ForHousing Limited (202311294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311294

ForHousing Limited

18 March 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. A repair to the front door.
3. The resident’s request for a new bathroom and kitchen.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom house and she lives there with her children. The landlord told us it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, the resident told it in her initial complaint that she has asthma and one of her children had been regularly contracting croup.
The resident contacted her local MP on 10 November 2022 to raise concerns about damp and mould, repairs and her kitchen and bathroom. The MP forwarded her email onto the landlord and asked it to provide a written response.
The landlord responded to the MP on 7 December 2022. It apologised that a repair had not been raised for the resident’s front door and said this had now been raised as urgent. It said it would attend on 14 December to inspect the kitchen and bathroom. It also said that a damp inspection had already been raised and was due by 9 December.
On 12 December 2022 the resident’s MP forwarded the landlord’s response to her. She responded the same day to say that no one came to do a damp inspection and the landlord’s response was incorrect. She emailed the landlord the same day and made it clear she remained unhappy.
A damp survey was carried out on 3 January 2023. On 27 March the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and said it was meeting with her on 11 April to discuss the stage 2 complaint. It sent its stage 2 response on 19 April, in which it said:
1. There was a miscommunication in its response to her MP. The 9 December 2022 was the date it should have contacted her to arrange a survey by.
2. There was a delay in kitchen cupboard doors being replaced due to materials not being available. It offered £75 compensation for this.
3. It was awaiting the outcome of an asbestos survey before carrying out further work. Once it had the results it would provide dates for work to be completed.
4. It would arrange a mould wash and asked for her availability.
5. It offered an additional £200 to recognise delays in work being completed.
The resident contacted us on 28 June 2023 to ask us to investigate the complaint. She said work had not been completed and the compensation had not been paid to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 April 2023. At times within this report events from 2024 are referred to. This is because, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, those events relate to issues that formed part of the resident’s complaint. Some repairs promised in the stage 2 response were not carried out until 2024 and the resident has told us the damp issues have persisted.
The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the following repairs categories and timescales:
1. Emergency repairs – 4 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs – 30 working days.
4. Damp repairs – 40 working days.
5. Replacement – 80 working days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will:
1. Provide a customer focused approach to dealing with damp and mould.
2. Prioritise works for vulnerable residents, including those with a child under 6 and those with a vulnerability marker on its system.
3. Complete a health and vulnerability assessment as part of the damp and mould inspection.
4. Keep residents regularly informed about progress of their damp inspection and associated works.
5. Ensure the works are effective by contacting the resident 3 months after the works are completed to verify these have addressed the problem.
The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In the resident’s initial contact with her MP on 10 November 2022 she said the windows in the property were very old and she had been complaining about them since she moved in. She said each morning they were wet with condensation. She said this led to mould growing on ceilings, affecting her asthma, and possibly causing her child to have croup often.
The landlord told the resident’s MP, in its response of 7 December 2022, that a damp visit was due to be completed by 9 December, which did not go ahead. The damp survey was subsequently carried out on 3 January 2023, which found:
1. The bathroom extractor fan was not working and there was black mould on the grout. It was recommended that the fan be changed and the grout be raked out and redone.
2. Bedroom 1 had black mould on the ceiling that needed to be treated.
3. Bedroom 2 had plaster crumbling by the window and black mould on the ceiling.
4. The gutters needed to be cleaned and flushed.
5. The windows throughout the property required inspecting.
The landlord has not provided a copy of a risk assessment that it should have completed in line with its damp and mould policy. The resident’s initial report of damp and mould made it clear that she and one of her children had vulnerabilities. The landlord failed to record these vulnerabilities on its system and take appropriate action in line with its policy.
Work was initially held up by the need for an asbestos survey which was completed on 17 April 2023. It is not clear from the information provided why this took place almost 3 months after the damp survey and this represented an unreasonable delay. The asbestos survey said that the areas that were able to be inspected were low risk.
In its stage 2 response of 19 April 2023 the landlord said that once it received the asbestos survey it would provide dates for work to start. It is not clear when it received the survey. The landlord said it would arrange a mould wash. It offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise delays in work being completed. This amount was reasonable at that time to recognise the delays up to that point.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 June 2023, saying she had not received her compensation or had any repairs completed. A mould treatment was subsequently completed on 30 June.
No further work was carried out until 26 October 2023, when a mould treatment was done. The landlord’s contractor also attempted to replace the bathroom fan on this visit but was unable to. They found that the previous fan had not been vented and would never have worked. They said this would have been a ‘massive factor’ in damp issues. On 31 October the landlord attempted a visit but could not gain access. It is not clear from its records what it intended to carry out during this visit.
On 29 November 2023 a contractor emailed the landlord and said that all windows had mould around them and some reveals had blown. They set out work that needed to be done. A window inspection was arranged for 1 December however the contractor was unable to gain access on that date. The appointment was rebooked for 4 January 2024, as the resident was unavailable on a date offered in December 2023.
During the visit on 4 January 2024 a further mould wash was completed. The windows were inspected and it was found that mould was still present on 5 window seals. The roof was inspected and the gutters were cleared.
On 23 January 2024 trickle vents were installed and window frames were repointed. A new extractor fan was installed in the bathroom. The following day the upstairs windows were resealed and handles replaced. On 22 February, 3 double glazing units were replaced. The landlord has not provided evidence that a follow up visit was completed 3 months post-work, which its damp and mould policy said it would do. The resident has said that the landlord has since had to carry out a further mould wash and the mould still returns. She also said that plastering work remains outstanding.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould, and it took too long to carry out a damp survey. However, it did recognise this delay and offered reasonable compensation for this in its stage 2 response.
However, despite this, the landlord failed to act promptly after the stage 2 response in carrying out the required repairs. The repairs were not completed until 10 months after the stage 2 response, which was not in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. Although there were 2 no access appointments, these do not appear to have significantly delayed the repair work. The landlord’s records do not show clear reasons for it taking so long to complete the work. Its records also do not show that it kept the resident updated while work was ongoing.
The landlord’s failure to carry out a post-work inspection means that it did not verify that the work had resolved the issues reported. It failed to act in line with the promises made in its damp and mould policy, which was not appropriate. The landlord did not record the health issues reported by the resident, so failed to take these into consideration. It did not demonstrate that it considered its obligations under the HHSRS.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £600. This amount has been awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. It recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delays in carrying out damp and mould work, given the resident’s specific circumstances. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £800.
Orders have also been made for the landlord to:
1. Carry out a new damp and mould survey and identify any required repairs.
2. Carry out a case review to understand why it did not manage this case in line with its damp and mould policy.

Front door repair

The landlord’s repairs log shows the resident reported a problem with the front door not locking on 20 October 2022. This was raised as a routine repair with a target date of 2 December. The landlord’s website provides examples of the types of issues that fall into its different repairs categories. It says that something that may affect health, safety, or security, such as an unsecured external door, should be classed as an urgent repair. The Ombudsman therefore considers it to have been inappropriate for the landlord to have raised the repair as routine.
In the resident’s initial contact with her MP on 10 November 2022 she said her front door would not lock from the inside. She said she had reported this to the landlord 3 weeks earlier and nothing had been done. She was concerned about the safety of her young children.
In its response to her MP on 7 December 2022, the landlord said that it had failed to arrange a repair for the door lock when she had called to report it. It said it had now raised an urgent job for this, with a 3-day priority. The landlord’s repair record is not clear but it appears the door was repaired the next day on 8 December. This was in line with the commitment it made in its response to her MP. Its stage 2 response did not make any further comment about the door and no apology or redress was offered to recognise the delay.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a repair to the front door. It did not raise the repair with an appropriate priority and took 6 weeks to repair a front door that would not lock. It was aware the resident lived there with her young children and did not take their safety into consideration when categorising the repair.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to it repairing the front door. This amount has been awarded in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Bathroom and kitchen

The Decent Homes Standard, set out by the government, says that homes should have reasonably modern facilities. This means, among other things, a kitchen should be 20 years old or newer and a bathroom should be 30 years old or newer. The landlord has not provided a copy of a policy which shows how often it should replace kitchens and bathrooms.
In her complaint the resident said that the landlord carried out appointments to do repairs in the kitchen on 24 October and 7 November 2022 but on both occasions did not have the parts available to complete the work. It is not clear why it did not cancel these appointments if it did not have the materials available. It would have been appropriate for it to have rescheduled these appointments, so as not to inconvenience the resident.
In the resident’s initial contact with her MP on 10 November 2022, she said she thought that kitchens and bathrooms were supposed to be updated every 10 years. She said that the landlord told her the kitchen was not old enough to be changed, but it had agreed to fit new cupboard doors.
In the landlord’s response to the resident’s MP on 7 December 2022 it said it would carry out an inspection of the bathroom and kitchen on 14 December. It said it would assess whether any upgrade was needed, and if not, discuss any required repairs. It has not provided evidence that it provided any explanation at that time about why the kitchen and bathroom would not be renewed, which was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response of 19 April 2023, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in renewing the kitchen cupboard doors due to materials not being available. It offered her £75 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused, which was reasonable. The complaint response did not explain the expected lifespan of the kitchen or bathroom, and whether the resident’s fell within this.
On 13 February 2024 the landlord emailed the resident on 13 February 2024. It said the bathroom was not due for an upgrade until 2037. An internal email of 23 May confirmed that the bathroom was last replaced around 2000 and the kitchen was replaced in 2012 or 2013. It is not clear why it gave a timeframe of 2037 for a bathroom upgrade, as it said that it expected the bathroom to have a lifespan of 30 years. However, both the kitchen and bathroom do fall within the expected age set out in the Decent Homes Standard at 13 and 25 years old respectively.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and kitchen. The bathroom and kitchen are both classed as reasonably modern under the Decent Homes Standard. The landlord completed repairs to the kitchen and compensated the resident to recognise a delay for this.
However, during its internal complaints process, the landlord failed to clarify to the resident how old the kitchen and bathroom were. We have not seen that it has since confirmed to her the age of the kitchen. When it did eventually tell her when the bathroom was due to be upgraded, this date was not in line with what it said its own policy was, or the Decent Homes Standard.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to communicate clearly about this issue. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £175. A recommendation has also been made for it to write to her and set out an expected schedule for bathroom and kitchen replacement in line with its policy and the Decent Homes Standard.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint policy says it will treat all expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint. It says that complaints submitted via a third party or advocate will be handled in line with this policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It can extend this by a further 10 working days but will notify the resident if it does this. At stage 2 it will acknowledge escalation within 5 working days of the escalation request and send its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. It can extend this by a further 20 working days but again will notify the resident if it does this.
The resident raised her concerns with her local MP on 10 November 2022. Her MP forwarded the complaint to the landlord on 17 November. We have seen no evidence the landlord sought to clarify whether the contact was an enquiry or a complaint. Despite the resident’s email clearly expressing dissatisfaction the landlord did not raise a formal complaint, which was not appropriate. It responded to the MP on 7 December 2022.
The MP shared the response with the resident and on 12 December 2022 she contacted both the landlord and her MP to say she was not happy with the landlord’s response. She said it was not accurate. The landlord did not respond to the resident or escalate the complaint at this time, which was inappropriate. On 27 March 2023 it wrote to her MP confirming it had scheduled a stage 2 meeting with the resident for 11 April. This meeting was 4 months after her escalation request which represented an unreasonable delay. It sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 April 2023.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It should have confirmed with the resident whether she wished to raise the issues as a complaint, and in the absence of confirmation, it should have raised it as such. It treated the contact as an enquiry, despite its complaint policy saying that it should accept complaints raised by third parties on behalf of residents. It was reasonable, however, that it moved straight to stage 2 when she was unhappy with its response to her MP.
The landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to send its stage 2 response after the resident made it clear she was unhappy with its initial response. It failed to acknowledge her escalation response or provide any reason for the delay. In its stage 2 response it recognised delays in it dealing with the substantive issues. However, it failed to acknowledge the delay in responding to the complaint.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a repair to the front door.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new bathroom and kitchen.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,375, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in resolving damp and mould.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in repairing the front door.
  3. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication in relation to the bathroom and kitchen.
  4. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
A senior manager at the landlord to apologise in writing for the failings identified within this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Carry out a damp and mould survey and provide us and the resident with a copy of the survey. If any remedial work is required the landlord should provide us and the resident with a schedule of work, to include a timescale for the work to be completed.
2. Carry out a case review to understand why it did not manage this case in line with its damp and mould policy. A copy of the review should be provided to us and resident.

Recommendation

The landlord to write to the resident and set out an expected schedule for bathroom and kitchen replacement in line with its policy and the Decent Homes Standard.