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

Orwell Housing Association Limited (202333343)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333343

Orwell Housing Association Limited

27 August 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Background

  1. The resident moved into the property in June 2014. She had an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident is a single parent who experiences anxiety and depression. Two of her children also experience mental health issues, and she has a child who is autistic.
  2. The property has a history of recurring issues with roof leaks and damp which dates back to 2014. Works took place but failed to resolve the issue in the long term. On 7 October 2019, the resident reported that her dining room ceiling was falling down due to the leaks.
  3. The resident reported a further leak into the dining room on 17 November 2020. In December 2020, she raised a stage 1 complaint. The landlord inspected and arranged works to fix the roof leak and re–route associated pipework. It referred to an action plan which it called ‘phase 2’ regarding removal of the ceiling, redecoration, a property move, and temporary accommodation.
  4. On 18 December 2020 the landlord said that the roof works had been completed successfully and it was confident that the leak had been resolved. The ‘phase 2’ works were put on hold at the resident’s request due to the disruption that she said this would cause the household.
  5. On 5 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the outstanding works. It noted that she had declined its offer of a hotel stay/holiday home for works to take place. It said that it welcomed any ideas on how to carry out work with minimal disruption. In response, the resident advised that her circumstances remained the same and works could not be carried out until the family had been moved.
  6. On 2 June 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It advised her that it believed all avenues had been explored regarding completing the works and asked her to let it know if there was anything it could do that had not already been offered. The landlord said that it would continue to support the resident with a property move and confirmed that it intended to close her complaint about the repairs. On 30 June 2021 the resident advised that the damp was getting worse.
  7. The next record noted by this Service was on 28 September 2022 when the resident reported a hole in the ceiling and mould in the kitchen and bedrooms. She advised the landlord that she felt let down and that nothing had been resolved in over a year.
  8. A property survey took place on 24 January 2023. The resident moved into temporary accommodation and works started on 27 March 2023. On 11 April 2023 the landlord noted that the roof was still leaking and had damaged the partly decorated/newly plastered ceiling and wall areas. Further works took place following which the resident moved back into the property on 23 April 2023. She subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with the workmanship and referenced plaster dust everywhere, broken possessions, paint on furnishings, and a loss of WIFI. The landlord raised a separate complaint about these issues.
  9. On 4 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that not all the works had been done, work was incorrect, and she wanted to escalate her original repairs complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response the same day. In summary, it advised:
    1. it had continued to liaise with the resident and the local authority to try and find suitable housing which could be a lengthy process
    2. works identified in January 2023 were more extensive than anticipated. The extra work was completed on 21 April 2023
    3. as a gesture of goodwill the resident would not have to pay rent from 26 March 2023 to 16 April 2023, when she was in temporary accommodation  
    4. there was a substantial amount of work to be carried out which made it unviable for the family to reside in the property long term. The plan was to move the family into permanent accommodation but a timeframe could not be provided
    5. it had taken appropriate action to organise the repair works from the end of 2020 up until March 2023. However, it noted a communication breakdown in its complaint handling and a lack of consistent updates
  10. On 5 May 2023 the resident said that she felt forgotten about and referenced the landlord’s poor communication. On 9 May 2023 she reported a new damp patch on the newly plastered dining room ceiling and wall, a leak coming through the ceiling of the dining room, and a wall that had not been plastered during works. A further leak via the loft was also reported. The landlord raised works to attend to the roof’s lead flashing.
  11. On 23 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In summary, it said that following an inspection on 12 May 2023 it was investigating further to establish if additional works were required. It concluded that it needed to address the roof leak and said that it would chase until works were completed. It offered the resident £200 compensation for any inconvenience (as well as £300 for any damage caused during works).
  12. In November 2023 the resident reported that the damp and mould had got worse. The landlord said that it would arrange an internal inspection and a mould spray prior to a damp survey. However, following issues with the electrics, the resident moved out of the property and into temporary accommodation on 26 January 2024.
  13. The resident sought assistance from this Service. She referred to a detrimental impact on the household’s mental and physical health and associated financial difficulties due to her housing situation. She said that she was paying rent for a condemned building, it had been 9 long years of repair issues which had taken over her life, and she had told the landlord about the leak in October 2019 but it was not fixed until 2023. She said that she was frustrated by the landlord’s treatment when considering the household’s needs. To resolve matters she wanted a permanent move to a new, safe home, and for the landlord to be held accountable.

Events post completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. On 23 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm its offer of a new home with a planned move date of 5 August 2024. In addition, it confirmed the following compensation offer of £18,200, comprised of:
    1. £8,200 statutory home loss payment
    2. £7,500 damage to possessions
    3. £2,500 for inconvenience and failure to resolve repairs to a satisfactory condition
    4. In addition, the landlord offered the resident £500 reimbursement for a bus pass due to the change in location of the new property which the resident has since moved into.
  2. The resident recently advised this Service that the compensation offered in relation to the leak, damp, and mould fails to reflect the distress, stress, and inconvenience that she experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme highlights that we may not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in December 2020. Taking all of the circumstances into account, and the availability and reliability of the evidence that has been provided to us, this investigation focuses on events from late 2019 onwards.
  2. The resident reported that there had been a detrimental impact on the household’s mental and physical health as a result of the landlord’s action, or lack thereof. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp, and mould and the health of the resident and her children. This type of personal injury claim is better suited to the courts, where the judge would benefit from an independent medical expert confirming the diagnosis, cause, and prognosis of any injury. It is usually only the courts that can say if legal liability arises.

The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp, and mould

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
    1. be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes
  2. We will apply these principles when considering whether any redress already made by the landlord is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal duty on landlords to make full, effective, and lasting repairs once it is given notice of disrepair. They must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also requires the property to be free from hazard and to be fit for human habitation. This is supported in the landlord’s tenancy agreement which outlines that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, which includes the roof.
  2. The Ombudsman issued its Spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021 which can be found here: Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). The report outlined the need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould and stressed the importance of timely responses that reflect the urgency of the issue.
  3. The evidence available shows that the landlord was made aware of a leak into the property in September 2019 and January 2020. It appears that works were carried out to address this. However, a further leak occurred in November 2020. The landlord noted that previous repairs to the roof’s lead flashing appeared not to have held and arranged for repairs to take place.
  4. On 4 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and proposed that it moved her and her family to temporary accommodation while it carried out works. It further advised, “we are able to do the repairs while you remain in the property or you can vacate the property to temporary accommodation. We thought a chalet may be a great option giving the whole family a mini break.”  This was a reasonable response which demonstrated the landlord’s attempt to find a solution. It does not, however, undermine the resident’s concerns about a temporary move and the associated upheaval for her children.
  5. On 4 December 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it had eliminated the flat roof and lead work as the cause of the leaks, which left the pipework on the roof as the potential source of the problem. It was good practice for the landlord to explain its findings. This demonstrated its attempts to keep the resident informed.
  6. In response to the landlord’s suggestion that it started works on 7 December 2020 and its offer of temporary accommodation, the resident advised that she needed more time to prepare. She also asked for a permanent move to a new home. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord said that it would put a hold on the works at that time. It also signposted the resident to a local information and advice service which was appropriate.
  7. On 8 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had accepted the family for a managed permanent move and would show her any suitable properties it had before they went on the market (though it explained that its housing stock was limited). It also registered the resident’s interest for rehousing with the local authority and liaised with it on her behalf to try and progress her housing application. The landlord acted swiftly here to try and progress matters.
  8. On 18 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it had been monitoring the external work and was confident that the leak was resolved. It is, however, unclear how the landlord arrived at this decision. It also asked the resident how it might be able to resolve the family’s support needs to enable the internal remedial works to start. It said that it was happy to be flexible and adapt its service around the family’s needs and said, “In the interim I will place all works on hold rather than cancelling the orders so that you are able to change your mind at any point”. This was a reasonable response which demonstrated an attempt on the landlord’s part to understand the resident’s individual circumstances.
  9. The landlord followed up with the resident on 2 occasions in February 2021 and asked her what she would like to do to progress works. The landlord was proactive in this respect. The resident explained that due to the extensive nature of works (as advised by the landlord), they could not be carried out until the family had moved to a new permanent home. It is therefore acknowledged that at this point the scheduling of works was impacted by the resident’s actions.
  10. The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations with regards to the potential waiting time for a new property. In addition, it advised her of other housing options such as considering a 5 bedroom or 3 bedroom property, mutual exchange, and private rental. In addition, it liaised directly with the local authority on her behalf regarding her housing application. While it is acknowledged that some of these options presented their own challenges, the landlord’s approach was reasonable and demonstrated its attempt to try and find a solution to the resident’s housing situation.
  11.  On 30 June 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the damp was getting worse, “the problems that this has caused my family are immeasurable. I need to get out of this nightmare.” The landlord responded on 2 July 2021 and said that it would look out for 4 or 5 bed properties and that it would contact the local authority to make sure that it had received her housing application form. While this was a reasonable approach, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and responded to the distress that the resident disclosed, demonstrate empathy, and to consider any additional support it could offer or signpost the resident to.
  12. Up until this point, the evidence indicates that in the main the landlord took appropriate steps to try and resolve the repair issues in accordance with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act, while considering the resident’s individual circumstances.
  13. However, no evidence has been provided to this Service of the landlord’s attempts to then progress matters, assess the risk to the family, or offer any support until over a year later when, on 28 September 2022, it contacted the resident and suggested the option of a mutual exchange (although it subsequently noted that it would need to have the property repaired before a mutual exchange could proceed). The delay progressing matters was unreasonable when considering the circumstances and the household’s vulnerabilities. Further, despite its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), there is no evidence that the landlord undertook any ongoing monitoring of the condition of the property during this period. Under the HHSRS the landlord is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord’s approach demonstrated a lack of ownership of the issue.
  14. On 28 September 2022 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The landlord noted that she felt let down and that she had said nothing had been resolved in over a year. In response, it offered to raise works for any outstanding issues. The landlord demonstrated flexibility by offering to, “work during school times or during any other time you would deem least disruptive.” It also met with the resident and explained, “We want to agree a plan with you on how [the landlord] can carry out the repairs, in the absence of available properties in the area that meet your needs. In the current circumstances, we want to ensure that you are supported”. This shows that the landlord made efforts to take the resident’s circumstances into account. Ultimately, however, the substantive issue remained unresolved which was unreasonable.
  15.  Around December 2022 the resident agreed a temporary move so that the works could go ahead. She had previously advised the landlord that she was unable to make quick decisions due to her personal circumstances and her child’s needs. On 8 March 2023 the resident’s support worker said that 5 different dates had been put forward for works to start and therefore to move into temporary accommodation. The support worker referenced the disruption that this caused the resident and the detrimental impact on her wellbeing. It was unreasonable that plans changed on multiple occasions. This speaks to the importance of careful planning and effective communication. The landlord’s approach contributed to the resident’s distress which was unfair.
  16. In March 2023 the landlord explained to the resident that the works required at the property, and associated costs, made it “unviable” for the family to live there long term. It said that the repair works planned were to “bring the property up to standard” but that the long-term plan was for the family to move into permanent accommodation. The landlord reiterated that rehousing would not be a quick process. It was appropriate that the landlord explained this to the resident and further attempted to manage her expectations.
  17. The works began in late March 2023. However, on 11 April 2023 the landlord noted that the roof was still leaking and had damaged the partly decorated and newly plastered ceiling and wall areas. In addition, it noted rotten skirting and plasterboard as a result of rising damp and mould spores. The resident’s temporary accommodation was extended while works took place. However, upon her return to the property on 23 April 2023 she advised that not all work had been done and work was incorrect. There is, however, no evidence that the landlord followed up with the resident to clarify her report which this Service would expect to have seen when considering the circumstances. On 4 May 2023 the landlord advised, “Should any further repairs be required these need to be reported directly to Customer Services”. This approach was unreasonable and contradicted the reassurance that the landlord had offered in December 2020 that it would, “monitor and oversee the project to ensure you [the resident] are happy with the outcome”.
  18. A further inspection identified ongoing issues with the roof. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 23 May 2023, the landlord said that it would continue to chase until works were completed. The resident had spent approximately 1 month in temporary accommodation and been assured by the landlord that the property would be “brought up to standard”. It was unfair that she returned to a property where she continued to experience issues with leaks. This likely caused her additional distress and frustration, which would have been further exacerbated in November 2023 when she again reported damp in the property.
  19. Events indicate that the repairs that the landlord had carried out over the period in question had not been effective. This is further supported by the resident’s report in January 2024 that the damp and mould issue was very bad and the household was sleeping on mouldy beds. A subsequent inspection on, or around, 30 January 2024 found damp and mould throughout the property, and extensive works that were required. Ultimately, the landlord had responsibility for diagnosing the cause/s, completing any repairs for which it was responsible within a reasonable timeframe, and ensuring the property was fit for habitation. The landlord failed to do this.
  20. In conclusion, the evidence available shows that the leak and associated impact on the property and the resident and her family was ongoing for an extended period, and that the various repairs undertaken were ineffective in resolving this. It is acknowledged that it can take multiple attempts to identify and resolve a leak, and that some of the delays in addressing the issue in this case can be attributed to the landlord taking into account the resident’s circumstances during 2021. However, overall events were clearly protracted. This caused significant and prolonged distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family.
  21. In accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principle, learn from outcomes, we would expect to see that the landlord had identified learnings from the resident’s complaint and taken steps to put things right. It did appropriately acknowledge that there had been a breakdown in communication and that the resident had not received consistent updates. However, it failed to explain what it would do to prevent similar issues occurring.
  22. Further, when considering that the landlord identified service failures, its conclusion in its May 2023 stage 1 investigation that it had, “taken appropriate action and worked with [the resident] to organise the repair works from the end of 2020 up until March 2023” was unreasonable.
  23. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the £200 compensation that the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process failed considerably to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble that she experienced, especially as at the time of issuing the stage 2 complaint response the leak was ongoing. Its approach was unfair and unreasonable in this respect.
  24.  It is unclear whether the landlord’s subsequent revised level of compensation of £2,500 for inconvenience and failing to resolve repairs to a satisfactory condition, would have been offered had the complaint not been referred to us for investigation. While it was appropriate for the landlord to significantly increase its offer, this should have been done as part of its internal complaints process. Had this happened, it is likely that the outcome of this investigation would have been that the landlord had offered reasonable redress. However, where redress is offered outside of the internal complaints process, and after the involvement of this Service, it is harder for the landlord to demonstrate that it will act fairly and consistently in all cases.
  25. In light of the above failings and the household’s vulnerabilities, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould. The resident was offered a statutory home loss payment and compensation for damage to her possessions. These payments fall outside of the scope of this investigation. Nevertheless, the £2,500 offered for inconvenience and a failure to resolve repairs to a satisfactory standard exceeds the upper end of the amount published in this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration (£1000). While no further order of financial redress is made by this Service, an order is shown below under paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the ‘Scheme’). This requires the landlord to undertake a case review to help ensure that it learns from the resident’s complaint and that similar issues are avoided in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould.

Orders

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this investigation report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report
    2. undertake a senior management case review under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme. The case review must identify learnings from the resident’s case, potential staff training, and service improvements. This should include, but is not limited to, appropriate offers of redress during the internal complaints process, suitable acknowledgement and assessment of vulnerabilities and associated support that can be offered, timely communications, and how it will proactively progress repairs in similar cases  
    3. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.