‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited (202308325)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308325

‘Johnnie’ Johnson Housing Trust Limited

11 July 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 reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the property which is a 3–bedroom house. She lived there with her 2 adult children. The resident has asthma and has stated that her daughter developed asthma while living in the property.
The resident moved into the property on 26 May 2023 via a mutual exchange. On 5 June 2023 she raised several issues with the landlord, including mould in the utility room, downstairs cupboard, and toilet. She said it was affecting her asthma. The landlord raised a repair for the areas to be cleaned and to inspect the property to identify the cause of the damp and mould. The areas were cleaned on 7 June 2023.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 20 June 2023. The report confirmed that there was severe damp and mould in the storage cupboard leading to the first floor and utility room. It also identified areas of water ingress in the internal garage and en-suite bathroom. It believed the main cause of the damp and mould was due to defective damp proofing on the external walls of the house. The report also confirmed that the patio was poorly laid and had sunk which was allowing water to drain into the ground below. It said it was the cause of damp issues in the rear bedroom which was situated below ground level. The report stated that “the surveyor considers it to be a potential health hazard if not remediated”.
The recommendations in the report were for a damp proof membrane to be fitted, to address the areas allowing for water ingress, and to excavate and carry out investigation works to the external steps and patio.
The resident submitted a formal complaint on 28 June 2023. The resident said she was informed by the previous tenant that a full inspection of the property had taken place prior to her moving in, but the landlord had since told her it had not been done. She said the house was not fit for purpose. She said it had extensive damp which had caused a deterioration in her medical conditions and for her 2 children too. She said the surveyor confirmed that extensive building work was required but the landlord was just “spraying the walls with damp proofing” and replacing the skirting boards, rather than rectifying the problem. The resident requested that the landlord investigate the situation and provide compensation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 July 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to the inconvenience, frustration, and distress caused by the delays and lack of clear communication regarding an action plan. It confirmed the recommendations which were made following the inspection and offered £100 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 August 2023. She said that the landlord had done very little in terms of repairs and that the mould had grown back on the skirting boards. She described it as “thick green mould and white fluff”. The resident said she was going to the doctors every week due to the stress and illness from living in the property. She said her daughter had developed asthma too. She said no repairs had been completed since 27 July 2023. The resident felt the compensation did not account for the impact on her health and wellbeing.
In an internal email dated 30 August 2023, the landlord confirmed all the jobs it had completed in the resident’s property since she moved in. These included mould treatments, new skirting boards, resealing the leaking shower, and addressing a gap in the patio doors.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 20 December 2023 apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It stated the following:
1. It acknowledged the delays in responding to the complaint and offered £150 for that.
2. It outlined the action taken in relation to the damp and mould since the stage 2 escalation. It said it had sent the damp and mould survey to its insurance company who recommended that a specific leak detection report was required and would be carried out on 9 January 2024.
3. It had been looking at alternative properties for the resident between 14 November and 8 December 2023. It said the resident had declined all offers so far due to them not meeting her specific needs. This included restrictions related to her son’s exceptional circumstances and requiring accommodation which allowed pets. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to move to out of area and the landlord had been liaising with the relevant council there.
4. It recommended an immediate decant due to the work delays and damp and mould. It reiterated that it had offered temporary accommodation but the resident had declined all options.
5. It confirmed the remedial work and action required. This included a welfare check with the resident on 27 December 2023.
6. The landlord offered a total of £2,861.12 in compensation. This was comprised of £150 for the delay in complaint response, £2,211.12 for the loss of facilities, and £500 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the damp and mould was spreading and nothing was getting done. She wanted the landlord to fix the issues, rehouse her family, and provide more compensation.

Post internal complaints procedure

The resident was temporarily decanted in April 2024. The landlord confirmed that it was looking to redevelop or dispose of the property due to the works identified and the resident received a discretionary home loss payment (it was discretionary as the resident had lived in the property for less than 12 months, however, the landlord acknowledged the distress caused). The resident currently remains in the temporary accommodation and has stated that she intends to move out imminently.

Scope of the investigation

While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident has experienced. The report will also consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the condition of the property was affecting her health and whether its response was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that:
1. It is in a reasonable state of repair.
2. It has reasonably modern facilities and services.
3. It provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
4. It meets the current statutory minimum for housing. Dwellings which do not are those containing one or more hazards assessed as serious (Category 1) under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The HHSRS sets the minimum standard for housing safety. It lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the possible causes. There is advice for landlords on how to categorise the hazards as category 1 (requiring urgent repair) or category 2 (repair if needed). Relevant to this complaint, it provides advice on damp and mould.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete responsive repairs on a priority basis and set targets and timescales for achieving them that will be acceptable for tenants. It states that it will provide access to an all year round 24 hour emergency service. The policy confirmed that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure states that a home visit inspection must take place and the report must be signed by the tenant. It states that any contentious issues should be raised with tenants straight away and recorded on the inspection report.
The resident stated that the landlord confirmed it did not do a full inspection of the property prior to her mutual exchange and that the landlord was aware of the issues before she moved in. It is unclear what information was provided to the resident, however, the landlord did complete a mutual exchange inspection report on 13 February 2023. The report did not identify any issues with the property, apart from a door not shutting properly and an electric socket which needed to be replaced. The report was signed by the tenant who was living in the property at the time. The landlord has also provided its repair records for the property which date back to 2020. The records do not show any reports of damp and mould prior to the resident moving in.
The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted in line with its procedures. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did not properly inspect the property or was aware of the issues prior to the resident moving in. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained this to the resident when she raised her concerns, and there is no evidence that it did.
While the landlord does not have a specific damp and mould policy, its response to the resident’s initial report was reasonable. It cleaned the affected areas within 2 days and arranged for an inspection which took place 11 working days later.
The inspection report identified the cause of the mould and that it had the potential to be a hazard if not resolved. While the landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication regarding an action plan, it still did not confirm if or when the repairs would be carried out, which would have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord’s records show that prior to the resident’s stage 2 escalation it carried out some repairs to the property, but none which would have provided a long term solution to the damp and mould. The landlord should have communicated its actions in relation to the outstanding repairs and it was a failing that it did not do so.
On 28 August 2023, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the recommended works to the external steps, rear patio, and excavation/investigations were far beyond its capabilities. Given the resident’s reports of vulnerabilities in the household and the reference to a potential hazard, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a decant at that point, and there is no evidence that it did. This was a further failing.
A further property inspection on 7 September 2023 resulted in a specialist damp and mould assessment. The specialist damp and mould report was provided on 30 October 2023 and it confirmed the extensive work which was required to address the damp and mould. The landlord provided the report to its insurer who confirmed that a specific leak detection report was required to establish the validity of the claim. The landlord attempted to source a leak detection specialist but was unable to do so until 9 January 2024. While the time taken to obtain specialist reports and liaise with its insurer would have been frustrating for the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the professional advice of its insurers and contractors.
The landlord decided a decant was necessary on 30 October 2023. It is acknowledged that apart from mould washes, minimal action could be carried out until the resident was decanted from the property and while waiting for the specialist leak detection assessment. The landlord’s actions in relation to the decant and rehousing will be considered in the following section.
Overall, it is not disputed that the property had extensive damp and mould which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. Upon receiving the reports, the landlord was required to consider whether the mould amounted to a hazard as defined by the HHSRS and to outline the steps required to reduce the risk. Despite some lack of decision making following the first inspection, the landlord has evidenced that it carried out a resolution focused approach and acknowledged its responsibilities in arranging a decant to manage the risk. As already stated, the decant should have been considered sooner.
The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This assessment considers whether the landlord offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised and acknowledged the length of time take to remedy the issue. The landlord offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of use of rooms. As such, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord’s decant policy refers to occasions where it will be required to manage the decant of residents. It states that this will usually be undertaken when a property needs major repair works and when it is not practical or suitable for the resident to remain while the work is completed. The landlord’s decant procedure states that if a resident is offered suitable alternative accommodation and refuses to move, the landlord can serve a notice of seeking possession.
The landlord’s allocations policy confirms that for certain convictions, the landlord is not able to fully assess the risk posed and it will be guided by agencies responsible for the management and monitoring of the offender.
It is not in dispute that due to the works required in the property and the risks posed, the resident and her family needed to be rehoused until the work was completed. The landlord acknowledged this on 30 October 2023. It appears that initially the resident requested to be permanently rehoused and she wanted to move to an area where the landlord did not have stock. From the information provided the resident was going to move in with her parents temporarily. It was reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action in relation to the decant at that point.
An internal email from the landlord dated 14 November 2023 stated that it needed to find a decant for the resident as she could no longer be housed at her parents on a temporary basis. The landlord looked for properties the same day, but nothing was available. It acknowledged that it would be the resident, her 2 adult children, and 4 pets. It suggested a hotel, however, the resident said it was not suitable and approval of accommodation was also required from the resident’s son’s probation officer. Given the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that finding suitable accommodation would have been more difficult for the landlord than usual.
On 15 November 2023, the resident stated that she would prefer a move out of the area. The landlord advised it would be unlikely to arrange that as a quick option and said it would look for the next available property to facilitate a decant as soon as possible. The landlord confirmed it would support the resident with any applications out of the area and it liaised with the local council in the resident’s preferred area. The landlord’s actions were appropriate. While it needed to facilitate a temporary decant as soon as possible, it was also supportive in assisting the resident in moving to her preferred location, even though it did not have any housing stock there.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that from 14 November 2023 to 8 December 2023 it had liaised with the resident about alternative properties and a hotel. It said the resident declined all the offers as she did not feel they were suitable to her specific housing needs. It acknowledged that there were exceptional circumstances in relation to her son’s housing needs and that it limited the options available. The landlord reiterated the suitable accommodation which was offered on a temporary basis to the resident and that it would be able to move the family there on 22 December 2023. It stated that the resident had declined the offer but confirmed it remained open should she change her mind. It suggested a multi-agency meeting should take place in the new year to explore further suitable properties.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It should be noted that a delay is not always classed as a failing if the landlord was acting proactively to solve a complicated problem. The landlord has evidenced that it had been proactive and offered the resident options for her temporary rehousing. While the resident had her reasons for declining them, the landlord had acted within its policy obligations. It is disappointing that the resident and her family had to remain in the property for as long as they did, however, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that this was due to any significant failing by the landlord. As such, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of compensation offered.

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time provided for a 3 stage complaints process. At stage 0 it would look to resolve the complaint “there and then”, at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 15 working days. It stated that if the timescales could not be met it would contact the complainant to agree a revised date.
The landlord’s compensation procedure provides guidance for awarding for distress and inconvenience and for the highest impact to the resident it states that it will award £100+. This is described as when there has been a serious failure in service standards.
The landlord took 14 working days to respond at stage 1 and 83 working days to respond at stage 2, which was not acceptable. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and stated that it was due to the complexities and the ongoing actions. While the landlord may have been trying to be helpful in addressing the issues prior to providing a response, there was no need for it to do so, and it was not in line with its policy.
In its correspondence following its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that the complaint was still active, and the response provided was an interim response until all outstanding actions had been addressed. This was also not in line with its policy and as it did not provide a further stage 2 response, its approach lacked consistency and transparency. We encourage landlords to keep working with residents to resolve complaints, even after the matter has gone to the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman does not encourage landlords to revise their responses and compensation on the basis that residents have approached the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which became statutory on 1 April 2024. This is positive and the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to make the same failings identified in its complaint handling again.
Despite the failings identified, the landlord’s stage 2 response was detailed and sought to address the concerns raised by the resident. It offered £150 in compensation for its delays in handling the complaint, which was reasonable and in line with its policy.
The landlord’s compensation offer in its stage 2 response was £2,861.12 which was broken down as follows:
1. £150 for the delay in complaint response
2. £2,211.12 for the loss of facilities (50% of rent for the loss of 4 rooms, calculated from 23 June 2023 to the end of January 2024)
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The Ombudsman finds the overall amount to be fair and proportionate to the failings identified in this case. The landlord appropriately accounted for the loss of use and enjoyment of rooms in the property. The amount awarded for distress and inconvenience was in line with its policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. As such, an order for further compensation will not be made. Overall, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the following complaints satisfactorily:
1. The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the £2,861.12 in compensation offered in its final response.