Orwell Housing Association Limited (202328885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328885

Orwell Housing Association Limited

14 October 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
2. Knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy. She has lived at the property, which is a 2 bedroom first floor flat, since 2010. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. However, the resident advised during her correspondence with the landlord in this case, that her daughter had chronic fatigue syndrome/ME.
On 3 January 2023 the resident reported the following issues to the landlord:
1. Damp, black mould and water running down the kitchen walls.
2. A gap along the top of the kitchen extractor fan.
3. An old vent hole in the wall filled with newspaper.
4. Mould in the living room in the same area as blocked gutting.
5. She was concerned about the impact of the mould on her daughter.
The following day the landlord raised repair jobs and a damp and mould inspection. It advised that it would provide the resident with a device to remove excess moisture from windows and walls. A contractor attended on 7 February 2023 to clear the guttering. A damp and mould survey took place on 22 February 2023, which found as follows:
1. Black mould in the kitchen and living room.
2. The small fan heater in the kitchen was inadequate.
3. The resident did not use the kitchen extractor fan for fear of an electric shock.
4. Temporary repairs had been made to the roof. It recommended these be checked to see if they were watertight.
5. The damp in the resident’s daughter’s room was due to condensation.
6. It recommended a mould wash, a check of the extractor fan and for a heater to be installed in the kitchen. To address the condensation, it recommended a positive input ventilation unit be installed in the loft.
The resident chased the works on 14 April 2023 and advised that her and her daughter were sleeping on the floor. She reiterated this on 24 April 2023 and asked the landlord to consider rehousing her. A mould wash was carried out on 11 May 2023. There was subsequently a gap in correspondence until the resident reported mould in the kitchen again on 1 August 2023.
The kitchen units and sink were removed and mould behind them was cleaned on 12 September 2023. The resident advised the contractor had not refitted the units or reconnected her kitchen sink. She therefore had no drinking water. The contractor reattended that same day and reattached the kitchen sink. The resident submitted a complaint on 13 September 2023. She advised that due to having to move items from the kitchen she had to sleep on the floor. This had also impacted her daughter’s school work. The landlord apologised and the kitchen units were reinstated on 14 September 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 22 September 2023 and stated that there had been no instruction on the order for the kitchen sink and units to be reinstated the same day. It acknowledged that it had not provided the service it should have. In addition its communication within departments had broken down and it did not provide timeframes of the work to the resident, which should have been scheduled for more than 1 day. It also acknowledged that from the initial inspection, to booking in the repair took too long. To acknowledge the distress caused, it offered £200 compensation.
On 12 October 2023 the resident stated that the response had not addressed the scheduling issues on the day such as the cleaning team arriving before the units had been removed. She stated that £200 did not cover her loss of earnings or the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 November 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it had not completed all the necessary works and there had been issues with its communication and planning. It apologised for this.
2. It should have reacted on the day, rather than waiting for an out of hours appointment.
3. The works outstanding were; replace the kitchen extractor fan, install a kitchen heater and works to repair the roof. (The roof repair was subsequently carried out on 3 November 2023).
4. It noted that the resident did not want the positive input ventilation unit recommended in the damp and mould survey. It asked if it could discuss this with her to understand her concerns.
5. It advised that its offer of compensation still stood.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 18 December 2023 and stated as follows:
1. There had been a delay in the kitchen units being reinstated.
2. Following roof repairs on 3 November 2023, a large crack had appeared in the wall and across the ceiling. Tiles had been cut too short and holes had been left in roof causing rain to leak in. Further roof repairs had been completed on 10 November 2023 but water was still entering the property.
3. Due to the number of contractor appointments, she had lost 15 days’ pay and been put in “extreme” financial difficulty. Both her and her daughter were suffering from stress and anxiety.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

Following a roof inspection on 7 December 2023, the landlord advised that there was no leak from the roof and found that water marks were due to condensation. It advised that it would look to increase the insulation and would arrange a mould clean for her daughter’s bedroom. It would also replace a grill and foam from the old extractor with bricks.
On 2 April 2024 the resident reported that the old extractor liner had come through the wall into the kitchen when the outside wall had been bricked up.
On 30 April 2024 the landlord sent an “complaint update” as follows:
1. Insulation had been added and rooftiles replaced.
2. A different type of extractor fan was installed in the kitchen.
3. It would correct the work that had been carried out on the old extraction fan pipe.
4. It would paint over the cracks on the sloped wall.
5. It had reviewed the compensation offered at stage 2 and had increased this to £750. This was to acknowledge the length of time it had taken to diagnose and repair the roof above the lounge. This also acknowledged the inconvenience caused by the number of contractor visits.
The resident advised on 20 May 2024 that there was still mould in the kitchen.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the impact of the issues on her and her daughter’s physical and mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (on 1 November 2023), the resident raised further issues with the landlord. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, they are not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these concerns via its internal complaints procedure. Once these matters have completed the internal complaints procedure, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. The matters which had not completed the internal complaints procedure at the time of this investigation are as follows:
1. A gap around the extractor fan.
2. Works to the old extractor liner and subsequent brick work.
3. A crack in the wall and across the ceiling.
4. A broken light cover.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs

Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published in October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this”.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy which was effective from January 2024, after the events considered in this investigation. It is not clear if it had such a policy prior to this. Its responsive repairs policy, which was in effect at the time, sets out that it will respond to emergency repairs within 6 hours and all other repairs within 21 calendar days.
The resident reported damp and mould and water running down the walls on 3 January 2023. She expressed her concerns about the impact this was having on the health of the household, including her daughter who had a health condition. The landlord was responsive to her concerns and raised works the following day. This included a damp and mould survey. It also arranged for a device to remove condensation from walls and windows to be delivered to the resident. This was appropriate as a way to support the resident with removing the condensation whist waiting for the outcome of the survey.
The damp and mould survey was carried out on 22 February 2023. This was 50 calendar days after the resident had reported damp and mould. This timeframe was more than double the response timeframe outlined within the repairs policy. Given the health risks associated with mould and the household vulnerabilities, this delay was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord did not provide an explanation for this delay nor did it acknowledge that it had taken too long to arrange this. This was unreasonable and failed to demonstrate a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report.
The damp and mould survey confirmed the presence of mould and “condensation issues” in the property. It recommended the installation of a positive input ventilation unit in the loft and a heater in the kitchen. It also recommended that the kitchen extractor fan be checked. It noted that temporary repairs (missing tiles covered by rubber felt material) were visible on the roof above the lounge and recommended these be checked further by the landlord.
Despite the findings of the survey, the landlord’s surveyor did not attend until 4 April 2023. This was a delay of over 5 weeks. Given the confirmation of mould, this was an unreasonable delay. This was not acknowledged or addressed by the landlord. As such the landlord missed an opportunity to consider the reasonableness of its response and try to put things right for the resident. The landlord’s surveyor raised the following works:
1. Remove kitchen units and sink and treat the mould in the kitchen, living room and bedroom.
2. Clear guttering and install mesh to prevent debris, if possible.
3. Investigate the rubber felt and absent tiles on roof above the lounge and check the eaves for birds nesting.
The landlord’s response to the works raised by both the damp and mould survey and its surveyor have been addressed separately below for clarity.

Mould washes and works to the kitchen

The date is not clear from the landlord’s records, however, a mould wash was carried out sometime prior to the end of January 2023. The exact dates are not known, however, It is reasonable to conclude this timeframe as the resident reported (on 23 January 2023) that mould had returned following a mould wash. Although the landlord’s actions in carrying out a mould wash was appropriate, it should have had records of when such works had taken place in order to effectively monitor and manage its response to the ongoing issue.
Following the findings of the damp and mould survey (22 February 2023), it can reasonably be concluded that contractors attended again to carry out another mould wash. The landlord did not provide details of this to the Ombudsman. However, the resident stated within correspondence to the landlord on 27 March 2023, that a contractor had carried out a second mould wash. It is not clear if this mould wash went ahead as the resident advised within her correspondence that the contractors had attended with a bleach based product, not the 2 part mould treatment previously used. The extent of works undertaken, if any, is something the landlord should have had a record of in order to effectively manage its response.
The resident had explained to the landlord that her and her daughter had been sleeping on the floor due to the mould. She requested the landlord provide her with the chemicals to be able to carry out the mould wash herself (14 April 2023). The landlord advised that same day that due to health and safety regulations, such treatment had to be carried out by its contractors. This was appropriate advice. However, despite subsequently advising the resident that it would try to expedite the mould wash to the bedroom, there is no evidence that it did so. Its actions in not following through on such an offer impacted the resident’s confidence in the landlord to appropriately rectify the issue.
The further mould wash did not take place until 11 May 2023, around a month later. It is noted by this Service that the effectiveness of this mould wash was impacted by the contractor only removing and cleaning behind 1 kitchen unit. It is not clear why the other kitchen units were not removed and the landlord did not explain this within its complaint responses. It is noted that there was a gap in correspondence until the resident queried this with the landlord on 1 August 2023 and advised that the mould had returned. Given that the removal of kitchen units had been a recommendation by the landlord’s surveyor, the landlord should have taken steps to carry ensure this work was carried out fully.
The kitchen units were not removed until 12 September 2023 to enable to mould cleaning to take place. This was around 6 months after the work had been identified by the surveyor on 4 April 2024. This timeframe was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its obligations under the HHSRS to reduce the risk posed to the household by the mould. This was particularly concerning as the resident had explained her daughter’s health condition and her concerns that it was impacting on her health. She had also explained how kitchen utensils and food had been contaminated by the mould. There is no evidence that the landlord acted upon this information in prioritising the works.
Following the kitchen units being removed and the mould cleaned, the contractors left without reinstating the kitchen sink or units. This resulted in the resident being left without drinking water from the kitchen, the day of the works. This understandably caused the resident distress and she had to inform the landlord of the situation. It is not clear how many hours the resident was without water in the kitchen, however, the landlord raised an emergency job was raised and the kitchen sink was refitted that same day. The landlord advised within its stage 2 response that its staff had been in a meeting that day. It acknowledged that it should not have waited for an out of hours emergency appointment in responding to this. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failure in respect of this. This Service would expect the landlord to have systems in place to enable it to respond to urgent issues which arise during days of staff training or meetings.
The kitchen units were reinstated on 14 September 2023, 2 days after they had been removed. The resident had explained that she had not had use of her bed for these 2 days as she had used it to store kitchen items. The 2 day timeframe to reinstate the kitchen units was, however, in line with the landlord’s repairs timeframe for non-emergency works.
It is not clear why the landlord did not ensure that its contractors knew to refit the sink and units following the works. There were also issues with the scheduling on the day, as the mould wash contractor had attend prior to the units having been removed. This lack of planning and organisation from the landlord led to the works not being completed within the 1 day timeframe it had allowed for the works. The landlord should have considered whether 1 day was sufficient to complete the works and it should have been open with the resident as to whether the timeframe given was achievable. This would have helped to manage her expectations and would have enabled her to have stored the kitchen items in a way to minimise the impact on her living space.

Kitchen extractor fan and positive input ventilation unit

Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould on 3 January 2023, the kitchen extractor fan was checked on 23 January 2023. This was within the timeframe of the landlord’s repairs policy. The resident, however, stated that the contractor had listened to the fan and advised it was working despite it not being switched on at the socket. She therefore questioned the reliability of this finding. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern in respect of this or actions of its contractor. Nor did it offer to reinspect the extractor fan in light of the resident’s representations. Given the concerns the resident had raised, this was not reasonable. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken her concerns seriously.
The damp and mould survey from 22 February 2023 recommended the installation of a positive input ventilation unit in the loft and for the kitchen extractor fan to be checked. Despite this, the landlord’s surveyor did not include mention of these in the inspection report from 4 April 2023. It therefore could not be shown that these matters had been inspected, or considered, in line with the earlier recommendations. No explanation of this omission was provided by the landlord.
The resident chased up the new kitchen extractor fan on 16 August 2023. The landlord responded that its records noted that the existing kitchen extractor fan was in working order. This failed to acknowledge the resident’s earlier concerns as to the reliability of this finding. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns that it had not previously responded to.
This Service has seen that the resident had to advise the landlord (on 29 August 2023) that it had told her that it would order a fan, but there was a delay of around 10 weeks. The resident’s concerns about the landlord not having an accurate record of the works required or outstanding was understandable. It was unfair on the resident, and indicative of a poorly functioning repairs service, that the landlord was unable to accurately account for the required repairs and their associated timescale. Instead of providing a service the resident could have confidence in, the landlord appeared to be reliant on the resident to prompt it into action.
It can be concluded that the landlord determined that a new kitchen extractor fan was required, however, the correspondence or repair record which recorded this decision was not provided to this Service. It is noted that the resident declined a positive input ventilation system in the loft and the landlord appropriately asked to discuss her concerns in respect of this. It is not clear if this discussion took place, or what the outcome of any such discussion was.
The new kitchen extractor fan had not been fitted by the completion of the internal complaints procedure (1 November 2023). It is not clear when it was installed, however, it was completed at some point between 20 February and 30 April 2024. This was over a year from when it was raised as an issue to inspect.

Roof tiles

An inspection of the roof tiles was recommended both within the damp and mould survey (22 February 2023) and the surveyor’s report (4 April 2023).
The landlord did not provide records to this Service, however, the resident advised that a contractor had attended on 24 April 2023 to inspect the roof tiles. This, however, could not be carried out as it required the attendance of 2 operatives. The landlord could not provide an explanation as to why only 1 contractor attended the job. It did, however, send the resident a copy of its instructions to the contractor, which stated that the inspection was of roof tiles. It is not clear why this error occurred, however, the landlord appropriately committed to looking into this to find out what had gone wrong. This demonstrated that it had taken the issue seriously and also a willingness to learn from mistakes.
The resident confirmed to the landlord on 22 May 2023 that roof tiles near the living room had been fixed, but the eaves where birds were nesting had not been. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this until 31 July 2023. Although no information was provided by the landlord to this Service in respect of this, the resident had noted that the landlord had been unable to act earlier, in part, due it being bird nesting season until 31 July 2023. Despite such restrictions, this Service would expect the landlord to have proactively maintained contact with the resident in respect of the issue during this time. There is no evidence that it did so.
The landlord arranged the works to the roof for 9 October 2023. It advised the delay was due to a lack of resource. As this issue had been identified on 4 April 2023, this delay was not appropriate. Given the wider circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that because of this further delay, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered the roofing works a priority. Furthermore, by failing to act promptly and prevent avoidable delays, this suggests that the landlord did not consider whether the issues with the roof had been contributing to the ongoing damp and mould within the property.
At the time of the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the roofing works remained outstanding. The resident, however, advised that these works had been completed on 10 November 2023 with further works having been completed on 11 March 2024. This was around 9 months after the works had been identified.

Conclusion

The landlord acknowledged some of its failures during the internal complaints process and it offered £200 compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident. It subsequently increased its offer of compensation to £750 (on 29 April 2024) to acknowledged the length of time the roof repair had taken.
Although the landlord’s reconsideration of its compensation, in light of the additional delays, was appropriate, it failed to resolve the substantive issues of the complaint until several months after it had issued its final response. It also did not fully acknowledge its failings, or make the increased offer of compensation until the case had been referred to this Service for investigation. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident had expressed within her correspondence, her concerns about the impact of the mould on the health of the household, including her vulnerable daughter. The landlord’s lack of timely responses to action the identified works did not demonstrate a consideration of the potential health risks associated with damp and mould. Although, at times, it committed to trying to expedite works, it did not follow up on these. As such, the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to effectively complete works was impacted.
The resident had asked the landlord to consider rehousing her on 24 April 2023. She had also advised that her and her daughter had been sleeping on the floor due to the mould. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request to be rehoused or discussed this with her. This was not appropriate and as such, the landlord failed to demonstrate a resident focused approach or that it had taken her concerns seriously.
Where a resident is waiting for repairs in respect of damp and mould, this Service would expect the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken steps to try to alleviate the situation in the meantime. The landlord’s offers of mould washes and a handheld device to remove condensation were appropriate, however, it could have gone further to alleviate the symptoms of damp before the root cause of the issue had been established, such as by offering dehumidifiers. This would have been reasonable given the length of time the repairs had been outstanding. There is no evidence that it considered doing so.
The resident had expressed her concern with the amount of time she had spent taking time off work for contractor appointments and the financial impact of this. The landlord’s compensation policy does not address compensation for lost wages, however, the resident, as part of her tenancy agreement, is required to provide access for appointments. The landlord, however, failed to respond to her concerns and only addressed this aspect within its additional complaint response from 30 April 2024. As this was after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, this was not appropriate. The landlord should have addressed this aspect of complaint during its internal complaints procedure.
Although it was appropriate for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, given the above failures and the significant delays in this case, its adjusted offer of compensation did not go far enough to acknowledge the overall impact on the resident. There was therefore service failure it its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and associated repairs.
This Service had determined that compensation of £850 is appropriate. This is based on the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a resident had been impacted by a number of failures over a period of time.

Knowledge and information management

The landlord failed to provide repair logs to this Service. As such it has been difficult for the Ombudsman to fully investigate the landlord’s actions or inactions in this case. This Service did not have sight of when works were raised, nor the details of all works carried out. The resident was able to provide emails that she has sent to the landlord, however, the landlord was not able to provide this full record of correspondence to this Service.
It was apparent from this investigation that the resident had to provide details to the landlord about what works were outstanding and prompt it to take action. The landlord should have had thorough and robust records of such works and the onus of knowing what works were outstanding should not have fallen to the resident.
Good record keeping is important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Its failure to record works in this case led to the resident losing confidence in the landlord’s ability to put things right. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its repair service.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents, which would improve the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs. It would also help with investigations by the Ombudsman by improving our understanding of the situation at the time.
By failing to record, share and retain accurate, contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to progress the repairs appropriately. The impact of its information handling practices caused extended detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident and resulted from a lack of ownership amongst the landlord’s staff. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay £850 compensation directly to the resident. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £750. This is to acknowledge the impact to the resident of the landlord’s failures in its response to her reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
3. Update the vulnerability record for the household.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Arrange for an independent damp and mould survey in light of the resident’s ongoing reports of mould. Provide a schedule of works to be carried out (if identified) to the resident and this Service.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider:
  1. The evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the work identified as required following the damp and mould survey and the surveyor’s report. The review should identify any missed opportunities there were to action the works between February 2023 and April 2024, and why this occurred. The landlord should identify what it will change in light of its findings to prevent such delays in the future.
  2. How it will improve its processes for maintaining proactive contact with residents whilst works are outstanding and detail any changes it will make to its processes.
  3. How it will improve its process for recording and monitoring the progress of works, with a focus on how to communicate effectively with its contractors about the scope and timescale of works required. The review should also seek to establish why the landlord’s overall record keeping lacked the capability to provide relevant information to the Ombudsman’s investigation in this case, and what steps the landlord will take to prevent such a reoccurrence in the future.
  4. How it will ensure operational effectiveness is not impacted during all staff events/training.
  5. How it will deliver staff training regarding the key improvements identified from its review that may improve its future response to similar cases.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord discuss the option of a positive input ventilation system in the loft with the resident. This would be with a view to enable the landlord to understand her concerns and for it to advise her accordingly.