Magna Housing Limited (202343407)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343407

Magna Housing Limited

8 January 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 refers to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request to be rehoused.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
3. The landlord’s records show the resident reported damp and mould problems in November 2023 and that it was attempting to resolve them with a range of repairs. The resident had raised some concerns about the impact of the repairs on her and her family’s health. Around the same time she asked the landlord to rehouse her.
4. On 22 March 2024 the resident complained due to issues such as the damp and mould, which she said was an obstacle to her being able to mutually exchange her home. She said it was unsafe for works to be done while her children, who have complex needs, were residing in the property. She added to her complaint in several emails, including providing photographs, up until 29 April 2024.
5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 2 May 2024. It explained that it had not undertaken the intended remedial works as the resident said there was a risk to the operatives and household from her children. It set out options to address any barriers to the works being done. For example, working with support agencies, arranging a temporary move, or doing the repairs when the children were at school. It said the resident did not meet the criteria for a permanent management move but explained how she could bid on properties using its choice based letting scheme. To help find a way forward, it offered to arrange a multi-agency meeting.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 2 May 2024. Amongst other things she said the condition of her property was unsafe and was therefore unsuitable for her household needs. The landlord responded on 21 May 2024 and explained that:
   1. The resident had cancelled repairs due her concerns about a potential risk of harm and she had also declined a temporary move due to the disruption.
   2. A permanent move would not be considered as all repairs could be resolved and the resident had not met the management transfer policy criteria. It set out alternatives, such as exchanges and bidding, for a long term move.
   3. It proposed a multi-agency meeting to understand and support the resident’s household needs and complete the repairs. In addition, it suggested a visit with her to give the resident an opportunity to share information about agencies working with her household to aid collaboration.
7. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in May 2024. She sought a permanent move to a property suitable for her household needs. The landlord has provided evidence that shows it has continued to arrange property repairs and provide rehousing assistance following the completion of the complaints process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has complained that the damp and mould has had a physical and mental health impact. The Ombudsman is unable to award damages or establish liability in cases where a tenant believes a landlord’s actions have had a detrimental impact on their health. These matters are usually better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. They will not be considered in this report.
9. This report has focused on the landlord’s actions from the resident’s initial damp and mould report in November 2023 until its final complaint response of 21 May 2024. As mentioned above, it undertook repairs at her property and provided rehousing assistance after this date. The resident has told this Service the repairs work, which have been completed, have not resolved the damp and humidity issues. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that have not fully exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident would need to log a complaint with the landlord about the above issues as we have not seen evidence that these complaints have exhausted its complaints procedure. The resident may be able to bring the new complaints to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to provide home that are safe and of “right quality”. It will also tailor services to meet resident’s needs by being “flexible and sensitive”. Its repairs priorities are:
    1. responsive or reactive repairs to be completed after making appointments and likely to be completed within 5 hours
    2. priority repair involving “serious, immediate risk to customers’ health and safety” dealt with first and possibly by appointment.
11. The landlord’s damp, condensation and mould policy says after damp and mould reports it will investigate and attempt to resolve the issue in a “timely and effective way”. At the same time, it will keep residents regularly updated around its repairs handling.
12. The landlord’s tenancy management policy on its website states if it is “safe and practical” tenants will remain in their homes during repairs. Depending on the nature of the repair work, decants may be temporary or permanent in cases such as demolition or major repair following a flood or fire. With any move it aims to “cause the least possible disturbance”.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

13. After the resident’s report of damp and mould in mid-November 2023, the landlord carried out a timely inspection on 5 December 2023. The report dated the same day set out issues including damp and mould in the bedrooms, bathroom as well as “heavy condensation” to the windows. It noted all windows were closed at the time of inspection. It recommended works such the overhaul of windows and the fan, a mould wash, and stain block. The identified works were reasonable and proportionate given the serious issues identified.
14. The evidence shows the resident cancelled the scheduled remedial works due to begin on 8 February 2024. She said all her 3 children are disabled with complex needs so the works would be “disruptive” and “pose an incredibly serious safeguarding risk” to them, her, any contractors, and the public. She explained her eldest child has a history of violence. She however said the property was unsafe for her children, especially for 1 child who has asthma.
15. In her complaint of 22 March 2024, the resident said the property issues meant it was unsafe to live in the property, but it was also unsafe for the repairs to take place. She said a permanent move to an alternative property would resolve the issues.
16. In response to the resident’s concerns, the evidence shows that in March 2024 the landlord offered temporary accommodation for the duration of the repairs. The resident declined the offer due to potential safety issues saying the “changes going back and forth will result in violence and property damage”. In the circumstances her concerns were understandable, but the landlord’s suggestion was pragmatic and appropriate.
17. In its stage 1 response of 2 May 2024 the landlord offered to work with the resident to undertake the urgent repairs. This included arranging a temporary move to a risk assessed alternative property, doing repairs while the children were out, and holding a multi-agency meeting to address obstacles while meeting the household needs. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy to be “flexible and sensitive”. It also appropriately reminded the resident of her tenancy obligations to provide access. This showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously but proactively trying to resolve the damp and mould issues.
18. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 May 2024 said all the property issues could potentially be resolved. It repeated the alternative options originally offered in its stage 1 response such as arranging a multi-agency meeting. Its response was empathetic, solution focused, and showed a commitment to understanding the household’s needs so it could complete the repairs.
19. Overall, the landlord inspected the property in December 2023 in line with its policy and scheduled timely follow up works in early 2024. However there were significant delays in the remedial works taking place due to the resident’s concerns leading to her cancelling the works. The evidence shows the landlord was proactive, engaged, flexible and committed to tailoring the works to support the resident’s household needs. For example, it undertook the works while 2 children were at school as well as working in 1 room at a time to accommodate the resident’s third child who was at home. The resident’s situation was understandably frustrating and distressing for her and her family. Nonetheless, the landlord appropriately worked towards an appropriate balance of prioritising the urgent works in collaboration with the resident and her family’s needs.

Request for rehousing

20. After the resident cancelled scheduled works in February 2024 and requested a management transfer, the landlord submitted a management transfer request on 8 March 2024. It was declined on 11 March 2024 as the lettings policy criteria was not met. The evidence shows the transfer process was for victims of a “threat or physical harm”. It was not relevant to the resident’s circumstances suggesting it was not appropriate for the landlord to offer it as it unreasonably raised the resident’s hopes. Other than the stage 1 response of 2 May 2024, there is no evidence the resident was updated of the decision. She said in an email responding to the stage 1 response that she had not been informed. This was unreasonable and not in line with its values to keep residents regularly updated. There is no evidence supplied confirming that the landlord responded to the resident about not being informed of the decision earlier and therefore, this was a failing.
21. Both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses encouraged the resident to consider options such as bidding for a property. The landlord advised the property issues could be remedied making her property more appealing for a potential exchange. Its stage 2 response reiterated that an internal move could not guarantee a suitable home as occupational therapy would need to review its suitability before an offer could be made. It said this process could take months or years. The landlord’s responses reasonably set out realistic housing options and were also solution focused.
22. The evidence shows the landlord has been proactive and supportive around the resident’s request for rehousing. However, there was a significant delay before the resident was informed of the declined management transfer request, which in any event was not relevant to her circumstances. Accordingly, this was a service failure which caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Orders

25. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident apologising for its poor communication about the management transfer request.
    2. Pay compensation of £250 for its handling of the management transfer request and the inconvenience and frustration to the resident.