Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202213306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213306

Optivo

29 June 2023

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 in her property;
2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a house owned by the landlord. The resident and other members of her household have some health conditions. The landlord has limited information recorded about the health conditions in the household.
Repair logs show that from October 2018, the resident had reported issues with the roof and guttering of her home to the landlord. The repair logs show that the landlord was generally responsive to these reports and carried out repairs following the resident’s reports.
On 16 February 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She stated that the roof kept leaking, which she had repeatedly reported to the landlord. She said contractors had attended but the problem was never resolved. She was now experiencing a significant damp and mould problem. She had discovered belongings in the loft that had gone mouldy and needed to be thrown away. Mould had also ruined the bathroom and hallway that she had decorated. She had to wash or dispose of affected items in her wardrobe. The resident lived with her granddaughter who has breathing issues.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and categorised it as “informal”. It said it would arrange for a surveyor to call the resident. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, inspections were initially taking place by phone. It attached a liability insurance claim form for the resident to complete. It apologised for the damage caused to the resident’s items but stated it would not be able to compensate for them. It directed the resident to make a liability insurance claim for these items if she considered the landlord had been negligent. It also advised the resident to consider claiming on any contents insurance she had. The phone inspection was carried out on 24 February 2021. The landlord summarised the issues with the property and outlined solutions, which included major works such as replacing the kitchen. Rain was getting under the tin liner of the guttering and leaking. Various conditions were being created that could cause black mould. The landlord noted that it should now be able to close down the resident’s “informal” complaint.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord attended the property and fitted insulation and overlap vents in the loft to improve air flow and help reduce the damp and mould. On 7 April 2021, it received a report from a damp survey it had instructed a damp specialist contractor to undertake. However, it was not until September 2021 that jobs were raised for the major works needed to rectify the mould and damp. There is evidence that the resident attempted to contact the landlord in May 2021, and she stated to this Service that she called the landlord regularly.
On 14 January 2022, the resident was decanted (temporarily moved) to a hotel while works were done on her home. On 26 January 2022, the landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint had been reopened. The resident returned home on 5 February 2022.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It agreed that it had taken too much time to resolve the repair issues, especially with the damp and mould. It stated that while some of the delay had been caused by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and a resulting backlog of repairs cases, it did accept there had “undoubtedly” been failures on its part. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. It also provided an insurance liability claim form as it stated it was unable to compensate for damaged personal items through its complaints policy.
The resident’s response to the landlord is undated. She stated she was insulted by the low offer of compensation and felt the landlord had not understood the impact of the issues on her and her family. It had been two months since the resident returned home following the decant, and issues remained outstanding. These issues included a cupboard with no doors, a hole in the ceiling and an unfinished ceiling in another cupboard. The resident described returning home a week later than planned. She found her home was covered in dust, with issues outstanding and her large kitchen appliances in the living room.
Following a review panel meeting on 18 July 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint review panel response on 10 August 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint and agreed that the damp proofing work took longer than it should have and was not completed when the resident moved back in. It confirmed that it had contacted the insurance company and there was an active claim under investigation. It made a final offer of £200 compensation, comprised of:
1. £120 to recognise inconvenience caused to the resident;
2. £50 for failure to repair in a timely manner;
3. £15 for the delay in the stage two complaint response being issued;
4. £15 for failure to agree in advance a further response date with the resident.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that some issues remain outstanding and would like the compensation offer to be reviewed. She said that some of the belongings lost because of the mould had a high sentimental value and there has been a significant impact on her mental health as a direct result of these issues. The resident has stated to this Service that she seeks reimbursement for travel costs for attending medical appointments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This investigation has focused on the actions of the landlord when dealing with issues that the resident has raised. Its actions, or lack of, have been assessed against the landlord’s published policies as well as its legal obligations.
The resident could consider making a claim for any losses she has suffered against her contents insurance, if she has it. The landlord was also within its rights to advise the resident to make a claim against its liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing the cost of negligence claims and the landlord would not be obliged to pay compensation for negligence outside the insurance process. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to consider the actions of the landlord’s insurer as it is our role to consider the actions of social landlords and the insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome or handling of the resident’s liability claim.
The resident has explained to the landlord and this Service how the events have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. Therefore this Service would be unable to order the landlord to reimburse the resident for medical appointments. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

The assured tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of the resident and the landlord. The resident is responsible for reporting repair issues as they arise to the landlord. The landlord is legally obliged to respond to repair requests it is responsible for within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy does not give timescales for responding to repairs but says it aims to complete repairs in one visit or for it to take “as little time as possible”. The policy also acknowledges that some repairs will affect the decoration of a property. Where this happens, the landlord will “make good” the area or offer decorating vouchers where residents would prefer to re-decorate themselves. The policy also makes clear that residents are responsible for insuring the contents of their homes.
The Covid-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns and restrictions created a challenging environment for landlords when it came to responding efficiently to repairs requests. While social landlords still had a responsibility to provide essential services, this Service does acknowledge that there were additional challenges during the pandemic. However, the presence of damp and mould is a significant health and safety issue that requires a fast and effective response from landlords to minimise any potential harm.
The landlord’srepair logs show that issues with leaks from the roof area and/or the guttering had been ongoing periodically since October 2018. As the resident stated in her complaint form of 16 February 2021, the landlord had responded to these reports, which is confirmed by the repairs logs. However, she stated that despite contractors attending her home repeatedly, the issues would reoccur, particularly with the guttering. The issues did not appear to be continuous, however, with sometimes up to a year between reports.
There was a lengthy and unexplained delay in the landlord carrying out repairs throughout most of 2021. The resident submitting a complaint about the mould and loss of belongings in February 2021 was followed by some action from the landlord. However, once the “informal” complaint was subsequently closed, action from the landlord ceased. It is not clear what made the resident’s complaint “informal” and why it had been closed. This Service has seen very little evidence of contact from the landlord for a number of months thereafter. The resident was not decanted from her home for the works identified in February 2021 until January 2022. This Service accepts that major works require a degree of planning and scheduling which can take time. However, given the severity of the circumstances, it is evident that the landlord had not approached the situation with the necessary level of urgency. The resident was left to live with the damp and mould for almost another year before the required works began. This was an unacceptable delay which would have had a significant impact on the resident.
Considering the resident had included information about her granddaughter’s breathing difficulties in her complaint of February 2021, the delay in arranging and doing these works represented a serious failure from the landlord. The resident described to this Service spending a lot of time calling the landlord to speed up progress. She felt it unnecessarily required a significant amount of time and trouble from her, as the landlord should have known what it was required to do. This Service has not been provided with evidence of this contact. However, the fact the outstanding issues identified upon the resident’s return home on 5 February 2022 were not resolved until early 2023 indicates a very poor level of service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident has stated she is unhappy with the offer of £200 compensation from the landlord. She does not feel it provides fair and adequate redress for the loss of belongings, including very sentimental items. She does not feel that the offer appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident had to wait a significant amount of time for works to begin. She spent a total of three weeks and one day decanted into a hotel room while the works were completed. The resident has stated that she was originally meant to be in the hotel for just two weeks. Being decanted into a hotel room for any length of time represents a high level of inconvenience for residents. Where a landlord considers a decant to be necessary, it is very likely that it would be significantly more inconvenient for the resident to remain in the property while works are carried out. Such decants are therefore likely unavoidable and are done with the resident’s health, safety and wellbeing in mind.
The Ombudsman would not order a landlord to compensate a resident on the sole basis that the resident has had to be decanted. The resident confirmed that the landlord covered additional food expense with vouchers and there are no particular concerns about the landlord’s handling of the decant. However, the resident residing in a hotel room without kitchen facilities for an extended period of time and returning to a dirty and unfinished home, would have been likely to cause unnecessarily high levels of distress.
The resident has mentioned throughout her complaint that the mould and damp problems and the works to rectify them have ruined previous decoration on more than one occasion. The resident has told this Service that while the landlord re-painted a kitchen wall, the décor in the bedroom was not restored. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will “make good” a property’s decoration where necessary. It states that if a resident prefers to decorate themselves, that the landlord will provide decoration vouchers. The resident has stated that she was not offered decoration vouchers. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had made any offer of decoration vouchers.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states that in the case of damage to decoration, where it is not covered by the resident’s contents insurance, it will offer a decorating allowance or pack of a value according to the size of the room (or property).In light of the landlord’s failures, reimbursement for some re-decoration costs as a goodwill gesture is appropriate.
The landlord offered two amounts of £15 for specific minor failures with complaint handling, which appropriately remedies those specific failures.
The resident was offered £120 for inconvenience. Its compensation policy sets out that it can make a discretionary payment of £50. However it also states that it can make a payment of up to £250 in exceptional circumstances. An offer of £120 for inconvenience suggests that the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint contained somewhat exceptional circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that offers of compensation for inconvenience between £50 and £250 are appropriate for situations where there has been some service failure of short duration and no significant impact on the resident. This is clearly not the case here; the impact was significant. The remedies guidance suggests an offer of between £250 and £700 for distress and inconvenience better represents considerable service failures or maladministration that have made a significant and more long-term impact on the resident. The guidance suggests this occurs where a resident has to repeatedly chase a landlord to meet its obligations, or it fails over a considerable time to act according to its policy. It is clear that the landlord did not resolve the resident’s repair issues in “as little time as possible” in line with its responsive repairs policy. There were significant periods of time where little action was being taken, despite having been informed of an urgent issue where health issues were present.
The landlord offered £50 for delay to the repairs. Its compensation procedure suggests that the landlord must carry out a repair in an agreed time and offer another target date where it fails to meet the original. Where the second target date is then missed, it will pay a daily rate of £2 compensation up to a maximum of £50, plus a £10 one-off payment. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has worked towards target dates in the way described in the policy. The substantial delay means that a higher award of compensation directly based on the length of that delay is required in order to put things right for the resident, as set out below.

Determination

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

Orders

The landlord is ordered to carry out the below orders within six weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1150 financial compensation, comprised of:
1. £470 for delay to the major works required to the resident’s home. This has been calculated at £10 per week from one week after 4 March 2023 (when works were carried out in the resident’s loft) and 5 February 2022, when the resident returned home following the decant.
2. £250 for further delay to completing outstanding works following the decant.
3. £400 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £30 for delays with stage two handling, as offered in the stage two complaint response.

This amount is inclusive of the amount of compensation offered by the landlord in its stage two complaint response. The original offer of £200 can be deducted from the £1150 if it has already been paid.

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in its handling of her reports of damp and mould and her complaint.
The landlord is ordered to discuss with the resident a reimbursement of re-decoration costs. It should identify what rooms the resident has had to re-decorate since works in those rooms were completed. It should reimburse the resident in line with its decoration allowance as set out in its compensation procedure.
The landlord should provide this Service with information about steps it has taken since the publication of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The report was issued in October 2021 and is available at Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). Should the landlord not have taken any steps, it should review the reportand this case, and provide this Service with an action plan to ensure future reports of damp and mould are responded to effectively in appropriate timescales.