
The landlord was unable to meet the timescales outlined in its stage one response. The landlord said as work in the kitchen had overrun it had to delay the roof repairs to 5 July 2023. The landlord did not apologise for this delay which was inappropriate.
The repairs to the kitchen were pre-planned cyclical repairs which the landlord did not want to delay. As the landlord opted to continue with the kitchen repairs and delay the roof repairs, it should have taken interim action to temporarily repair the roof to limit the impact on the resident. The landlord has not supplied evidence to suggest this occurred, which was inappropriate.
After the landlord conducted repairs to the roof, the resident has reported water ingress on multiple occasions. The length of time the resident has been living with leaks and water ingress is significant and would have caused them considerable distress.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration occurred in the landlord’s handling of the reported leak after considering:
1. the time in which the landlord took to address the leak
2. the landlord did not instruct a surveyor to assess the leak
3. the landlord took 5 months to inspect the leak
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £600, for its failure to adequately respond to and repair the leak. This is level of compensation is consistent with this Service’s remedies guidance for matters where there has been significant impact on the resident, and the landlord has taken limited action to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of reported damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says when the cause of damp and mould is not immediately obvious, it will aim to arrange for a surveyor or specialist to inspect the property. It will aim for an inspection to be conducted within 21 days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. In cases where the landlord has identified a considerable service failure or maladministration that does not have a permanent impact, it can offer £250 to £700 in compensation.
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
2. ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould
3. identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used
4. share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents and act on accepted survey recommendations promptly
The resident reported the presence of damp and mould on 2 November 2022. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the property on 23 November 2022, which was 21 days later. This was appropriate and in-line with the landlord’s expected timescales.
However, the landlord’s records indicate on this occasion the operative did not fully address the repair as it did not have a ladder long enough to reach the windows and guttering. This was inappropriate as the resident had told the landlord mould was present in a bedroom on the first floor. To rectify this error, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to organise for an operative to reattend the property as soon as possible.
The next occasion where the landlord attended the property was 12 December 2022 when it applied a mould treatment around the windows and the front door. The resident said during this visit the landlord also cleaned the guttering on the porch roof.
Following the landlord’s attendance at the property in November and December it did not produce a damp and mould report. This was inappropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to produce a damp and mould report given the content of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. A report would have assisted the landlord in effectively treating the damp and mould. It also would have allowed the resident to have a better understanding of the required repairs.
On 9 January 2023 the resident reported the leak to the landlord. Considering there were already damp and mould issues in the property, the landlord should have prioritised the ongoing damp and mould repairs, as the presence of further moisture in the home would likely have escalated mould growth.
The landlord’s repairs records showed it marked the damp and mould repairs as urgent. However, the steps the landlord took did not indicate it was treating the matter as being urgent. As previously outlined, there were delays with the landlord assessing the leak and how this was impacting the damp and mould.
The first occasion where the landlord attended the property to assess the mould after the leak was on 13 March 2023, which was 63 days later. There is no evidence on which we could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. The landlord said it was not able to fully complete the required work on this date, as it had only sent one operative, and they were not able to move furniture by themselves to fully complete the repair.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord conducted a second mould treatment. This was 126 days after the first mould treatment.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord if it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the damp and mould after the resident reported it. The landlord said and inspection occurred on 7 May 2024 where a report was later completed. The Ombudsman considers this to be an inappropriate length of time when considering the landlords policies and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that the service the resident had received in relation to their reports of damp and mould fell below the landlord’s own expectations. The landlord offered the resident £250 for the time and trouble, and £240 for the resident to re-decorate three rooms where mould had caused damage. The Ombudsman considers this offer to be appropriate in the circumstances, and in-line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The Ombudsman finds the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the reported damp and mould after considering:
1. the landlord provided compensation to the resident for the distress its actions had caused
2. the landlord provided redress for the resident for the costs associated with decorating rooms damaged by damp and mould
3. the landlord acknowledged its handling of the damp and mould had not met its own expectations

Compensation offered to the resident

The landlord’s compensation policy encourages residents to take out contents insurance. The policy notes on occasions where damage is caused by the landlord or their representatives, it can offer to compensate the resident. If the cost of the damage is over £500 in value, then the landlord is covered by its liability insurance.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines in cases where there has been a considerable service failure, or maladministration, it can offer residents compensation of £250 to £700. On occasions where maladministration or severe maladministration has occurred, and there has been a significant long-term impact on the resident, the landlord can offer compensation in excess of £700.
In their complaint the resident said the leak, and the damp and mould which had formed following the leak, had caused damage to:
1. coats and shoes stored by the front door
2. shoes which were adapted to meet their child’s medical needs
3. their child’s wheelchair
4. the flooring
5. the wallpaper
6. decorative items
7. a wardrobe and its contents
8. a sofa
The resident estimated the cost of the damaged items totalled £1,400 and asked the landlord for compensation of £1,000.
In its stage one response the landlord declined to pay any compensation to the resident for their damaged items. It reconsidered this in its stage 2 response, and said the resident received a sub-standard service and offered them £350 to compensate for the damaged items. The landlord also advised the resident to make a claim via their contents insurance in relation to any damaged items. The landlords offer of compensation was in-line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord did not advise the resident that they could attempt to make a claim with its own liability insurer, nor did it provide the resident with details of its liability insurer. This was unreasonable considering the content of the landlord’s compensation policy, and as the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation.
The resident told the landlord the damaged items included specially adapted equipment for their disabled child. The resident told this Service they had to replace privately funded specialist insoles to meet their child’s mobility needs. They also had to buy a new wheelchair as there was a 13-month waiting list for them to receive a replacement wheelchair. The landlord failed to address the impact the damage may have had on the resident’s child. It did not offer to compensate for, provide its insurers details or replace the specialised items. In doing so it failed to consider the child’s vulnerability and welfare, as the items damaged would have reduced the child’s mobility.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation after considering:
1. the landlord failed to consider the impact the damage would have on the resident’s disabled child
2. the landlord did not advise the resident it could make a claim via its liability insurer
3. the landlord offered to compensate the resident for the damaged items, but the resident was not satisfied with this offer of compensation
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £100, for its failure to consider the resident’s child’s vulnerability, and its failure to advise the resident they could make a claim with its liability insurer.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, and then provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 28 March 2023, this was 8 working days after the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s stage one response was provided within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy, which was appropriate.
On 23 March 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 16 May 2023, which was 35 working days later. The landlord did not apologise for this delay.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023, which was 20 working days after acknowledging the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman finds a service failure occurred as the landlord did not acknowledge to the resident’s escalation request within a reasonable timeframe.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the reported leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of its handling of damp and mould repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there a service failure in respect of the compensation offered by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £750 to the resident. The £350 the landlord previously offered can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to adequately address the reported leak
2. £100 for the landlord’s failure to handle the resident’s compensation request in an appropriate manner
3. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures
The landlord is to write to the resident outlining its position on compensation for the damaged items. This communication is to include details of the landlord’s liability insurer should the resident wish to pursue a claim.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this Service and the resident with a schedule of repairs it intends to complete to rectify the roofing issues.
The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendations

The finding of reasonable redress is made on the is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £490 for its handling of the damp and mould is paid, if this has not already been paid.