Homes Plus Limited (202218914)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218914

Homes Plus Limited

23 September 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the property when the tenancy commenced.
2. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since September 2022. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident is disabled and vulnerable and has several health conditions, some of which are early onset of Alzheimers, Asthma and a weakened immune system. The landlord said it has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. From the start of her tenancy, and throughout the timespan of the complaint, the resident reminded the landlord about her disabilities, vulnerabilities and the impact the issues had on her.
Following the void inspection it completed on 15 July 2022, the landlord said it carried out some repairs at the property prior to the resident moving in. Some of these were, but not limited to, repairs to some internal doors, kitchen drawers and remove ivy from the front and rear of the property. The void inspection checklist includes checks for damp and mould and brickwork, the landlord did not record any issue with either at the time of the inspection. It also rewired the property’s electrics on 9 August 2022 and completed an asbestos survey on 19 July 2022.
The landlord noted that neither itself nor the resident identified issues or outstanding repairs with the property at the time of signing the tenancy on 27 September 2022.
Following the resident moving into the property, there were a large number of communications between the landlord and the resident between September 2022 and January 2023. In September 2022 and October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord several times and reported issues with the property. She raised concerns about the standard of the property at letting. Some of the repairs the resident reported during that period were (but not limited to):
1. On 29 September 2022, she reported blocked kitchen and bathroom drains. On 3 October 2022, the resident reported resolving those herself.
2. On 3 October 2022, she reported that the bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were not working. She said the landlord repaired them on 3 October 2022.
3. On between 7 October 2022 and 25 October 2022, the resident reported water droplets on her bedroom‘s ceiling, mould and wet carpet issues with condensation, mould around her windows, smell of damp and mould, issues with drains and suspected water ingress. The resident shared the impact the issues had on her health and requested the landlord carry out an inspection of the property.
4. During that period, she also reported damage caused by an ivy infestation to downpipes and brickwork. The resident said the landlord had removed the Ivy on the roof. She explained that her son removed the remaining Ivy from the side of the property and uncovered damage caused by the ivy such as damage to the drains.
On 28 October 2022, after considering the resident’s circumstances, vulnerabilities and the nature of the reports, the landlord marked her case as urgent.
The resident made a formal complaint on 28 October 2022. The landlord received it two days later. The complaint was about:
1. The kitchen and bathroom extractors not working. 
2. Evidence of condensation, damp and mould, with water streaming down the walls and windows. The resident reported that her carpet was wet and mould was growing in her bedroom.
3. Damaged brickwork blocked and broken drains. The resident said an ivy infestation all around the property caused the damage.
4. Poor communication from the landlord.
5. The impact of the issues on her health.
On 2 November 2022, the landlord carried an inspection at the property. It did not identify any issue with rising damp, mould, signs of water ingress or leaks. It identified several repairs and planned to complete the work on 25 November 2022. Some of the repairs identified, but not limited to, were cleaning and repairing the drains and gutters, repointing some of the brickwork, renewing the seals on some of the windows and doors and replacing a window.
On 4 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for her damaged belongings and raised further concerns about rising damp and water ingress. She also reported water ingress through switches in her bedroom, the landlord attended and completed the repairs on the same day.
The landlord issued is stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 11 November 2022. It upheld the complaint and its response was as follows:
1. During the void period, it removed Ivy from the roof and inspected the loft. It found no evidence of leaks, damp or mould. It acknowledged that the inspection happened during a spell of dry weather and the reported issues would not have been visible.
2. While inspecting the property on 2 November 2022, it checked the moisture levels, whether the damp course was breached, and found no evidence of rising damp in the home. However, it identified the following repairs, which it said it would complete on 25 November 2022:
  1. Check and repair the gutters and rainwater valleys.
  2. Rake out and clear the drains and hoppers.
  3. Attend to the defective brickworks.
  4. Reseal 3 windows and replace a defective double glazed window.
3. It confirmed that it would request a survey of the property with the view of installing a positive input ventilation unit (PIV) in the property.
4. It explained the processes and challenges in finding the root cause of issues such as leaks and damp and mould. It said it might need to inspect more than once before getting to the underlying problem but was confident the scheduled repairs would resolve the issues.
5. It apologised for not acting on all the calls from the resident and acknowledged its failings to communicate effectively with the resident.
On 18 November 2022, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues she experienced at the property. She reiterated the issues she raised at her stage 1 complaint. She acknowledged that the landlord inspected the property and organised repairs for the 25 November 2022, but she questioned the length of time to resolve the problems. She also requested the landlord to compensate her for her damaged items.
On 29 November 2022 and 9 December 2022, the resident provided a list of new and outstanding repairs required at the property, such as (but not limited to):
1. Erecting scaffolding up to complete the cleaning of the middle gutter.
2. Addressing the blockage and leak of the drains. She said the landlord did not adequately carry out those repairs on 25 November 2022.
3. Repairing additional damaged brickwork. She acknowledged that the landlord did some repointing on 25 November 2022, but she identified new areas which required repairing.
4. Resealing the windows as she said the operatives used different colour sealant on different parts of the windows.
5. Replacing the broken window, which the landlord measured up on 25 November 2022.
6. Removing the wet and cracked asbestos tiles in the bedroom.
7. Repairing cracks in the ceiling.
8. Inspecting the roof for leaks and damage and removing moss from the roof tiles.
9. Checking the front porch and door for damage from water ingress and condensation.
At the resident’s request, the landlord inspected the property on 9 December 2022. During its inspection, the landlord found no evidence of penetrating damp or leaks. It identified several repairs, which it said should resolve the issues reported by the resident. The landlord said that apart from the PIV unit installation, it would complete the following repairs by 11 January 2023:
1. Repair the vinyl flooring to bathroom.
2. Apply anti-fungal wash.
3. Carry out a CCTV inspection and unblock to drainage.
4. All windows repair and service.
5. Relay some of the loft insulation.
6. Install 2 new Extractor Fans.
7. Installation of PIV unit.
Additionally, following its inspection, the landlord concluded that the fish tanks in the property contributed to the high level of humidity, a fact which the resident disputed. It said it agreed to instal PIV ventilation to accommodate the resident’s lifestyle and support the resident in managing the humidity level in her property.
On 4 January 2023, the landlord explained it needed more time to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint as it needed further information to complete its investigation. It said it would respond by 18 January 2023 and it apologised to the resident for the delay.
Throughout January 2023, the resident continued to report the outstanding repairs as well as raising new issues such as the wet room drainage. On 9 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord chasing an appointment for the work estimated for 11 January 2023. She also questioned that the work scheduled for 11 January 2023, did not include some of the repairs they discussed such as the repointing of the brickwork and repairs to the roof. The landlord explained that following its inspections, it found no evidence of penetrating damp because of damaged brickwork, leaks or damage to the roof. The landlord said it agreed with the resident that on 1 February 2023, it would apply mould wash.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 18 January 2023. It was as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay responding and explained its reasons for the delay.
2. It found no evidence that it ignored the resident’s emails. It said that apart from one, it acted on all resident’s contacts within 48 hours in accordance with its procedure.
3. It recognised that on 18 October 2022, it informed the resident it would contact her to book an inspection of the property to understand the issues and did not. It explained how it happened, acknowledged that it may have contributed to the resident feeling ignored and apologised for the inconvenience. It also shared the learning with the relevant team and steps it took to prevent this from happening again. It recognised that it should have booked the inspection without the need for the resident to raise a complaint and upheld this element of her complaint.
4. It inspected the property and loft on 2 November 2022 and saw no evidence of rising damp or that the damp course was compromised. However, it identified some repairs and offered to instal a PIV unit in property. It said that the repairs requested should resolve the resident’s issues.
5. It listed the repairs it agreed to do following an inspection completed on 2 November 2022. It explained that it planned to carry out the repairs on 25 November 2022. It clarified that, as planned, it had measured the window on that day so it could order its replacement, which can take time. It replaced the window once it arrived in stock on 13 December 2022. However, it acknowledged that whilst it was aware it would require scaffolding for the job, it failed to arrange for it. As a result of this, it was unable to complete some of the jobs within its published timeframe. It upheld this element of the complaint.
6. It confirmed that it completed the required health and safety checks prior to letting the property. It said that it inspected the property prior to relet and identified no issues. It did not uphold this element of her complaint.
7. It completed another inspection on 9 December 2022 and agreed to complete the following repairs: installing PIV, repairing the window and bathroom vinyl, replacing the humidistat for the bathroom and kitchen, relaying the loft insulation, carrying a CCTV inspection of the drainage and applying anti-fungal wash.
8. It acknowledged that there were some delays and it did not complete the repairs within the timeframe set by its policy and apologised. It explained the reasons for the delays and steps it took to resolve those issues. It scheduled the repairs for 1 February 2023.
9. It said that in addition to the repairs identified to rectify the issues, it also agreed to complete additionally repairs to accommodate the resident’s lifestyle. It reiterated its beliefs that the resident’s fish tanks added to the level of moisture in the property. It said that if the issues persisted after completing the repairs, it would ask the resident to remove the tanks.
10. It understood that the resident provided evidence of moisture on the walls and ceilings. However, when the landlord inspected the areas and measured the humidity levels, it found no evidence of rising damp in the property. It also found no evidence that damp and mould caused the damage to the resident’s bed.
11. It did not uphold the element of the resident’s complaint relating to damp and mould.
12. It confirmed some additional repairs it agreed to do such as: unblocking the pipework, repairing the wet room flooring, inspecting the roof, relaying some of the loft insulation.
13. It partially upheld the complaint and agreed that it should pay compensation to the resident to reflect its failings and would consider this once it is satisfied that it completed all the repairs to satisfaction.

Post internal complaint process (ICP)

Between February 2023 and December 2023, there was lots of communication between the resident and the landlord. This was about outstanding and new repairs at the property, some of which are not part of this complaint.
The landlord’s repairs log noted that on 21 February 2023, it completed the majority of the repairs it agreed to complete in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint.
On 14 April 2023, the resident said that the repairs the landlord completed resolved the issue of water on the ceiling, the wall and windows. However, she said that an area in her bedroom floor remained wet. The landlord installed a new damp course membrane on her bedroom floor on 23 May 2023. The evidence showed that the landlord adjusted its normal procedures to meet the resident’s needs and organised storage for her belongings when it carried out the work.
On 8 August 2023, the landlord completed a condition survey report on the property. It concluded that there were no outstanding defects which would constitute the property being ‘uninhabitable’ for the resident. It acknowledged that a small area of the roof felt required repairing, however it said there was no sign of internal water damage to the loft. The resident confirmed on the same day that the landlord completed the repairs identified as part of her complaint.
On 18 August 2023, the landlord offered the resident compensation for the failings it identified. It acknowledged it had been a lengthy process and explained that the root cause of the issues was not immediately evident. It reiterated what happened and the actions it took. It offered £200 compensation, which was equivalent to:
1. £100 for the delay in organising the first inspection in October 2022.
2. £50 for the delay completing the repairs on 25 November 2022, and an additional £50 to reflect the delays completing the repairs on 11 January 2023.
3. It confirmed that it had resolved all the elements of the complaint.
The resident rejected the offer, she said it did not reflect the impact the failings had on her and did not compensate her for her damaged belongings.
The resident informed this Service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer. She explained that as a resolution, she was seeking an apology and £6000 in compensation to reflect the impact of the issues on her.
The landlord provided a copy of its self-assessment against the Ombudsman Damp and Mould Spotlight Report. The evidence showed that during the timespan of the complaint, the landlord was in the process of implementing its action plan to amend its processes in accordance with the Ombudsman recommendations. For example, following a resident raising concerns about damp and mould, it would inspect the property and issue a survey report, which it would share with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that following the landlord’s stage 2 response into her complaint, the resident continued to identify and report repairs, some of which were not part of her complaint, such as the fencing. This Service cannot consider those as part of the investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised within the resident’s formal complaints approximately between September 2022 and January 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint, the resident can address directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process.
The Ombudsman notes that there has been a lot of communication between the resident and the landlord. While we note the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord, this report has not addressed each and every specific issue or repair in detail. Instead, the Ombudsman has carefully considered all the available evidence and this report will take a view on the landlord’s overall handling of the matters.
The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on her health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Landlord made an offer of £1,000 to reimburse the resident for her damaged belongings, but this Service will not make a decision on that offer because it is outside our remit to assess damages. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we can look at how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for damages and allegations of damaged possessions.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Condition of the property at letting

The Ombudsman appreciates that as the resident had moved into a new home, she would have been disappointed that there were repairs in the property early on. This would have impacted on her new home experience. However, the Ombudsman recognises that, from time to time, there will be matters which the landlord may not be able to identify during the void period. The existence of a repair alone would not constitute a failure on the part of the landlord.
The landlord’s letting standard outlines what residents can expect from the landlord and their new home. It states that it wants the residents to enjoy turning its houses into their homes and promises that on moving day their homes will be legal, safe and ready to let. It states that the property will be watertight, free of damp and mould and the roofs, walls, gutters and down pipes will be safe and in working condition.
At the start of her tenancy, the resident identified and reported several repairs to the landlord. It is acceptable for a resident to move into a property with some works outstanding depending on the impact of the works identified. However, in this case, the landlord said that, in September 2022, it considered the property was ready to let with “no outstanding repairs reported”. It also said that the resident did not identify any issues when she viewed and accepted the property. The Ombudsman understands that not all repairs would be immediately obvious when viewing a property and it is not uncommon for issues to become apparent after moving in. It is, therefore, understandable that the resident did not identify the issues prior to moving in. It was also the landlord’s responsibility to identify the repairs prior to the tenancy starting, not the resident.
The Decent Homes Standard sets the minimum standards for landlords to meet when letting properties. The Landlord had a responsibility to make sure the property was fit for human habitation. It was also under obligation to ensure that the property was in a good state of repair, or had been brought into a state of repair, sufficient to comply with its statutory and tenancy obligations. To achieve this, landlords normally inspect a property during the void period to identify any issues and complete gas and electric safety checks prior to reletting the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out the gas safety check in September 2022 and the electric safety check in August 2022. The landlord also carried out a void inspection in July 2022. During its inspection, it identified several repairs, which it completed prior to the resident taking up the tenancy. For example, it repaired some of the kitchen drawers and rewired the property’s electric. This was reasonable from the landlord, it was also in keeping with what we would expect from a landlord prior to reletting a property.
Additionally, the landlord’s records show that it did not identify any sign of leaks, damp and mould or issue with condensation in the property during its void inspection. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that because there was a spell of dry whether at the time, the issues would not have been visible. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to why it saw no evidence of leaks, damp and mould at the time of the inspection. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman cannot determine there was a failure by the landlord to identify those issues at the time of its void inspection.
The landlord’s records show that it used its own void inspection checklist to record its findings. The checklist sets out what it will inspect during a void inspection and records any required repairs. Whilst this is good practice and a useful tool, the list does not include checking the roofs, walls, gutters and down pipes. The Ombudsman understands that the checklist is unlikely to include every item that the landlord may check. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for the checklist to include those items. If it did, the landlord could satisfy itself that it relet the property in keeping with its letting standard that roofs, walls, gutters and down pipes will be safe and in a working condition.
The landlord’s records show that it noted on the void checklist that it would remove “the climbing plant growing up front and rear of the property”. The evidence shows that the landlord removed the climbing plant, which was ivy, from the roof of the property, which was in keeping with its letting standard to ensure the roof was safe.
The resident said that 3 weeks after she moved in, her son removed the ivy from the front and side of the property. The landlord did not explain why it did not remove the ivy around the property as well. While the landlord’s letting standards states that it will cut back any overgrown hedges, we cannot determine that it should have removed the ivy from the side of the property and failed to meet its standard. The Ombudsman understands that it would have been helpful for the landlord to do this, because the ivy covered and hid some of the defects the resident later reported. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was aware of that fact at the time.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident expected the landlord to remove the ivy from the side, front and rear of the property as it had agreed to do this prior to the resident moving in. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to do this or explain to the resident its reasons for only removing the ivy from the roof. It is unclear whether the landlord cut back the ivy on the side of the property, in accordance with its letting standard, instead of removing it.
However, no evidence was seen that the resident informed the landlord she was not satisfied with the job it had done until her son had removed the ivy from around the property. While the Ombudsman can understand that the resident took the action she did, doing so ultimately denied the landlord the opportunity to complete the job to the standard the resident was seeking. Whilst we recognise there was some miscommunication on what the resident expected, this did not amount to the property being unsafe to let.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that, with hindsight, some of the repairs reported by the resident, were likely to have occurred prior to her moving in, such as the damage to the drains, the brickwork and damp. However, the evidence shows that those were not visible to the landlord at the time of the inspection or prior to the resident moving in. The landlord showed that it took reasonable steps to ensure the property was safe and fit for habitation. It carried out a void inspection, acted on the repairs identified and completed the gas and electric checks. Those actions were in keeping with its letting standard and what the Ombudsman expects from a landlord prior to letting a property.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the issues impacted and caused distress to the resident, it also prevented her from enjoying her new home. Whilst we recognise this was a distressing experience for the resident, unfortunately, not all repairs become known until a property is being lived in. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did not fully remove the ivy from the property, however this did not amount to the property being unfit for habitation or unsafe to let. After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was no service failure by the landlord in its handling of the condition of the property.

Reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their home. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents with certain health conditions and vulnerabilities.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
In this case, within 3 weeks of moving in, the resident reported several repairs, which are often associated with issues of leaks, condensation and damp and mould. For example, she reported broken extractor fans, blocked drains and damaged brickwork. When reporting those repairs, the resident explained to the landlord that she suspected there was water ingress in the property. She also described signs of damp and mould in her home. She explained to the landlord that she was especially concerned because of her vulnerabilities and health, she explained that she is asthmatic and has a weakened immune system.
The landlord’s repairs policy is not specific on the timeframe to complete routine repairs and states that it will prioritise those based on their nature. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that the landlord must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time once it knows about the problem. However, there is no statutory definition of reasonable time. Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will determine whether the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports were reasonable.
The evidence shows that the landlord repaired the kitchen and bathroom extractors fans within 13 working days of the resident reporting the issues. The Ombudsman recognises that this might have felt like a long time to the resident, however this was a reasonable time frame for the landlord to resolve the problem. Usually, a reasonable timeframe for such repairs would be 3 to 4 weeks for a resolution. The landlord also attended to the resident’s report of water ingress through switches in her bedroom and repaired the issue on the same day, which was in keeping with its repair policy. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord, as it responded to the resident’s reports within reasonable timeframes.
The resident repeatedly informed the landlord that the issues she reported could have a detriment effect on her health, because of her disabilities and health conditions. Whilst the landlord considered this in October 2022 and marked the resident’s “case as urgent”, it did not show that it discussed with her whether she required reasonable adjustments or additional support. The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who don’t have a disability.
The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord should have made reasonable adjustments in its handling of the repairs. However, we would have expected the landlord to discuss this with her. This would have reassured the resident that it took her concerns seriously. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s failings to have this discussion impacted on the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman noted that in May 2023, the landlord considered and implemented reasonable adjustments when completing repairs to her bedroom, which was appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. During the October 2022, the resident reported several repairs to the landlord, some of which related to condensation and damp and mould. While the landlord carried out an inspection of the property, it failed to complete it within its published timeframe of completing inspection within 10 days of the resident reporting the issues. It did not demonstrate a sense of urgency in its response to the reports of damp and mould, which we would have expected. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, who felt ignored by the landlord.
Following its inspection in November 2022, the landlord found no evidence of water ingress, rising damp or mould. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident explained the mould was not visible at the time of the inspection. We also recognise that it can be difficult and take time to identify such issues and their root cause. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether water ingress and damp and mould were present at the time of the inspection but recognises that landlords are entitled to rely on the opinion and recommendations of their experts. After considering the evidence seen, the Ombudsman determines that the landlord’s actions were in keeping with what we would expect from a landlord in such cases. Its actions were also in accordance with the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021)
The landlord identified several repairs during its inspections in November 2022 and promptly raised those. It informed the resident that it was planning to carry out the repairs on 25 November 2022. From its own admission, it was unable to complete some of the repairs within the agreed time frame due to its lack of planning. For example, it could not complete the repairs to the gutters as it had failed to erect scaffolding. Additionally, while it explained that it had planned to measure the window on that day to order the replacement, the evidence does not show it had made this clear to the resident. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord would have ensured that it could carry out the repairs it planned and effectively communicate its plan to the resident. Those were missed opportunities to resolve things quickly and rebuild trust with the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a second inspection on 9 December 2022 and planned to complete the repairs identified by 11 January 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it agreed a new date to complete some of the repairs and explained the reasons for the delays to the resident. Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, it did not explain the additional delays in completing some of the repairs. For example, it agreed to apply mould treatment to the affected areas on 11 January 2023, which it delayed until 1 February 2023. However, the evidence shows that it applied the treatment on 21 February 2023. It did not demonstrate that it discussed the additional delay with the resident. Additionally, it applied the treatment 64 days after raising the repair, this is an unreasonable timeframe to complete such repairs, especially while considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord explained within its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould that it completes its damp and mould surveys in house. It acknowledged that at the time of the inspections, it had not implemented its new damp and mould processes and it did not provide a detailed report of the inspection. However, the landlord did not show that it discussed the findings of its inspections with the resident at the time, which would have been reasonable to do. This would have reassured the resident, that although the outcome was not what she expected, the landlord had completed a thorough inspection and she would have understood how its reached its conclusions.
Following its inspections of the property, the landlord concluded and explained to the resident that the fish tanks in her home contributed to the high level of humidity. The Ombudsman understands that the resident disagreed with this and has different views on the cause of the issues. However, our role is not to determine who was right, instead it is to assess if the landlord was fair, reasonable and proportionate in its response to the resident’s concerns. In this case, the landlord shared its conclusion with the resident, made its position clear and explained its reasons why. This was fair from the landlord and in accordance with what we would expect from a landlord.
Furthermore, the evidence also shows that the landlord’s language demonstrates that it was conscious of not inferring blame on the resident. Additionally, it agreed to install a PIV unit to support the resident’s lifestyle and help her manage the level of humidity in the home. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. This was also in keeping with the Ombudsman’s recommendations to not automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed. The landlord also demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to support the resident in mitigating the impact of the fish tanks on the humidity levels in her home.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to identify its failings and put things right as part of its complaint responses. We expect the landlord to acknowledge when something went wrong, apologise, take action to remedy and consider a financial remedy if suitable. In this case, the landlord acknowledged its failings during the complaint process, it apologised to the resident for its failing to communicate with her effectively during that period. It also apologised for failings to complete the inspection and repairs in keeping with its policy. It offered compensation to the resident to reflect the impact the failings it identified had on her. This was in keeping with its complaints and compensation policy.
However, the resident repeatedly reported to the landlord that the issues of water ingress, damp and mould had damaged some of her belongings. In November 2022, she requested the landlord to compensate her for her damaged belongings and reiterated her request in August 2023 and October 2023. The landlord compensation policy states that it does not cover claims that would be dealt with by its insurers. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it sign posted the resident to its insurers, which would have been reasonable to do in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord responded to her request for compensation for her damaged belongings and agreed to compensate her. While this was in keeping with its compensation policy to use its own discretion when offering compensation, it did not explain the delay of approximately a year to clarify its position on the subject. This was unfair to the resident, who had to make the request several times, which caused her inconvenience and time and effort. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to discuss her request with her sooner.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated that it was committed to address the issues raised by the resident. It showed that it was supportive and mindful not to blame the resident for some of the issues, such as the level of humidity in the home. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord reviewed its processes in responding to damp and mould reports and devised an action plan to ensure that it responds effectively respond to such reports in the future.
However, and from its own admission, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports in accordance with its repair policy. It failed to organise an inspection and complete some of the repairs within its published timeframe. At times, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. Additionally, it did not show that it discussed whether the resident required any reasonable adjustments because of her vulnerabilities or promptly clarified its position about compensation for her damaged belongings. This caused significant time and effort, distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was concerned about the impact on her health.
After considering the evidence of the case, the Ombudsman determines that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of her reports of leak, damp and mould and the associated repairs. The landlord acknowledged its failings as part of the complaint process, it apologised to the resident and offered compensation. However, it is the Ombudsman opinion that the landlord’s total compensation offer does not fully reflect the failings identified in this report. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £400 and this is equivalent to (this is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord, but does not include compensation it offered for items not included in this complaint):
1. £100 for the delay in inspecting the property, following the initially report in October 2022 and the impact this had on the resident.
2. £200 to reflect its failings to carry the repairs within its published timeframe and the dates it agreed with the resident. It also reflects the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
3. £100 to reflect the delays in responding to the resident’s request for compensation to her damaged belongings.
The landlord has completed its self-assessment against the Ombudsman Damp and Mould Spotlight Report. It identified areas for service improvements and showed that it was in the process of implementing its action plan to improve it services in accordance with the recommendations of the report. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made any orders about improving its handling of damp and mould reports.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the condition of the property when the tenancy commenced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. The landlord is ordered to pay £400 in compensation directly to the resident and this is equivalent to (this is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord, but does not include compensation it offered for items not included in this complaint):
  1. £100 for the delay in inspecting the property, following the initial report in October 2022 and the impact this had on the resident.
  2. £200 to reflect its failings to carry the repairs within its published timeframe and the dates it agreed with the resident. It also reflects the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
  3. £100 to reflect the delays in responding to the resident’s request for compensation to her damaged belongings.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord discuss with the resident whether she is unhappy with the damages it awarded, if so, it can signpost her to its insurers regarding a possible claim.