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

One Housing Group Limited (202305979)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305979

One Housing Group Limited

29 November 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:   
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. 
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 1 April 2022. He said he had reported issues with damp at his property on 16 June 2021. There was attendance from its contractors during August 2021, but nothing was done. He was advised by it that an operative attended on 24 August 2021 and had completed the works, but this was incorrect. Appointments made by the landlord in September 2021 were either not attended or no works were carried out, and as of the date of his complaint, no works had been carried out in respect of the damp issues.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2022 in which it provided responses regarding appointments booked in August and September 2021. It explained that a leak had delayed the works, it had booked a re-inspection, and works will be completed after this. It acknowledged that it had failed in its service in not addressing the issue sooner. It offered the resident £150 in compensation.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord the next day citing inaccuracies in its stage 1 response. On 25 April 2022, it emailed him stating after speaking with him it had agreed it would respond informally and would respond within 10 working days.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again in November 2022 stating the damp and mould problem remained ongoing. He chased it for updates in December 2022. It escalated his complaint to stage 2 and raised works orders to investigate the damp and mould reports.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2023. It acknowledged that it failed to resolve the issue permanently and apologised. It had arranged a joint inspection, to take place on 28 February 2023, for further investigations as it had not been able to find the underlying cause for the reoccurring damp. It offered the resident an apology and an additional payment of £100, making the total offer through its complaints process to be £250.   
  7. Following the stage 2 response the landlord conducted further investigations including obtaining a survey in September 2023 which identified works required. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the works are still outstanding at the time of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Whilst it is noted that the resident continued to have concerns regarding the works carried out by the landlord and the damp and mould remained, this investigation report will not consider events that took place after the date of its Stage 2 response. This is because it has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond formally to any complaint which may be raised by him in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with it and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, where it has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether the landlord has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In this case, we have therefore assessed whether the actions it proposed in its final complaint response were carried out in a reasonable timescale.
  3. From the evidence provided the resident had made previous reports of damp and mould to the landlord going back a number of years with the last report prior to June 2021 was in 2019. There is no evidence the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord at that time until his complaint made in April 2022. This investigation has therefore focused on its handling of the reports from 2021 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses.

The reports of damp and mould

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore it is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
  2. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. Its damp and mould procedure says that it will investigate in order to determine the cause of damp and carry out remedial repairs and actions in accordance with its repairs policy. It will undertake a property inspection when a repair is reported relating to suspected damp, mould and condensation, diagnose the cause of damp correctly and deliver effective solutions based on the ethos of dealing with the cause of the damp not just the symptom. Wherever possible fixing first time and informing the customer of the findings of the investigations following a property visit. This will include identifying the possible causes of damp, recommending effective solutions and all necessary remedial works / actions / enhancements and the estimated timescales to complete the works / measures; keeping the customer updated throughout the process from inception to completion.
  3. When a repair falls under a landlord’s repair obligations, the landlord is required to carry out a repair within a reasonable timeframe. If the same issue keeps being reported, the Ombudsman would expect it to carry out a more detailed technical inspection to identify the underlying issue, which would enable it to carry out a lasting repair.
  4. The resident disputed that an operative attended on 24 August 2021 and completed the works, following his reports on 16 July 2021. He narrated that an appointment was made for the 2 September 2021 was not attended by the landlord. He further stated that its operative attended on 4 September 2021, 21 September 2021 without prior notice or an appointment and on 28 September 2021 but no works were carried out on any of those visits. As of 1 April 2022, no works had been carried out in respect of the damp.  The hallway in his property which was now deteriorating was newly decorated in 2019, without first resolving the damp disrepair issue at his property.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 April 2022. It made contact with the resident on 15 April 2022 and confirmed an appointment had been raised for 27 April 2022 to inspect the damp issue. At this time, for the period covered in this investigation, he would have been waiting for a resolution to his reports of damp for at least 179 working days. The landlord’s repairs policy says routine repairs would be attended within 7 working days and completed within 28 working days. It is acknowledged that it may take longer than 28 days to complete repairs for damp and mould, depending on the complexity of the works required Nonetheless the delay to this stage was not reasonable as the landlord had yet to establish the cause or evidence that it had taken sufficient steps to do so.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response on 19 April 2022 indicated that it raised works on 16 June 2021. It noted that the first 2 appointments for 28 June 2021 and the 5 August 2021 were cancelled at the resident’s request and had to be rescheduled. Its schedule team tried contacting him to arrange another appointment on 17 August 2021 but there was no answer at the time. On 1 September 2021, it booked the next available appointment for 21 September 2021, left him a voice message confirming this, and asked to confirm if it was convenient for him. Upon arrival on the appointment date, its operative reported he would not open his door as the job had not been raised via telephone, email, or letter. The operative spoke with the scheduling team to rebook a new appointment.
  7. The landlord further stated that it could see that whilst the initial job was being processed, another 2 jobs had been issued on the matter of damp and mould. A job was raised on 3 August 2021, with an appointment for 24 August 2021, following his reports of mould in the kitchen and bedroom and it had carried out a full mould treatment to bedroom walls. It apologised that the operative did not comment on the outcome of mould in his kitchen and promised to handle this directly with the operative
  8. The landlord clarified that the operative who should have attended on 2 September 2021 was sick on the day. This was not communicated to the resident, for which it apologised. It noted that its contractor attended and inspected the damp and mould on 4 September 2021, submitted a quotation for works to resolve the damp and mould which was passed to management for review, and this was approved.
  9. The landlord stated that it had instructed its contractor to agree a suitable start date for the works. However, it was advised that a start date could not be confirmed as a leak from the flat above had delayed those works. The contractor had advised they were booked to visit him on 27 April 2022 to re-inspect the current condition of his home. Any recommendations from the re-inspection would be implemented as soon as possible. It apologised for the length of time it was taking to resolve, and although orders had been raised and attended, it acknowledged that it had failed in its service in not addressing the issue sooner. It had expressed to the relevant teams the importance of timely communication to ensure those types of issues were resolved promptly. It upheld the complaint due to the length of time it was taking to resolve the mould in his property and for the inconvenience caused. It offered £150 in compensation, consisting of £50 for Right to Repair and £100 for the impact.
  10. In his response of 20 April 2022, the resident stated that there had been no attendance on the job booked for 24 August 2021. The arrival of an operative without an appointment was not a cancellation by him and he agreed an operative to attend on 4 September 2021 to progress resolving the matter. He said it appeared that the landlord’s favoured method of communication was by telephone and leaving voice messages which he did not consider as a reliable or professional method to progress the matter.
  11. The resident stated that his records showed an inspection of the damp commenced on 16 June 2021 and an inspection was carried out on 28 June 2021. He chased up “damp disrepair” on 2 August 2021. He said another reference was given for the works on either 3 or 24 August 2021 and noted an attendance on 21 September 2021 without an appointment or prior notification to him. There was an attendance on 28 September 2021 with an appointment and he showed the operative the damp area and a pond in the rear garden which he believed may have contributed to the damp issue. He also stated he was informed by its telephone staff the matter was resolved on the 24 August 2021, which was false.
  12. It does not appear disputed that the resident reported damp and mould in his property on 16 June 2021. The landlord’s repairs records did show it raised works in August 2021 noting there was evidence of mould ingress and mould in all areas of the house, which always came back when cleaned. Its records however were not clear about the outcome of those works.
  13. The landlord’s records also show that on 21 September 2021 a visit took place at the resident’s property by its contractor to inspect and remedy damp in the property. Its records show its operative said they arrived on site, and he would not open the door as the job had not been raised via telephone, email or letter. It would send him an email and requested to rebook the job as he had refused access. There was however no further evidence of its contact with him to rebook the works.
  14. The remaining dates stated by the resident were not recorded in the landlord’s repair records provided to this investigation. However, it did not dispute the dates provided by him in its complaint responses. Its repair records also did not show all of the dates it provided in its stage 1 response. Its records lacked detail such as contact with the resident, details of any nonattendance or cancellations, works that took place or any action plans established after investigations. In the absence of such records the Ombudsman cannot corroborate its statements in its stage 1 response with the records it provided.
  15. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 April 2022. It stated it had spoken with him that day and he was happy for his communication to be reviewed by the investigating officer, and it would respond in the next 10 working days. It confirmed it would be dealt with informally.
  16. There was, however, no further evidence provided by the landlord regarding any actions taken up to 1 November 2022 when the resident emailed it and said since its last emails to him and the offer of compensation which he had accepted. There had been numerous attendances by its contractors to resolve the damp and mould. Decorating works were carried out in the kitchen area and ceiling to make good the water leak from the flat above him. Additional decoration works were carried out in the hallway and behind the entrance door, but the damp problem was not identified and remedied. 
  17. Although the foregoing would indicate that the landlord did take some steps to rectify the issue, the repairs records it provided to the Ombudsman did not show those repairs taking place. This indicates a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  18. On 25 November 2022 the landlord emailed the resident regarding a picture of a wall showing bubbling and stains which he provided. It had forwarded his communication to an Area Manager for attention and would update him accordingly. He followed this up with a further email to it on 19 December 2022 and asked for any update since its email on 25 November 2022. There was no evidence of its responses or correspondence with him during this time. This would have added to the distress and inconvenience he had experienced, as the issue with the damp and mould was continuing and recent actions by the landlord had not been successful.
  19. The landlord eventually responded on 22 December 2022 and stated that it was following up on the matter and it informed him he would be contacted by an area supervisor. There was however no evidence of it contacting the resident, who chased it again on 30 January 2023, stating that it remained unresolved for 2 years. He stated he would be contacting the Ombudsman to assist in the matter, as he had informed it earlier.
  20. On the same day, the landlord internally noted the issue was still ongoing and the resident was waiting for a resolution. It noted his intention to go to the Ombudsman and as he had not exhausted its complaint process it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. It also raised a works order to attend that day and check and investigate disrepair within the property and to report findings of Mould.
  21. The landlord’s repairs records showed its operative visited the resident’s property that day, noted that what he was concerned about was walls in his hallway which needed damp staining and painting, but he had that done about 2 years ago and it was coming back again. Its records noted he showed it a pond that belonged to a neighbour in the garden which had been there for years and needed to be filled up.
  22. It is noted the resident mentioned a pond to the landlord in his correspondence with it in his response to his stage 1 complaint in April 2022 but there was no evidence it undertook any further investigations regarding the pond possibly being a source of the damp. This was a further opportunity for the landlord to consider his concerns. However, there was no evidence of the outcome of that visit, or any further works being arranged up to the landlord issuing its stage 2 response.
  23. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response on 20 February 2023 that the reoccurring damp in the resident’s property remained unresolved. It said an initial attempt to resolve the damp was in February 2019 and following the resident reporting the reoccurring damp in April 2021, several visits and repair attempts followed as noted in the stage 1 letter. It apologised that the property had been redecorated thrice in the damp areas, according to the resident, without remedying the cause of the damp. It stated that the failure to resolve it permanently was not in line with its service standards.
  24. Recognising the service failure, the landlord stated that it had arranged a joint inspection for the original contractor, and its surveyor, to carry out further investigations as it had not been able to find the underlying cause for the reoccurring damp. That was booked for 28 February 2023.  Any recommendations from the inspection would be carried out as soon as possible. Due to the delay in resolving the reoccurring damp, it offered a single point of contact until the cause was identified and the repair completed permanently. Once the repairs had been completed, it would arrange a post inspection with the resident to ensure they were completed to his satisfaction.
  25. The landlord recognised from its review that it needed to ensure better management of the damp issue, to ensure it did not leave it unattended, and that it responded to him in a timely manner and in line with its service standard. It stated that it was addressing this directly with team members. It identified it should have been more proactive with its investigations, escalated the complexity of the issue sooner, and communicated more regularly with him. It also recognised the disruption caused him. In addition to an apology for the poor handling of the damp issue it increased the offer of compensation to a total of £250.
  26. At the end of the complaint process, the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property had not been resolved. The landlord has, therefore, not evidenced it was taking proactive and appropriate steps to resolve the issue for him within appropriate timescales. Given its records noted in August 2021 that the damp and mould was returning after being cleaned, it should have considered that it understood the full cause of the damp and mould.
  27. From the evidence provided by the landlord, although it raised works in August and September 2022, there was no evidence it undertook a more detailed inspection to ascertain the cause of the damp and mould. This was a failure that continued throughout the period covered in this investigation before it issued its stage 2 complaint response. The evidence further shows that it did not instruct for a survey of the property to take place until an appointment was booked for 26 September 2023. This was 7 months after its stage 2 response and over 2 years after the resident’s report from June 2021.  
  28. The resident provided an update to the Ombudsman on 26 January 2024, stating that the damp issues were not resolved. The landlord, in November 2024, informed the Ombudsman it was in contact with him to try and get the matters resolved, indicating that it remained outstanding.
  29. At the time the stage 2 response was issued, the landlord had failed to evidence that it had resolved the resident’s reports of damp and mould for a period of at least 18 months years or that it took sufficient steps in an attempt to do so. Although the landlord acknowledged that in both its complaint responses, it has not shown any learning from the complaint and has failed to fulfil the commitments made in its complaint responses within appropriate timescales.
  30. There were repeated delays in the landlord undertaking appropriate inspections to establish the cause of the damp and mould and what subsequent works would be required. In addition, there were significant failures in its communication with the resident. This has resulted in a finding of maladministration in its handling of his reports of damp and mould in his property. Given the significant failures found in this investigation the total offer of £250 in compensation made to him was not proportionate to the failures identified.

Complaint Handling

  1. When the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 decision, he stated that although it had upheld his complaint, there were inaccuracies. He provided additional information to it regarding its response. Its records show it contacted to him and agreed on 25 April 2022 to investigate his response and that it had agreed to respond informally to him.
  2. Although the landlord may have agreed to respond informally to the resident, there is no evidence it discussed or clarified with him that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. By not taking the complaint to stage 2, it would have also delayed him being able to bring his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  3. There were no records provided by the landlord on what steps it took informally to resolve the complaint or that the resident was satisfied with any additional steps it had taken to resolve the damp issue. 
  4. When the resident emailed the landlord on 30 December 2022 and stated the issue had been ongoing since April 2021 and he was considering bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman, it should have considered clarifying the status of his complaint in its complaint process. It should have then discussed escalating the complaint to stage 2 as the issues remained unresolved.
  5. On 30 January 2023, the resident told the landlord he would be bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. At this stage it confirmed his complaint had been responded to at stage 1 but not formally escalated so it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. The landlord’s agreement that the complaint be dealt with informally after the stage 1 response was issued did not allow the resident to move through its complaint process within appropriate timescales. It has not evidenced it appropriately considered the ongoing issues he raised. It only considered moving his complaint formally to stage 2 after he informed it that he was contacting the Ombudsman. The escalation to stage 2 occurred 196 working days after the resident first expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. This caused a significant delay in him having his complaint escalated and therefore unnecessarily prolonged the complaint process.
  7. After both complaint responses, the same issues with communication and failure to resolve the issue in line with its repairs policy continued. The landlord had not evidenced that it did indeed learn from the complaint process or that its process or procedures improved as a result. This meant that the resident continued to have to contact it for updates and the issue remained unresolved much beyond the stage 2 response. This was maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. By 7 January 2025, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1000 (inclusive of the £250 offered previously as part of its stage 2 response), comprising:
      1. £600 for the failures identified in its handling of the of reports of damp and mould.
      2. £150 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
      3. £250 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not paid this already.
    2. Make the payments ordered in this report directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account, unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    3. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report
    4. Provide the resident with a report on the current status of the damp and mould issues in his property. This report must include details of any findings and any required works including a timetable for any works to be completed. If required, it must carry out a full damp and mould survey of the property by a suitably qualified operative to identify any causes of damp and mould.