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

ForHousing Limited (202217893)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217893

ForHousing Limited

22 October 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 landlord’s handing of damp and mould and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2014. The resident occupies the property with her family. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. In November 2022 the resident reported damp in different areas of the property. The landlord inspected and drafted a specification of works. The landlord started the works in May 2023. In November 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She complained:
    1. The works had not been completed within the timescale she had been told.
    2. The contractor had not responded to her requests for contact.
    3. Kitchen worktops had not been replaced.
    4. There was poor workmanship in some areas.
    5. She believed the landlord should have offered a decant.
  3. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the issues and stated it would arrange an inspection to identify the outstanding repairs. In relation to its decision not to offer a decant the landlord said it had discussed this internally and considered it unnecessary. It offered £200 in compensation for failing to respond to her requests for contact, poor workmanship, and inconvenience.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offer stating it did not reflect the level of disruption experienced by the household or the extent of the landlord’s delay in carrying out the works. She stated her partner, and child had developed a persistent cough because of dust in the air. She informed the landlord that because of the works, several rooms needed redecoration. She requested an improved offer of compensation and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs. It acknowledged the disruption, delays and damage caused. It apologised it had not offered support with redecorations. It said it would complete works by 3 January 2024. It offered an additional £800 in compensation for delay, redecorating costs, stress, and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord completed the damp and associated works in July 2024. On 23 July 2024 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £2800.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.

  1. The landlord has a damp and mould policy. This states it will inspect reports of damp and mould within 10 working days. It further states it will complete damp and mould works within 40 working days.
  2. In this case the records provided show the resident reported damp and mould in November 2022. The landlord inspected the same month. The inspection report shows damp and mould works were required to different areas of the property. It reflects the most extensive works were required in the kitchen necessitating the removal of the base and wall units. The lounge required removal of plaster, application of damp proof membrane and replastering.
  3. The landlord did not carry out any works after its inspection. Consequently, in January and May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord’s dedicated damp inbox chasing up when works would start. It was unsatisfactory that the resident had to chase the landlord. The landlord has not provided any reason as to why it did not begin works after its inspection and does not appear to have investigated its service failure. Given the landlord’s repairs standard of 40 days for damp and mould work, the landlord should have investigated the reason it took no action between November 2022 and May 2023. It would then be able to take steps to ensure it did not happen again. Additionally, the landlord is aware that damp and mould are category 1 hazards as set out in the Housing, Health, and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This Service finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the works after its inspection which meant damp and mould in the property was not attended too for 6 months.
  4. The records indicate the landlord started damp works in May 2023. However, the works were still not completed in November 2023. This far exceeds the landlord’s 40 working day timescale. Consequently, on 21 November the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She stated the works had not been completed in the timescale promised and workmanship was not of the expected standard. In discussions with the landlord, she added further issues to the complaint. These were that the contractor had not responded to her requests for contact and the landlord had not offered a decant for the duration of the works.
  5. As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord took appropriate steps to put the workmanship issues right. It recalled its contractor, however, this meant works that had already exceeded the published timescale were even further delayed. This Service finds the landlord’s lack of supervision of the works was a contributory cause of contractor recalls. One example of this is the mismatched skirting board fitted by the contractor in November 2023 that was not rectified until 19 January 2024. (This timescale also exceeds its published repairs standards). The landlord’s lack of attention to this and other details led to inconvenience and distress to the resident.
  6. In relation to not offering the resident a decant the landlord said it had considered this course of action unnecessary. However, it did not explain what factors it had taken into account to arrive at its decision. The records indicate the resident was informed during the inspection in November 2022 that she would need to move out during the works. Shortly after, the landlord’s contractor informed her the work could be completed with her in-situ. The conflicting information caused uncertainty to the resident. In her stage 1 complaint she said the works were extremely disruptive because both the kitchen and living room were out of use at the same time. Additionally, the gas boiler was turned off during the day resulting in no heating or hot water. This Service considers this situation amounts to extensive works.
  7. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment states that if remedial works are extensive, it will offer a temporary decant. The evidence shows the  landlord decided not to decant the resident without any discussion with her. It did not gain the resident’s view and appears to have underappreciated the level of disruption caused by simultaneous works in the kitchen, lounge, and other rooms, on the resident and her family. This was a failing in the landlord’s approach. In the circumstances the landlord should have discussed the options with the resident in line with its damp and mould policy with the aim of arriving at a suitable solution.
  8. In recognition of the workmanship issues, its communication failures and inconvenience it offered £200 in compensation. This Service notes the landlord did not include an amount for its unreasonable delay in starting works. This was unfair given its 6 months delay in starting works.
  9. On 21 November 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She provided an extensive list of unfinished works. She said mould had reappeared in a bedroom. She asked the landlord to complete the works within 30 days in line with its repairs timescales. She stated she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She detailed the impact on her household. She said the situation had placed strain on the family’s mental health and dust in the air had caused persistent coughs.
  10. On 1 December 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the resident had experienced disruption, delays and damage and upheld her complaint. It offered an additional £800 in compensation. In relation to the unfinished works, it arranged a surveyor’s inspection of the issues. This was an appropriate step to take. It said it would complete works by 3 January 2024. In relation to the report that mould was reappearing in the bedroom the landlord asked its roofing contractor to inspect the roof to check for water ingress. However, it would have been appropriate to arrange a mould wash or similar treatment at the same time but there is no evidence the landlord did this. This was unreasonable because the landlord’s self-assessment states its specialist mould growth contractor will carry out early intervention measures within 5 working days.
  11. In relation to the impact on the family’s health the landlord did not respond to this information at any stage. This was inappropriate and a failing in its approach. Where a resident informs the landlord that works are impacting the health of the household, this Service expects the landlord to promptly carry out a risk assessment to ensure it understands any adverse impact on occupants. It can then consider possible solutions and decide it if it needs to adjust its approach in any way.
  12. The records show the landlord did not complete the works by 3 January 2024 as set out in its final response. The records indicate a senior member of staff oversaw matters between January and July 2024. The resident and landlord agreed the compensation would be reviewed when all repairs were complete. The documents indicate the landlord completed repairs in July 2024. On 27 July 2024 the landlord made a compensation offer of £2800.
  13. Taking everything into account this Service finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in starting the work after its initial inspection in November 2022. It then took approximately 14 months to complete the works. It did not include the resident in its decision making around whether to offer a decant which meant she and her family experienced uncomfortable and challenging conditions for a prolonged period. The landlord did not oversee works robustly enough leading to delays in rectifying poor workmanship and reinstating the kitchen. Significantly, it did not carry out a risk assessment when the resident reported a negative impact of the works on the family’s health.
  14. The landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment shows it is aware that it does not always meet the 40-day timescale for damp and mould works. It says it continues to add additional contractors to its damp and mould team. This Service understands the constraints but considers the landlord needs to be proactive in its communication when residents are affected. In this case the landlord and its contractors failed to respond to the resident’s requests for contact about the issues. This should not have been the case.
  15. The compensation offered was appropriate and the landlord took steps to put things right. However, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs. This is because the landlord did not include the resident in its decision making about not to offer a decant and it failed to respond to the resident’s reports of the negative impact of the works on the family’s health.
  16. The landlord has acknowledged it did not get things right. This Service can see that in its complaints responses the landlord has apologised for the issues. This Service also notes the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s July 2024 compensation offer. Therefore, no further compensation is ordered.
  17. While this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue, we have identified good practice in the landlord’s complaint handling. In relation to its handling of the stage 1 complaint, it spoke to her to discuss the issues. The resident raised additional related issues during the  call such as contractor performance which the landlord included in its stage 1 response. This was good practice and complies with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  18. In relation to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, its complaints and feedback partner sought confirmation that it had correctly understood the resident’s complaint points. It provided a date by which it would provide its response. It described the process of the stage 2 review panel and explained the staff members involved. It provided a single point of contact for any queries during the stage 2 process. It confirmed it would telephone her after the stage 2 review panel and then confirm the outcome in writing. We find the landlord’s complaint handling was constructive, helpful, and professional.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme here was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise for not discussing a decant with her and not responding to her reports about the impact of the work on her family’s health.
    2. Carry out a property inspection to assess the effectiveness of works carried out.
    3. Consider how it will ensure decisions on whether to decant or not are jointly discussed with the resident and the decision is appropriately recorded.
    4. Provide evidence to this Service it has complied with the above orders.