ForHousing Limited (202342868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342868

ForHousing Limited

28 November 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident told the landlord that she has mental health concerns and a physical disability of sciatica. The landlord holds a disability marker on her tenancy account.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman regarding outstanding repairs needed at her property. On 9 April 2024, this Service contacted the landlord to advise that she wished to raise a formal complaint. The complaint focused on concerns with damp and mould in the kitchen, bathroom and a bedroom. It also included issues with leaks and a vermin infestation. This Service explained that the resident wanted the repairs completed, and for it to decant her (temporarily move her) during the works.
On 16 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Listed multiple repairs that it had raised, but not completed, because the resident declined or cancelled the works.
2. Explained that the works required to address the damp would take approximately 4 days to complete. It said it had reviewed its decision regarding a decant and confirmed it was not required.
3. Would continue to try to arrange the works with her, and it could fit a key safe if access was an issue.
4. Had dealt with an insect infestation in July 2023 but this was the first report of a vermin infestation. It therefore logged this issue as a service request, and it would contact her separately about this.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. She said she could not stay in the house during the works because of her health needs, as she needed regular outdoor access. She said she would have to clean constantly for 4 days which she could not do because of her physical health conditions. She said the works would trigger her allergy to dirt, and the landlord had previously left her house dirty after works. She asked it to decant her while it completed the works to prevent issues to her health. She added that roof leaks caused further damp issues, and she felt that the health and safety of her household did not matter to the landlord.
On 29 May 2024, the landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident. It:
1. Apologised that its initial complaint response did not clearly cover the issue of leaks. It tried to inspect the roof and loft space on 3 January 2024, but it could not gain access to do this. The resident then declined further contact from its contractors to arrange this.
2. Assured her that it took her concerns seriously. It understood any works would add a level of stress and anxiety, but it explained ways to support her while it completed the works. This included fitting a key safe to allow her freedom to leave and return as required, ventilating the area, and sealing off rooms worked on.
3. Reviewed its records but could not find any reports of cleanliness issues following previous repairs. It was sorry to hear this though. It offered for a supervisor to inspect the cleanliness at the end of each day and address any concerns on the same day.
4. Reviewed the outstanding repairs required and confirmed that it did not need to decant her during the works. It said it could take steps to minimise the impact of the works on the household instead.
5. Asked her to confirm if she agreed for it to schedule the works or whether she wanted a further damp survey first.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not offer her a decant during the works. She also said the delayed repairs impacted her health, and caused her financial difficulty through increased utility bills. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 25 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has asked the Ombudsman to order the landlord to rehouse her. We acknowledge the reasons that the resident wishes to move. However, making such an order is beyond our remit. We cannot order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident. Nor can we ask it to prioritise her over others that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. This is because we will not make an order which may cause detriment to others. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice. Where we find that the landlord has failed to do so, we make orders aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been had it not been for the failing.
The resident said that the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould affected her health. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. She may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. She may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly.
The resident said she has experienced damp and mould issues since she moved into the property in 2018. We do not dispute these comments, and we acknowledge the serious nature of this matter. However, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which relate to historical events. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore be from 12 months prior to when the resident raised her complaint, which was April 2023.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

Due to the landlord’s poor record keeping, it is unclear when the resident first reported issues with damp within the property. As such, we cannot assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in a timely manner to the reports. It is noted that the landlord attended the property on 30 May 2023 to complete a damp survey. However, it could not complete this as the resident did not provide access to the property.
On 20 July 2023, the resident reported wet walls in her hallway and stairs. On the same day, the landlord raised a job to inspect the property on 26 July 2023. Its damp and mould procedure states it should raise inspections within 10 working days of such a report. Its response to this report was therefore in line with its procedure.
The landlord attended the property on 26 July 2023, but it could not gain access. It reattended later that day and completed an inspection. It did not identify and damp within the property and instead raised works relating to a fly infestation.
There is no further evidence of reports of damp until 21 September 2023, when the landlord raised a further inspection. It is unclear what prompted this, but it completed the inspection on 4 October 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord found damp within the property and listed works required to resolve this. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord proactively managed the follow-on works. This prompted the resident to ask for updates with its next steps on 16 October 2023. It then raised the repairs the following day.
The landlord should not put the onus on the resident to manage her own repairs. It should instead proactively manage the repairs to ensure it resolves the issues identified. By not doing so, it understandably caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states that it should raise works within 24 hours of completing an inspection. It is unclear why the landlord did not do so on this occasion. However, that it did not was a departure from its procedure and a failing.
On 17 October 2023, the landlord raised various repairs. These included a mould wash and installing extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. Its repair notes show that the resident declined these works, and so it cancelled the repairs. It also raised works which the resident later did not provide access for during the appointment on 22 January 2024. These works were to:
1. Remove and replaster the staircase wall (approximately 3 meters).
2. Remove and replaster the chimney breast.
3. Inject a chemical damp proof treatment.
4. Refit new skirting boards.
The landlord also attempted to complete other repairs during this time including the following:
1. On 9 November 2023, it raised works to install 2 air vents in the bedrooms on 2 January 2024. However, during the appointment, it could not do this due to heavy rainfall and lack of access from the resident.
2. On 9 November 2023, it also raised works to inspect the loft and roof space. It attended on 3 January 2024. However, it could not inspect this due to a lack of access from the resident.
3. On 20 December 2023, it raised works to complete a mould wash and to install the extractor fans. However, its notes state the resident declined these works.
The Ombudsman recognises the difficulties faced when there are access issues to complete repairs. The resident’s occupancy agreement states she must provide access when required, when given reasonable notice of at least 24 hours. An exception is in the event of an emergency. This includes allowing the landlord to inspect or complete repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance procedure outlines that where it fails to gain access at an appointment, it will cancel the job. It states it leaves a card encouraging the resident to make contact to rearrange the works. In this case, this was not appropriate.
The landlord was aware of damp present, and it had a duty to investigate and attempt to resolve it. After a failed access attempt, or the resident declining works, it would have been good practice for the landlord to follow this up in writing. It could have provided an action plan in writing to the resident. Alternatively, it could have offered to discuss the planned investigations and/or works with her with a view to ensuring access. This would have offered reassurance to her that it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord has failed to evidence that it made further attempts to complete the outstanding works within a reasonable period. This was a failing.
The landlord’s records do not show the reasons why the resident refused, cancelled, or declined the works proposed. This is a record keeping failure. As such, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to resolve any of the concerns raised. It is therefore not known whether it missed any opportunities to offer support or reassurance to her to progress the repairs.
On 3 January 2024, the resident asked the landlord to decant her for the duration of the works. Due to a lack of evidence provided, it is unclear whether the landlord responded to her request. If it did respond, we cannot determine whether it appropriately considered her request or offered support to her. This is another example of poor record keeping.
In accordance with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, it should complete a health and vulnerability assessment for the household. This allows works to be prioritised accordingly and determine it needs to provide any support to complete the repairs. The landlord has not provided evidence of such an assessment, which is a significant concern.
If the landlord had completed an assessment, it may have identified ways to support the resident. It should have done this during the inspection, in line with its policy. This could have helped reduce the length of time that the resident experienced the damp concerns for. It would have also helped assess whether it needed to organise a decant based on the vulnerability factors within the household. The landlord has the right to decide whether it was appropriate to offer a decant. However, it has not evidenced that it completed an assessment to reach its decision. It is a failing that it has not evidenced that it did so.
The resident listed reasons as to why she felt she could not remain at the property throughout the works. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it addressed each point and offered ways to support her. This included fitting a key safe, inspecting cleanliness standards daily, and ventilating the area. While it was appropriate for it to consider ways to alleviate her concerns, it failed to evidence that it fully assessed her circumstances. It is unclear whether it assessed the impact of the works on her health and vulnerabilities. It also failed to evidence that it assessed whether it should consider a decant as a reasonable adjustment.
Additionally, the resident disclosed concerns with her health, and how this impacted her, especially with the works planned. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer her for support. It is evident that after the complaints process ended, it referred her to its tenancy sustainment service in July 2024. It is unclear why it did not consider doing this sooner, to ensure that the resident had appropriate support in place for her. Its delayed action meant it missed an opportunity to support her fully throughout this time.
In summary, the landlord has failed to maintain accurate records. This has hindered the Ombudsman’s ability to assess its response to reports of damp and mould. Its lack of evidence highlights missed opportunities to offer support and reassurance to the resident to help progress the works. It also failed to evidence that it appropriately assessed whether its position to not offer her a decant was reasonable in the circumstances. This has meant the resident remains in a property with damp over 18 months after it first attempted its damp inspection. In addition, it failed to follow its own damp and mould policy and procedure. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports.
The resident has told this Service that she remains unhappy with the standard of the inspection completed on 4 October 2023. She said that the landlord did not inspect the bedrooms fully. It also did not address an area of damp behind her washing machine. It is unclear whether she reported this as an issue to the landlord at the time.
The landlord offered to reinspect the property within its final complaint response. Given the resident’s concerns, this would be an appropriate next step. The landlord should therefore inspect the property again and complete a vulnerability assessment alongside this.
The resident has told this Service that the outstanding repairs within the property caused her financial difficulties. She said her heating bills increased when trying to heat the property because of the damp. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine whether the conditions within the property have resulted in an increase in the resident’s heating bills. However, the landlord should reasonably consider this now and when completing a further property inspection. After doing so, the landlord should confirm its position in writing to the resident regarding her increased heating bills.
Additionally, given the impact of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, it should pay her £700 compensation. This is to reflect the amount of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This is an appropriate award, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for failings which have adversely impacted the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Part of the resident’s complaint referred to a vermin infestation. Within the initial complaint response, the landlord explained that this was the first report of the issue. As such, it would respond to this separately as a service request.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code in place at the time of the complaint outlines that landlords must recognise differences between a service request and a complaint. Specifically, a service request is when a resident asks the landlord to take action to put things right.
Based on the evidence we have been provided with, there is nothing to suggest that the resident had previously reported, or raised concerns about, an infestation. As such, the landlord’s decision to respond to the resident’s report of a vermin infestation as a service request was appropriate in the circumstances. This was because it had not had an opportunity to resolve this prior to the complaint. Its handling of the matter was therefore in line with the Code.
Within the landlord’s initial complaint response, it referred to relevant repairs raised and the outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to outline the steps taken. However, the list was not in date order of when the events occurred. This is not a failing, as it provided the relevant information. However, it would have caused confusion to the resident. It should therefore consider organising its complaint responses into the relevant order of events for easier reading.
As part of the resident’s complaint escalation, she repeated that the property had leaks. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged that it failed to specifically refer to the issue of leaks in its initial response. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge its lack of clarity. It then explained its position and outlined the steps it had taken regarding this aspect. This was an appropriate response. It showed it had listened to her concerns and put this right in its final complaint response.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate. Where it failed to provide clarity, it fixed this by addressing her concerns within its final complaint response. The Ombudsman has identified a record keeping failure. It has failed to provide a copy of the acknowledgement letters sent to the resident at both stages of the complaints process. However, this has not had a significant impact on its overall complaint handling. Therefore, while there was a record keeping failure, there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples regarding its response to reports of damp and mould.
2. Pay £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account.
3. Confirm its position in writing to the resident regarding her increased heating bills.
4. Complete a further damp inspection of the property. A member of its senior management team or a surveyor should complete this inspection. It should complete a health and vulnerability assessment as part of its inspection, as outlined in its damp and mould policy. It should then provide a copy of the health and vulnerability assessment to the Ombudsman.
5. Write to the resident to confirm an action plan for the outstanding repairs. As a minimum, this should include:
  1. A list of the repairs required, with the appointment dates.
  2. Its decision regarding whether it needs to arrange a decant during the works. It should explain how it has made its decision, and what factors it has considered as part of this, including reference to her vulnerabilities.
  3. A commitment of what arrangements it intends to make to post-inspect the works. This is to ensure that it has completed the works to an acceptable standard. It will also allow an opportunity to identify if it needs to arrange any further works.
  4. A specific point of contact who will take responsibility for offering her weekly updates.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its complaint responses. In doing so, it should consider organising the relevant order of events, or providing a clear chronology, for easier reading.