Peabody Trust (202312777)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202312777
Peabody Trust
12 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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat which she lives in with her 2 children.
- It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident first made a report of damp and mould in the property. On 24 May 2023, she made a complaint to the landlord. She said that:
- Damp and mould had become more prevalent in the property since January 2023.
- The landlord had informed her that she needed new kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. However, the bathroom extractor fan had not been working since it was recently installed, and the kitchen fan had not been replaced at all.
- She was concerned about the condition of the windows.
- She was unhappy with the overall time it had taken for the landlord to complete the repairs.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day, however a stage 1 response did not follow until on 3 July 2023. The landlord said that:
- It had raised a job for the extractor fans to be renewed, and a further job to do a mould wash.
- It would ask its surveyor to attend the property and report back on the condition of the windows. In the meantime, it would provide the resident with a single point of contact for any further concerns. They would monitor the situation until all repairs were completed.
- On 10 July 2023, the resident requested the complaint was escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. She said that:
- While replacing the kitchen extractor fan, the landlord’s contractors had damaged the kitchen window.
- She was concerned about the impact the situation was having on her daughter’s health.
- Her belongings were damaged because of the damp in the property. She wanted the issue to be investigated further and the cause of the problem established.
- The landlord sent its final complaint response on 30 August 2023. It said that:
- It acknowledged that its contractors had not arranged the required appointments, and it was sorry for any distress or inconvenience that had been caused.
- To avoid further delays, it had reassigned the required repairs to a new contractor. It would monitor the situation every 2 weeks and keep the resident updated until the repairs were complete.
- It appreciated that she was worried about the impact the situation was having on the health of her child and wanted to reassure her that it was working to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
- If she was concerned that her personal items had been damaged, she could make a claim on her own contents insurance. She could also submit a claim to the landlord’s insurers.
- It was sorry that her complaint had not been escalated in a timely manner. It had provided feedback to the appropriate team and was sorry for any inconvenience caused. As a result of a recent merger, it had increased staffing levels and had changed the way it monitored complaints.
- To put matters right, it wanted to offer her a total of £750 in compensation, broken down as:
- £600 for time, trouble, and inconvenience.
- £150 for complaint handling.
- The resident contacted the Ombudsman and explained she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She felt more needed to be done to address the cause of the damp and mould, and was particularly concerned about the impact the situation had on the health of her family. On 29 October 2024, she advised that the landlord had still not paid the compensation it offered at stage 2 of its process.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has reported damp and mould over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions had on the health of her family. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused a health issue, determine liability, or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
- Other aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her concerns about damaged belongings. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident’s reports of damp and mould
- The resident explained to the Ombudsman that she first made a report of damp and mould towards the end of 2022, but the situation worsened in January 2023. She reported that there was mould appearing on her wallpaper, the extractor fans were not working, and she had concerns about the condition of the windows. The landlord has not provided full evidence of the resident’s repair records, including any inspections undertaken at the property or any interventions it took to address the damp and mould from this time.
- The earliest report of damp and mould the landlord has provided the Ombudsman is dated 27 November 2023. Without an audit trail or a full history of the resident’s repair records, we cannot conclude what actions took place or confirm that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
- The landlord introduced a damp and mould policy which was effective from 9 February 2023. The policy does not give specific timescales for action on a report of damp and mould, but says that it will ensure that it conducts and completes “any necessary repairs that would help tackle the issue”. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs undertaken at the property, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case.
- There is no evidence of clear interventions made by the landlord to address the issue between January 2023 and when the resident made her complaint in May 2023. However, within her correspondence, she referred to being informed that she needed new extractor fans. It is unclear how the landlord concluded that this intervention alone was sufficient to resolve the issue, as there is no evidence that a surveyor visited the property during that time.
- In responding to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process, the landlord did not comment on her concerns about how long the situation had been ongoing. It made no reference to its damp and mould policy and instead treated her concerns as a service request for repairs, which was unreasonable.
- From records seen, there was a lack of communication between the landlord and its contractor. This is evidenced in correspondence sent between both parties around 10 August 2023, in which the landlord asked the contractor whether it could provide more details of what works were outstanding. The lack of transparency about the required repairs between both parties contributed to delays in concluding matters for the resident and resulted in her request to escalate her complaint.
- The resident expressed on several occasions that she was concerned about the impact the situation had on the health of her family. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould, published in October 2021, explained that landlords should have a process in place to support a risk-based approach to the issue. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether there were additional vulnerabilities in the household. By failing to do so, it missed an opportunity to establish whether there were any risk factors it needed to take into consideration when delivering its service to the resident.
- Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to conduct additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. In this case, the landlord has been unable to explain what it has considered the root cause of the damp to be. Rather, it treated the resident’s concerns solely as a repair issue which was unreasonable. For example, there is no evidence that a damp and mould expert visited the property during the timeline of the resident’s complaint.
- The landlord was responsible for having oversight of its contractors and monitoring any outstanding repairs. In responding to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process, it accepted that it had taken too long to complete remedial works to alleviate the damp and mould, but it gave no explanation of why the delays had occurred. While it said it had referred the matter to another contractor to resolve, it did not explain what it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and did not clarify what steps it had taken to ensure that the situation did not happen again.
- Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to her concerns about damaged belongings. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it would expect residents to have their own contents insurance. It also explains that it will “take appropriate steps to investigate and establish whether any damage was caused or exacerbated by any action on inaction of the landlord”. The landlord provided the resident with details of how to make a claim to its insurers within its stage 2 response, which was appropriate. The option to refer the matter to the landlord’s insurers should remain open to the resident.
- To put matters right, the landlord offered the resident £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused, and an additional £50 for her “overall experience”. The amount it offered the resident was at the higher rate for “extensive disruption” as set out within the landlord’s compensation policy, and would have been sufficient had it concluded matters for the resident. However, remedial works to the extractor fans and kitchen window continued to be delayed and were not completed until 25 October 2023, 2 months later.
- The landlord’s records demonstrate that ongoing discussions about damp, mould and associated repairs in the property continued into 2024. To date, it remains unclear whether a comprehensive damp and mould assessment has taken place. An order has been made for the landlord to arrange for the property to be revisited by a qualified specialist, and produce an action plan for any remedial works as appropriate.
- The Ombudsman has considered further compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, to reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident. The additional amount of £50 per month has been considered from the landlord’s final response on 30 August 2023 to the date of this report, a period of 14 months, totalling £700.
- Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. There is no evidence that a detailed damp and mould inspection took place and delays to complete remedial works took approximately 10 months to complete. By failing to carry out the repairs in a timely manner, the landlord has not fulfilled its responsibility to mitigate the risk of any ongoing damp and mould, contrary to its repair and HHSRS obligations.
- In November 2023, the Ombudsman ordered that the landlord conducted a wider order review of its practice in case 202122259. This included a senior management review of the landlord’s handling of damp, mould, and repairs under paragraph 54.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. A management case review has not been ordered in this case, as active work between the landlord and the Ombudsman is in progress to drive learning on the same themes.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The resident first made a complaint on 24 March 2023. The evidence shows that she said she felt that “nothing was being done” and she would repeatedly call the landlord but was “making no progress.” The landlord failed to recognise this contact as an expression of dissatisfaction and did not raise a complaint. As a result, she had to contact it again on 24 May 2023, causing her additional time, trouble, and inconvenience.
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 May 2023. In accordance with its complaint policy, it should have responded within 10 working days. However, a response did not follow for 28 working days, which was inappropriate. The landlord made no apology for its failure to respond to the resident on time, which was unreasonable.
- The resident requested an escalation to her complaint on 10 July 2023. Evidence shows that the landlord was delayed in acknowledging the resident’s request for approximately 1 month. It should not have taken intervention from the Ombudsman on 9 August 2023 for the landlord to have acknowledged the escalation and discussed the resident’s concerns in further detail.
- After the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, the landlord’s communication with the resident improved. Records demonstrate that it discussed the reasons why she was unhappy with its stage 1 response in detail and agreed an extension to the deadline for a final response, which was appropriate.
- The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to address the resident’s complaint in a timely manner and offered her £250 for its failures. In relation to the failures identified, 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. To consider this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
- The landlord accepted that it had failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in good time and offered her compensation which was made in accordance with its compensation policy. It also set out extensive learning from her complaint which was appropriate. The service improvements it listed were proportionate and demonstrated that it understood what long-term steps it needed to take to provide a better complaint service.
- The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) makes it clear that any promises made in complaint responses should be realistic, and followed up with the resident within a reasonable time. In this case, the evidence provided after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint does not demonstrate that the landlord followed up on the reassurance it made to update her every 2 weeks until the conclusion of the repairs. While there was no evidence of a significant impact to the resident, it is reasonable to conclude the situation would undermine her confidence in the landlord, resulting in a finding of service failure.
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 accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise for the failures noted within this report.
- Pay the resident £1,500 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount is comprised of:
- £750 the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process if it has not already been paid.
- An additional £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. A breakdown of the calculation is explained in paragraph 22 of this report.
- An additional £50 for time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to update the resident as outlined in its stage 2 response.
- Arrange for a damp and mould specialist to visit the property. The resulting inspection report should set out what the specialist has established the cause of the damp to be. A copy of the report should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.
- Following the specialist visit, the landlord should produce an action plan which demonstrates its commitment complete any remedial works in an appropriate timeframe and in accordance with its repairs policy. A copy of the action plan should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.
Recommendations
- It recommended that the landlord utilises the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and gives consideration to arranging staff attendance to its virtual workshops on:
- Spotlight report on damp and mould workshop.
- Spotlight on knowledge and information management virtual classroom.