Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202323486)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323486

Irwell Valley Housing Association 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

1.                  The complaint is about the landlord’s:

1. Handling of concerns raised by the resident regarding the void checks before she moved into the property.
2. Handling of concerns of damp and mould.
3. Handling of a flood in the property.
4. Response to reports of damaged items.
5. Response to concerns of asbestos in the property.

2.                  We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3.                  The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives there with her young child.

4.                  On 18 August 2022, the resident reported that there was black mould in her bathroom, that her child had touched. She said her new vinyl flooring was damaged. The landlord told her she would need to claim on her content’s insurance. The resident said the landlord had never told her she needed contents insurance, and this was her first property.

5.                  The landlord attended the property on 31 August 2022. It found two leaks behind the toilet. It sprayed the mould, but the operative was unable to repair the leaks. He returned on 2 September 2022 to complete the repair. The resident said that there was still mould behind the toilet tank and on pipes that the landlord had not removed. She stated that the landlord had said this mould did not need removing.

6.                  On 25 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she said she had made a stage 1 complaint some months ago. The landlord said it did not have a complaint logged. The resident said she had concerns about damp and mould since moving in. She said the landlord had been out 3 or 4 times, but it did not complete any follow-on work. The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint.

7.                  On 9 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the resident had raised concerns about a vent not working, but it confirmed this was working. It said that a radiator had split during a boiler replacement and that it took a few weeks to fix this. It said that it would install a positive input ventilation (PIV) and complete a new inspection of the property. It also offered £100 compensation.

8.                  The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023. She said that she had felt “lied to” by the landlord since the start of her interaction with them. She advised mould had damaged many of her belongings. She also said that a vent leaked even when it was closed. She said that her son was sleeping in her room due to the ongoing issues.

9.                  An inspection took place on 22 February 2023. It said there was no evidence of mould but that the vents were wet. It said this may have been because the resident had not opened the vents. It found that the relative humidity was 76.7% in one of the bedrooms. It left a hygrometer.

10.             On 28 February the resident’s property flooded due to a leak from a pipe. The landlord was unable to shut the water off due to a faulty stop tap. The landlord decanted the resident.

11.             On 12 May 2023 the resident’s father raised a complaint on her behalf. He raised multiple concerns including the damp and mould, the leak, damage to the resident’s property, concerns with asbestos and communication with the resident prior to moving into the property.

12.             On 23 June 2023 the landlord issued a detailed stage 1 response. It said:

1. It upheld an earlier complaint which said that there was no deception from the landlord in relation to the void checks. It did however note some communication failures with the resident, before she moved into the home.
2. It said it had dealt with the toilet leak effectively when the resident reported it. However, it recognised that it should have cleaned the mould during the void checks.
3. It advised that had the landlord checked the stop tap during the void checks, the extent of the flood may have been less.
4. It apologised for the delay in repairing the radiator, which had split during a boiler repair.
5. It said it had visited the property on a number of occasions and had not found damp. It said issues with mould were to do with condensation. It acknowledged that there was a delay to the installation of a PIV. This was due to waiting on external contractors and gaining access to the property following the recent flood.
6. It said it could have handled the communication with the resident better during the decant and apologised for this.
7. It acknowledged that the resident had concerns about the age of the pipework in the property. It said it had resolved any issues with the pipework. However, it recognised that as more than one incident had occurred in relation to the pipework, this caused concern to the resident.
8. It acknowledged there may be asbestos materials in the home. It felt that the resident would not have been exposed to these when decorating as the amount of asbestos was minimal and bound in vinyl resins. It has since removed affected flooring. It said it would manage any remaining asbestos materials in the property in situ as per the Health and Safety Executive Advice
9. The landlord said that the resident would need to use contents insurance to cover damaged items from the flood. However, it acknowledged that the damage would have been less had it been able to contain the flood. It said it had put the decoration back intact following the flood. It also said it would reflect this in the compensation offer, but that it would not compensate for itemised belongings.
10. It advised that it would carry out further repairs, including replacing the failed double-glazing unit, resealing the vent in the back bedroom, installing the PIV and replacing the kitchen floor.
11. It offered £186 compensation for costs the resident incurred during the decant. It offered a further £1700. We have seen a breakdown of this amount in an internal email, which said that £350 was for complaint handling, £500 for disruption, £250 for delays in repairing extractor fans, PIV and vents and £600 for loss of belongings. It also re-offered a £100 energy voucher and a £25 goodwill payment from an earlier complaint.

13.             On 21 August 2023 the resident’s father asked for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was due to ongoing damp and mould concerns. He had also been asking for maintenance records from before the resident moved in. This was to establish if the mould had been a problem before the resident moved in. The landlord had refused to provide these documents, saying that it was a breach of General Data Protection Rules (GDPR).

14.             The landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 September 2023. It upheld the stage 1 complaint. It advised it would not provide the documents the resident had requested, as this related to another tenant. It recognised that there were ongoing concerns about damp and mould and agreed to carry out a further inspection.,

15.             The resident had told the Ombudsman that the situation has had a significant impact on her health and well-being. She advised that the damp and mould situation is ongoing. She would like to be reimbursed for her damaged belongings, receive additional compensation and to be placed on the management move list.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation.

16.             Between the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the resident raised a subject access request. This included a request for data before the resident moved into the property. The landlord has said it would not provide this due to GDPR. The landlord advised the resident on 22 August 2023 that this was not part of the ongoing complaint. As the matter has not been through the internal complaint’s procedure, we will not consider this as per paragraph 42a. This states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which have been raised prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident regarding the void checks before she moved into the property.

17.             Prior to moving into the property, the resident told the landlord that she had concerns regarding damp and mould in the property. This was because she said the previous residents told her they were moving due to damp and mould issues. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns at this time. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged poor communication prior to the resident moving in.

18.             The landlord completed its first void check on 24 May 2022. The landlord had given the properties cleanliness a “poor” rating overall. It also noted some rooms in the property as having a “poor” rating for decorative condition. The landlord left blank three questions on the void check. These were:

1. General condition of the property.
2. Comments on structural stability and repair.
3. Whether the property was OK to let.

        The landlord should have ensured it completed all aspects of the void check.

19.             On the void report, the landlord identified several repairs. We have not seen completion records of these. However, a second void report on 17 June 2022 said that the property was ok to let. The second report had less detail than the first report. There were also no photographs, although the previous void report had taken one in each room. Given that the first void report detailed multiple repairs, we consider that the landlord should have ensured it provided updated photos of each room and recorded any added information in its second void check. While it is likely that the landlord had made repairs, we cannot conclusively say if these were sufficient to address all issues identified in the first void check.

20.             In the stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have cleaned the mould behind the toilet before letting the property out to the resident. The landlord said in the same response that the leak would not have been in evidence whilst the property was void. The Ombudsman considers that had the landlord cleaned the mould or inspected it, it is possible that it would have discovered the leak prior to the resident moving in. This is because the resident reported the leak only a few months after she moved into the property, and due to the landlord acknowledging that there was mould in that area when it completed the void check. We consider this to be a failing from the landlord. 

21.             The landlord acknowledged that had it of checked the stop tap during the void period that the flooding may not have been as bad as it was. We have not seen the landlord’s policy for completing void checks. The void forms we have seen do not have a question about the stop tap functionality. The landlord says it has provided feedback to relevant parties to ensure it checks stop taps on void properties moving forward. It is positive to see the landlord learned from this. We are also encouraged to see that the landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 response that this impacted on the resident.

22.             We consider that there have been failings in the landlord’s handling of the void checks prior to the resident moving in. We have identified that better void checks may have prevented some of the problems the resident had once she moved into the home. However, we cannot conclusively say that this would have entirely prevented these issues from occurring. The landlord has also accepted poor communication with the resident prior to moving into the property. On balance, we consider there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised by the resident regarding void checks before she moved into the property.

23.             We are aware that the landlord offered compensation in its stage 2 complaint. We have considered the breakdown of this compensation offer, and do not believe any of the amount specified is for the handling of the void checks. As such we have considered a separate compensation award of £250. This is in line with our remedy’s guidance. This is due to the fact the landlord has acknowledged some failings, but did not make an offer of redress for these. We also recognise that while this had an impact on the resident, we cannot conclusively say what would have happened if the landlord had completed more thorough void checks.

Handling of concerns of damp and mould.

24.             When the resident advised the landlord that her young child had touched black mould, the landlord should have considered if there was any risk to the resident. We have not seen evidence that it did this.

25.             The resident informed us that an operative attended on 31 August 2022 and sprayed the mould. He also discovered two leaks. He could not fix this at the time and returned on 2 September 2022 to complete the repair. The resident said that the mould was left exposed and this impacted on her wellbeing. She also had concerns for her son. We consider that the landlord should have addressed this with the resident. We have not seen evidence that it did this.

26.             The resident has advised that when the operative came out, he removed the toilet tank and there was mould behind this. She also said that the pipes were mouldy. She said the operative told her this did not need to be cleaned. We have not seen evidence of this in the landlord’s repairs records. However, there was a repairs record logged on 2 September 2022 to renew the boxing around the toilet. The landlord marked this as complete on 21 September 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address the resident’s concern around any remaining mould. We cannot see that the landlord did this. However, we can see that the landlord undertook work which may have addressed the added mould concerns.

27.             The resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould on 4 January 2023, 8 January 2023 and eventually made a complaint on 25 January 2023. The landlord responded on 9 February 2023. It said it wanted to install a PIV. It acknowledged there had been a delay in doing this. While it is encouraging that the landlord identified an action that could improve the situation for the resident, we consider that the length of time it took to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in January, to be unreasonable.

28.             The landlord completed an inspection if the property, on 22 February 2023. It said that the air vents were closed. It also said that there were belongings against the wall. It advised there was no mould present but that the vents were wet, which it said might be because the vents were closed. It provided advice and left a hygrometer with the resident. The Ombudsman is encouraged to see that the landlord inspected the property and provided advice. However, we note that the relative humidity was significantly high at over 76%. We consider that the landlord could have shown more curiosity in why the figure was so high and discussed a plan with the resident to monitor this for improvements.

29.             On 9 June 2023 the landlord advised the resident that a contractor would be in touch regarding the installation of the PIV. It also advised that it would service the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. While the Ombudsman has already acknowledged that a PIV was a positive step from the landlord, it is concerning that this had been identified a number of months before and was still not installed. The landlord had a lengthy period during the decant to ensure it installed this. The landlord stated that one of the reasons for the delay, was that it was awaiting information from external contractors. We have not seen any evidence that it was proactively chasing this installation.

30.             On 13 June 2023 the landlord noted that a double-glazing unit had failed. It also noted that it needed to replace the trickle vent covers. It said that the vent in the child’s bedroom needed to be resealed as it was allowing water ingress. The landlord had previously said that there were no issues with the vents. While the Ombudsman cannot conclusively say that the issues with the vents was ongoing, it is concerning that the resident had been raising issues since January and the landlord only identified faults in June 2023.

31.             On 26 June 2023 the resident’s father emailed to say that workmen had come to replace the kitchen floor. However, they discovered that the floor was wet and needed time to dry. We consider that the landlord should have investigated why the floor was wet, given that there had been ongoing concerns around damp. There is no evidence it did this.

32.             The resident continued to report issues with damp and mould. On 21 August 2023 the resident’s dad raised concerns that the floors did not have membranes, and this could be impacting on moisture, due to the previous flood. The resident also advised the landlord that there was a smell coming from the cupboard which had the pipe work which had previously flooded. On 12 September 2023 the resident provided the landlord with evidence of belongings that had mould on them. These were items from her storage cupboard, and from her kitchen cupboards. Although there was a complaint ongoing, we would expect the landlord to have been acknowledging any new reports of mould. We have not seen evidence that it did this.

33.             On 12 September 2023 the landlord said it would visit the property on 22 September 2023. In its email it said that it “would suggest that the space as previously recommended was not used as a wardrobe”. The response did not acknowledge the mouldy items that had come from the kitchen. We have seen the images the resident sent from the storage space. These items were shoes. We do not consider that storing shoes in a storage cupboard is an unreasonable action from the resident, unless there was a known issue, and the landlord was aware of it. The landlord should have done more to explain why there was an issue with the storage cupboard, and what actions it was taking to rectify this. If the cupboard was not a storage space, as the resident understood it to be, the landlord should have ensured it explained this clearly to the resident. We have not seen evidence that supports that the landlord did this.

34.             In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was satisfied there was not a damp concern. It also said that there was no mould present. However it recognised there was a condensation issue, which it felt could be improved with the installation of the PIV and new vents. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has offered this as a solution to the resident on several occasions, and at the time of issuing the stage 2 it is unclear why the landlord had not completed these works. We are aware that the resident later showed reluctance to have a PIV installation due to a concern about its location. However, this was not apparent at the time of the stage 2 response. We consider the landlord took too long to implement potential solutions to the condensation problems.

35.             The landlord had agreed in its stage 2 response to do a further inspection. It completed this on 22 September 2022. It found high humidity in the kitchen and the storage cupboard. It said the walls were mostly dry but there was some moisture where the pipework was in the storage cupboard. The landlord said it needed to conduct further tests, which we understand have taken place. As this occurred after the complaint process was complete, we would not assess the outcome of these tests, or their effectiveness. However, we would encourage the landlord to keep investigating any concerns of high humidity or damp walls.

36.             The landlord took some actions to assess the damp and mould. It identified possible solutions to the condensation issue, but it did not implement these fully in a timely manner. As such there was a failing from the landlord. The landlord offered £250 compensation for not installing the PIV and the vents.  It offered this at stage 1, but the repairs remained outstanding at stage 2. It did not offer an increase in compensation for this.

37.             The Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. Whilst the landlord took some action to address the mould concerns it did not implement the PIV which may have had a positive effect. It also did not investigate when the bedroom registered high humidity. The resident has reported mould on an ongoing basis. Due to the PIV and vents not being installed in a prompt manner, we consider that the resident was left without a solution to ongoing damp and mould problems. We consider that this may have been distressing. In line with our remedy’s guidance, we have awarded £600 compensation for distress and inconvenience. We have also increased the award the landlord made for the delayed installation of the PIV to £450 in recognition of the additional delay.

The landlord’s handling of a flood in the property.

38.             A significant flood occurred in the property on 28 February 2023. We can see that the landlord attended as an emergency. We recognise that the flood was extensive and would likely have been distressing for the resident. However, we consider that the landlord acted appropriately when the resident reported the flood.

39.             The landlord decanted the resident while works to repair the flood damage were ongoing. During the decant, the landlord found two other leaks, which it said the contractors caused. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that this would have added to the resident’s concerns that the pipework was faulty. However, it confirmed it had repaired the leaks, and it was transparent with the resident.

40.             In addition to repairing the damaged pipes, the landlord agreed to put the decoration back intact. The landlord said this was not an action it would normally take, as it would expect resident’s insurance to cover the cost of this. However, given that the flood occurred due to aging pipes, we consider it reasonable that the landlord redecorated the property.

41.             The resident was decanted for over 2 months. The landlord has recognised this in its compensation offer, as it awarded £500 for disruption. It also agreed to pay some expenses incurred by the resident during the decant. We consider there to be reasonable redress in the landlords handling of a flood in the property.

The landlord’s response to reports of damaged items in the property.

42.             When the resident reported the leak behind the toilet to the landlord, it advised that the resident should claim the cost of the flooring on her own content’s insurance. The resident disputes this. We have seen internal landlord emails that confirm it did not advise the resident to take out contents insurance until after the damage had happened. However, it is the responsibility of the resident to ensure her belongings are properly insured. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to advise residents on the importance of contents insurance during the sign-up process. We are aware the landlord subsequently replaced the flooring for the resident. We consider this to be a positive action from the landlord, as it considered the resident’s circumstances and offered a solution.

43.             At the time the flooding occurred, we understand that the resident did not have contents insurance. The landlord therefore said it would not consider payments of itemised damages. We consider this reasonable, as we would expect the resident to have contents insurance and claim on this.

44.             Although the landlord did not consider itemised damages, it acknowledged that had the landlord have been able to contain the flood, the damage may have been less. It agreed to put the decoration of the home back intact. It also offered £600 compensation for damages. It is encouraging to see that the landlord considered all the circumstances of the case, and made an offer of compensation, although it was not obliged to do so. We consider there to be reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of damaged items.

The landlord’s response to concerns of asbestos in the property.

45.             On 9 March 2023 the landlord logged a repair for tiles to be lifted following the flood damage. It noted there was asbestos materials present. An internal email on 5 April 2023 said that a recently completed asbestos survey had not found asbestos present, although the landlord acknowledged there may have been some in the adhesive of the tiles. They were subsequently removed. It advised if there was any further asbestos in the property, it would manage it in situ as per the advice from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The landlord investigated the asbestos and took appropriate actions to address any concerns with this.

46.             There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of asbestos in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

47.             The resident’s dad raised a complaint on 27 March 2023. This was subsequently withdrawn by him, as he wanted to submit more information in support of his complaint. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to accept the additional information, as it had not issued a response at that time. The landlord proceeded to still investigate the first complaint and produce a response, but it never issued this to either the resident or the landlord. We consider it to be best practice for the landlord to log a complaint and then establish with the resident what it will investigate. This prevents any confusion moving forward.

48.             On 31 March 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response for an earlier complaint made by the resident. This addressed damp and mould. It also noted that it wanted to install a PIV. The landlord subsequently addressed damp and mould again in the stage 2 we are considering for this investigation. The landlord should ensure that once it has issued a stage 2 response, that it does not revisit the same issues. This may delay the complaints process and may mean a resident cannot approach the Ombudsman at an appropriate time.

49.             While we have identified complaint handling errors, we acknowledge that the landlord faced some confusion regarding who it should correspond with. We have seen evidence that the resident’s dad was dealing with the complaint, but that the resident was also raising complaints. This appears to have in part, been responsible for some of the duplication. We do however consider that the landlord could have taken more action to ensure consistency in the complaints process. This would include having one complaint owner, ensuring that it was clearly identified in each complaint what would be considered, and ensuring that duplication did not occur.

50.             Whilst we do not encourage revisiting the same issues in a complaint, we recognise that due to the confusion that had arisen, the landlord decided to issue a detailed stage 1 covering all events that the resident had raised so far. We accept that the landlord was trying to ensure that it had investigated everything and that the it gave the resident a single detailed response. We consider in this instance, the approach from the landlord was reasonable.

51.             It is difficult to fully assess the landlord’s response times in relation to the stage 1 complaint, due to the number of complaints that the resident raised. However, from the date the resident’s father sent a 33-page complaint document until the stage 1 was issued, there was a total of 21 working days. This is 11 days over the timescales for a response as per the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the landlord also had requested an extension on its response due to the volume of information it had received. We consider that the landlord’s response time was reasonable.

52.             From the resident asking the landlord to escalate the complaint, it took 18 working days for the landlord to issue the stage 2 response. This is within the timescale of 20 working days, as per the landlord’s complaint policy.

53.             The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that its communication during the complaint could have been better. It also stated that it could have shown more empathy to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that there have been complaint handling failures. However, the landlord awarded £350 for complaint handling. This is more than the Ombudsman would usually award for complaint handling failures. As such, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

54.             In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:

1. Handling of concerns raised by the resident regarding the void checks before she moved into the property.
2. Handling of concerns of damp and mould.

55.             In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:

1. Handling of a flood in the property.
2. Response to reports of damaged items.
3. Complaint handling.

56.             In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling or reports of asbestos in the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

57.             The landlord is ordered to pay £1300 in compensation. This is broken down as:

1. £250 for the failures identified in relation to void checks.
2. £450 for the delay in installing the PIV. The landlord may deduct the £250 it offered during the complaints process, if it has already paid this.
3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience for the landlord’s handling of damp and mould concerns.

58.             The landlord is ordered to provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update on repairs noted as outstanding in its stage 2 response. This includes the installation of the double-glazing unit, any damaged vents and the installation of the PIV. If any of these works are not complete the landlord must confirm what action it will take to address this.

59.             The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

60.             It is recommended that the landlord re-offer £1450 in compensation. This is broken down as:

1. £500 for disruption during the decant.
2. £600 for damaged items during the flood.
3. £350 for complaint handling.

61.             We recommend that the landlord implement the changes to its void checks as identified in this report. This should include thorough mould cleaning and checking water stop taps.

62.             We recommend that the landlord review its complaint handling in this case. It should consider how it can ensure it does not duplicate complaints, and how it can improve complaint handling when multiple parties are involved.