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

Greatwell Homes Limited (202404243)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404243

Greatwell Homes Limited

30 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 response to the residents reports of damp and mould impacting the property’s living room floorboards.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a 2 bedroom house. She has lived at the property with her son, (who is 5), since 2021. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her son. It noted that both have asthma and the resident’s son has non-verbal autism. Her son was tested for allergies by a GP in March 2024. The resident’s first language is Polish.
  2. The date is not clear from the correspondence provided to this Service, however, the resident’s living room carpet was taken up at some point in 2023. The landlord had noted internally that it had agreed to support the resident to replace the bedroom and living room carpets via its customer assistance fund.
  3. Following the removal of the carpet, the resident reported in October 2023, that the living room floorboards had mould on them. The landlord attended in January 2024 and identified a burst pipe in the garden of the property, which was subsequently fixed. The landlord inspected the living room floorboards and found that they were discoloured but were not damp. It advised that the floorboards were fit for purpose, but offered to clean them. The landlord’s offers of both chemical and non-chemical cleaning of the floorboards was declined by the resident due to concerns for her son’s health. The landlord offered to pay for her and her son to stay in a hotel whilst cleaning took place but this was also declined by the resident.
  4. The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response that it had delayed in its initial response to the resident’s reports and it apologised for this. Following the referral to this Service, the landlord carried out a damp survey which found no damp or mould. The resident subsequently agreed to non-chemical cleaning of the floorboards. The landlord provided a new living room carpet and offered £1000 compensation, which the resident accepted.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated within her correspondence to this Service that there had been damp and mould in the property since 2021. The landlord advised this Service that it had not received any reports of damp or mould prior to the resident’s reports of the mould on the floorboards. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from the resident’s report of mould from 11 October 2023 and her subsequent complaint. Reference to any events that occurred prior this are for context only.
  2. The resident raised the issue of the impact of damp and mould on her son’s health. 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 any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

Response to the residents reports of damp and mould impacting the property’s living room floorboards

  1. Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
  3. Following the removal of the living room carpet, the resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2023 and stated that the floorboards were “rotten and covered in mould”. The following day, the landlord asked if she could provide photographs of the issue. It also advised that its Polish speaking Neighbourhood Officer would contact her to discuss her concerns. The allocation of a staff member who could speak to the resident in their first language was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had understood the resident’s individual circumstances and considered how it could support her. However, it is not clear if a subsequent discussion took place with the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord inspected the floorboards following the resident’s initial report. The landlord was therefore unable to evidence that it had taken proactive action to understand and rectify the issue in a timely manner following the initial report.
  4. There was a gap in the correspondence provided to the Ombudsman between October 2023 and 3 January 2024. On 3 January 2024 the resident again reported that the living room floorboards were mouldy. The landlord inspected the property on 8 January 2024. This identified a leak from a pipe in the garden. The landlord raised a job for a drainage contractor to inspect the pipe (18 January 2024) and the pipe was fixed on 2 February 2024. Prior to this work being completed, an inspection had taken place on 31 January 2024. This had determined that there was no evidence of damp in the property and that the discoloration of the floorboards had been caused by cold air under the property, rather than the leak.
  5. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that following a report of damp and mould, it will act promptly to limit the impact of damp and mould on a resident. It will subsequently carry out required works in line with its repairs policy (general repairs will be completed within 28 days). In this case, the landlord did not inspect the reported mould until around 3 months after the resident’s initial report. This timeframe was not appropriate and was not in line with its damp and mould policy. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had considered its obligations under the HHSRS to take action to reduce the risk posed to the resident from the reported mould. It also failed to demonstrate that it had considered the particular health vulnerabilities of the household as there was no evidence that it had sought to expedite the inspection.
  6. Following the leak being resolved, the resident chased up works to the floorboards and stated that she was worried about the impact of mould on her son’s health. The landlord advised her that the floorboards had been inspected and did not need to be replaced. It stated that it would clean them with a fungicidal wash. The resident queried what chemicals would be used, as she was worried about the impact of chemicals on her son’s health. The landlord took her concerns seriously and responded the following day to confirm the chemicals it would use during this.
  7. The resident subsequently declined to have the floorboard cleaning carried out and stated that this had been on the advice of her GP. The landlord responded to this and offered non-chemical cleaning treatment. This was also declined by the resident. It subsequently offered to pay for hotel accommodation for the resident and her son whilst treatment to the floorboards was carried out. This was also declined by the resident. Despite these not being accepted, the offers made by the landlord were reasonable and demonstrated that it had taken her individual circumstances and concerns about her son’s health seriously.
  8. Within the stage 1 response (1 March 2024) the landlord noted that it had helped the resident via its customer assistance fund, to replace the bedroom carpets. However, it did not mention an offer to replace the living room carpet within its response. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports of mould on the floorboards and it apologised for this. It concluded that the complaint was partially upheld as a result. Although this acknowledgement was appropriate, the landlord did not indicate what action it would take to prevent such a failure from occurring again in the future. It therefore missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it had taken learning from the complaint.
  9. Within its stage 2 response (10 April 2024), it stated that it had offered to replace the living room carpet within its stage 1 response. However, the evidence suggests this offer was made prior to the complaint being made, and not as part of the stage 1 response as the landlord indicated. As such, the stage 2 investigation and response was inaccurate. Furthermore, stage 2 complaint focused on what the landlord had done correctly, but did not address those actions which were lacking from its stage 1 response. This was another missed opportunity for the landlord to consider why the failure had happened and the resulting impact this had on the resident.
  10. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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.
  11. The Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process.
  12. It was not until the resident referred her complaint to this Service, that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and concluded that it should have offered compensation to acknowledge the impact of the delay on the resident. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, there was little evidence of this at the time of the original complaint investigation. Nevertheless, the landlord’s original complaint investigation did acknowledge that it had taken too long to respond to the resident’s initial report. Redress for the identified error is something which should have been considered as part of the internal complaints procedure. A referral to the Ombudsman is not meant as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint, as this should have been fully investigated during the internal complaints procedure.
  13. Following the involvement of the Ombudsman, the landlord offered £1000 compensation, it replaced the living room carpet and carried out a damp inspection (which found no evidence of damp). This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s decision making in respect of how it determined the amount of compensation. However, the landlord advised that the amount was based on the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance. The amount offered was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a significant impact on a resident.
  14. Although the compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, this should have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. The date on which the landlord offered the compensation is unclear, however, this was at least 6 months after the resident’s complaint. As such the landlord failed to effectively put things right during the internal complaints procedure. It also missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and maladministration has therefore been found with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of damp and mould impacting the property’s living room floorboards.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould, impacting the property’s living room floorboards.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1000 compensation, if this has not already been paid. Evidence of compliance is to be provided to this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report, in accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. The review should consider:
    1. Why, given the evidence available (or may have been available) in respect to reports of damp and mould at the property, opportunities were missed to effectively respond between October 2023 and January 2024. The landlord should identify what change it will make to its processes to prevent a re-occurrence of the root causes that led to the delays in this case, and its inability to follow its damp and mould policy.
    2. How it will improve its complaint handling to ensure that redress is considered during the internal complaints procedure and to ensure that leaning is taken from identified failures.