Places for People Group Limited (202300466)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300466

Places for People Group Limited

20 May 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’s complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould at her property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3 bed house with the landlord, a housing association, which commenced in June 2020. She lives with her partner and 2 dependent children, both aged under 7. The landlord reports that it has no vulnerabilities on file for the resident.
3. In August 2020, the resident asked the landlord to replace her windows as they were affected by mould. The landlord inspected the windows in November 2020, decided that the windows did not need to be replaced and asked the resident to ventilate her property to prevent the build-up of condensation.
4. Concerns were raised again in December 2020, with the resident reporting that there was significant damp and mould affecting the skirting board along one wall of the property. A damp survey was carried out in mid February 2021 which made the following observations:
   1. The resident’s property was build in the early 1990s on an exposed hillside site. It was made of precast concrete panels, appeared to have an internal wooden frame, and had cavity walls filled with fiberglass batts.
   2. Although there was no evidence of penetrating damp, the surveyor found significant mould growth and condensation on walls and floors around an exposed area of the concrete base of the property.
   3. There was little to no insulation in the lower 150mm of the walls.
   4. The condition of the walls allowed cold spots to form with a wide variation of temperature across the walls, leading to condensation and mould growth. The surveyor noted that there was a significant difference between the internal room temperature at the property and the temperature of the walls, which varied widely depending on where on the wall was measured.
   5. Damp and mould growth was identified in the cloakroom, significant condensation on and around window frames and condensation on the toilet cistern causing black mould. The front door was swollen and ill fitting due to condensation.
   6. Trickle vents at the property were closed along with all windows. The surveyor stated that windows did not appear to be opened regularly and that extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were not used, although it was noted that these fans were weak and did not work well.
   7. Prevalence of condensation in the property was due to a lack of extraction and ventilation, with the surveyor concluding that the majority of condensation was due to ‘under use of the facilities provided’.
   8. The following works were recommended:
      1. Service and/or clean the kitchen extractor fan.
      2. Upgrade rear door to composite type.
      3. Install insulation in lower 200m of stud wall to eliminate cold bridging.
5. The bathroom and kitchen fans were replaced with humidity activated extractor fans in April 2021. The landlord also removed damp affected plasterboard, installed insulation in 3 rooms, reboarded and skimmed with plaster around the same time. Mould treatment was applied throughout the resident’s property in May 2021, with a positive input ventilation (PIV) system installed in June 2021 to help tackle condensation.
6. The landlord’s insurer paid the resident £700 in July 2021 to replace personal belongings which had been damaged by damp and mould. The insurer stated that the payment was as the landlord had been in breach of a statutory duty.
7. The resident reported further damp and mould affecting her entire property in January 2023. Her GP provided a letter stating that the condition of her home was having a negative effect on her health and that ‘urgent remediation is needed to prevent further damage to health’.
8. A further damp survey took place in February 2023 which noted the following:
   1. Windows in the property were in poor condition, creating cold spots which led to mould growth.
   2. High humidity levels within the property.
   3. The bottoms of internal walls were significancy colder than the rest of the walls.
   4. The PIV had been installed on the ground floor.
   5. Recommended works included:
      1. Installing damp proof coursing (DPC).
      2. Replacing all windows and doors with PVC energy efficient versions with trickle vents.
9. Another surveyor carried out a damp survey in February 2023, which noted the following:
   1. The resident reported that there were no issues with damp and mould at the property in the summer.
   2. The floor in the resident’s sitting room and rear store was very cold and subject to mould growth in cold spells. The edge of the floors was significantly colder than in the middle of the floors.
   3. No evidence of penetrating or rising damp.
   4. The resident’s property had been built on top of a concrete slab. The edge of this slab was exposed, was unusually cold, and this coldness was being transferred to the first metre of the floor. The surveyor stated in the report that ‘this is not a modern warm [insulated] floor’ and identified this as a construction issue.
   5. Radiators in the property worked but were small, particularly in the bedrooms.
   6. The PIV system had been installed in an unusual site and was discharging cold air into the property.
   7. The windows had significant mould on them, with the window frames now twisted and fitting poorly. It was noted that replacing the window frames was unlikely to resolve all of the damp and mould issues.
   8. Recommended works included:
      1. Moving the PIV unit to a more appropriate location or upgrading it to one which heats air coming into the property.
      2. Cloaking the outer exposed sections of the concrete slab and brickwork with external insulation. Alternatively, fit insulation board to the floor although this work would be expensive and disruptive, or for the resident to fit thin but dense underlay on the floor.
      3. To consider upgrading the resident’s radiators.
      4. To consider installing a more powerful cooker extractor hood.
10. After these surveys, the contractor who installed the PIV unit carried out an inspection in February 2023 and explained the following to the landlord and the resident:
    1. The unit was of the type which heated incoming air to at least 10C. It was working as designed at the date of the inspection.
    2. The contractor had not been able to install the unit upstairs without blocking access to a storage cupboard. The current site was the only one available at the property.
11. A Stage 1 complaint response was given to the resident on 17 February 2023. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about issues with damp and mould, explaining that issues with condensation were due to the original design of the resident’s property, and that further work was needed to help manage these issues. It promised to review the vent system at the property, including the PIV unit, and to install new windows, and to raise a public liability claim with its insurer regarding further damage to the resident’s personal belongings. A ‘closing letter’ for this complaint was sent on 20 February 2023 which stated that the landlord felt the windows were the source of mould and forwarded the most recent surveys to the resident.
12. The resident asked for escalation of her complaint on 27 February 2023. At the same time, the resident also forwarded a copy of the January 2023 letter from her GP along with recent photos of condensation and mould at her property. She explained that she was concerned that the landlord had not committed to resolve the issues with damp and mould, that replacement of the windows was planned in the next year rather than as soon as possible, that there was no plan to tackle issues with the floor and walls, and that she was worried that damp would come back in the winter. After discussion between the resident and the landlord about her complaint in March 2023, the resident explained that she believed that a lack of insulation in the external walls caused cold spots which led to the formation of condensation.
13. On 3 April 2023, the landlord provided a Stage 2 complaint response. The resident’s complaint was not upheld for the following reasons:
    1. All works identified in the 2021 survey had been carried out.
    2. The PIV unit could not be moved or improved and was located in the ‘most appropriate place within your home’.
    3. It was impossible to lay insulation on the floor without completely rebuilding the property. As the issue related to excess cold rather than damp, the landlord would not be taking this action.
    4. Areas of damp had been spotted on the external walls but this had been resolved by insulation installed in 2021.
    5. The resident had not been heating and ventilating her property adequately and that air circulation had been prevented as large items of furniture had been put against the walls.
14. In May 2023, the landlord’s insurer rejected the resident’s public liability claim regarding damage to her personal belongings. The insurer explained that it would only pay out if the landlord had been negligent in some way and that the landlord had carried out all recommended works following the previous successful insurance claim in 2021.
15. In January 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would replace the resident’s windows in the first week of March 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

16. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 3 categories of repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs – responded to within 24 hours and applies where disrepair poses an immediate risk to health and safety, is causing uncontrollable damage to the property, or has made the property uninhabitable.
    2. Appointable repairs – responded to within 28 days and apply to repairs which can prevent damage to a property.
    3. Planned repairs – responded to within 90 days and apply to non-urgent repairs.
17. There is no specific response time set out in the repairs policy for reports of damp and mould. The landlord does commit in the policy to triaging reports of damp and mould to determine its response, and to inspect and carry out surveys of properties if certain trigger figures for repairs reports are reached or in response to complaints on this topic. If the landlord finds issues which would be classed as Category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (‘HHSRS’) following a survey, these issues would be prioritised as an emergency repair. Excess cold and damp/mould growth are both potential hazards under HHSRS.
18. Repairs records show that the resident first raised concerns about damp and mould on 26 August 2020, reporting mould lining her window frames. It is not clear whether this repair was classed as emergency, appointable, or planned. Contractors inspected on 4 September 2020 with further work scheduled for 13 November 2020. This Service has assumed that the landlord simply removed mould from the window frames on 13 November 2020 as repairs records indicate the job was completed on that date and accompanying notes state that the windows were not in poor condition but were affected by condensation. This work was completed 79 days after the first report, which is in timescale for planned works.
19. Further concerns about damp and mould were raised by the resident on 30 December 2020, this time affecting the skirting boards at her property. Inspection was originally arranged for 11 March 2021, 71 days after the report, but a damp specialist survey was arranged instead and took place on 16 February 2021, 48 days after the report. It is positive that the landlord shortened the response time to the resident’s report and took proactive steps to help identify the root cause of the issue more quickly.
20. The survey in February 2021 was comprehensive and identified a range of issues in the property, including excess cold in spots on the walls and floor of the property and condensation related damp and mould growth. It is noted that the survey also implies that the resident was at fault for not making good use of the facilities provided by the landlord for extraction and ventilation of the property, including the extractor fans and trickle vents in the windows. Although the survey did not assess whether the landlord had a contractual obligation to carry out repairs or whether there were any hazards under the HHSRS, the landlord should have considered these points when reviewing the survey. This is a failure of the landlord to follow its own policies and procedures as it needed to identify any category 1 hazards to see if emergency repairs were required.
21. Although the February 2021 survey states that the surveyor warned the resident about the consequences of failing to make use of the fans and vents, and the landlord discussed the same issue with her on 13 November 2020, no evidence has been provided about whether the landlord discussed this issue with the resident after the survey was carried out. Creating an action plan where the resident and landlord both agreed to take steps to manage the condensation in the resident’s property would have made it clear what steps both parties had to take to resolve the situation. The resident would have been confused by the letter on 20 February 2023, which stated that the landlord believed damp and mould issues would be addressed by replacing the windows, as this would have led her to believe that the landlord did not think she was at fault with her use of the property.
22. It is positive that the landlord carried out all recommended works identified in the February 2021 survey and took additional steps to tackle condensation in the resident’s home, such as upgrading the extractor fans and installing the PIV unit. The landlord should also have considered concerns raised in the survey about the exposed area of the concrete slab under the property and whether action on this point would help manage condensation, although this Service appreciates that the surveyor made no recommendations for works on this.
23. Replacement of the extractor fans took place on 19 April 2021, 62 days after the damp survey and 110 days after the resident’s initial report. This Service appreciates that this work was in excess of the survey recommendations and that it would have been difficult for the landlord to identify that upgrading the fans would potentially help with condensation before the survey was carried out, but this work was done over 90 days after the initial report and in excess of the published timescale for planned works. This is also the case for repairs to damp affected plasterboard, repaired on 22 April 2021 and 113 days after the initial report, and for mould treatment, carried out on 29 May 2021 and 150 days after the initial report. However, these works were done within the published timescales for planned works if the date of the initial survey is taken as the starting point of the deadline and there is no evidence that the resident was inconvenienced by any delays in carrying out these works as she has reported that issues are at their worst in winter.
24. Given the extent of the issues identified in the February 2021 survey, and as damp and mould is often seasonal with a higher prevalence in winter, it would have been good practice for the landlord to arrange a follow up inspection or contact with the resident in the winter of 2021/2022.
25. It is positive that 2 further damp surveys were carried out on 14 February 2023 following the resident’s report on 6 January 2023. However, the landlord’s response to works recommended by both surveys was poor. Although the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s windows, which one of the surveys identified as a source of mould in the resident’s bedrooms, it did not agree to install a DPC, fit insulation to the exposed sections of concrete slab at the base of the building, insulate the floor of the building, or upgrade the radiators. These measures may help tackle condensation in the resident’s property and the landlord has not explained why the majority of the recommended works were not carried out, apart from giving financial reasons for floor insulation and follow on works. The landlord’s failure to consider carrying out all recommended works in the surveys is particularly of concern as one of the surveys explicitly stated that merely replacing the windows was unlikely to resolve all the condensation issues at the property.
26. Although the landlord did arrange for the PIV unit to be inspected by the original installer, the landlord took the original installer at their word about there being no other appropriate site for the unit and that it was working correctly despite concerns being expressed over this in the February 2023 surveys. Given the concerns raised by both surveyors, it would have been appropriate to arrange for an independent contractor or specialist to inspect the PIV unit and then discuss any concerns with the original installer. This is a failure of the landlord to act on expert advice from the surveyors and investigate whether an alternative installation site was viable.
27. Due to the landlord’s failure to consider whether there were hazards in the property under HHSRS, a failure to work collaboratively with the resident to make sure that both parties were doing as much to limit condensation in the property, a failure to adequately investigate concerns about the PIV unit, and a failure to carry out all the recommended works identified in surveys carried out in February 2023, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property. It is positive that the landlord has replaced the windows and doors at the resident’s property, but successive surveys have identified other works that have not been carried out by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

28. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2 stage complaints process. An ‘on-the-spot’ response is provided to a complaint, attempting to put things right within 24 hours. If the complaint cannot be resolved within this time, an acknowledgement of a Stage 1 complaint is given to the complainant within 5 working days and a response provided within 10 working days. Any escalation requests are acknowledged within 3 working days, with a Stage 2 response provided within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s current Complaint Handling Code.
29. Complaints handling records state that the resident’s complaint was logged on 5 January 2023 and escalated to Stage 1 on 31 January 2023, 18 working days after the complaint was made. The Stage 1 complaint was issued on 17 February 2023, 31 working days after the complaint was made. This is a breach of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints handling policy for acknowledging complaints and providing a complaint response. No acknowledgement of the delay was provided to the resident either in correspondence or in the Stage 1 response. This delay would have been frustrating for the resident and given her the impression that the landlord was not taking her complaint seriously. Failing to acknowledge the delay would also have been upsetting for the resident.
30. The Stage 1 response was apologetic about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould issues at the resident’s property. It acknowledged that the design of the property was contributing to condensation formation and that windows needed to be replaced, set out what steps it was going to take to help resolve the issues, and agreed to refer the resident to its insurers to see if she could make a fresh claim to cover the cost of replacing damaged personal items. It did not assess the complaint in line with the landlord’s compensation policy or apologise for any delays in carrying out works. Although the complaint response was of a suitable tone and promised to do more work, it did not explain why it had not offered compensation to the resident or acknowledge delays in works and in its complaint response. This would have been frustrating for the resident. 
31. The resident asked for escalation of her complaint on 28 February 2023, forwarding a letter from her GP expressing concern about the condition of her home. In her request, she made it clear that she felt upset that the landlord had not considered offering compensation in its Stage 1 response and that there were no plans to tackle cold spots on the walls and floors. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether an acknowledgement of the escalation request was provided by the landlord. The Stage 2 response was provided on 3 April 2023, 24 working days after the escalation request. This is a minor breach of the timescales for complaint responses set out in the landlord’s policy, although there was no acknowledgement of the delay in the Stage 2 letter.
32. The landlord changed its position in the Stage 2 response. Although the landlord continued to agree to replace the windows in the next round of renovation works to the property, it refused to take any further action to tackle the condition of the resident’s home as this would require ‘a complete rebuild’. At this point, the resident was blamed for contributing to the problem by failing to heat the property and restricting air circulation inside. Although the landlord can change its mind about a complaint response at Stage 2, the difference in tone and attitude towards the resident’s complaint between Stage 1 and Stage 2 is significant and would have given the impression that the landlord was no longer willing to try and resolve the issues at the resident’s property. The resident would also have been upset that she was being blamed for condensation in her home at a late stage in the complaints process.
33. Due to delays in complaint responses, failure to consider the landlord’s compensation policy during the complaints process, and due to the unsympathetic tone of the Stage 2 response, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Reimburse the resident for damaged personal belongings as per the previous public liability insurance claim. Confirmation of this payment must be provided to this Service.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £750 in compensation, comprising of:
       1. £400 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by delays in carrying out agreed works.
       2. £200 for the landlord’s failure to carry out all works recommended in the February 2023 surveys.
       3. £150 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused by poor complaints handling.
36. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Review the recommendations made in the February 2023 surveys, carry out an additional survey from an independent surveyor who has not previously had dealings with this case, and carry out a thermal imaging survey of the property to identify cold spots/cold bridging that may be contributing towards condensation. The landlord must draft a comprehensive schedule of works with estimated timescales for completion and commit to carrying out all recommended works within a reasonable period of time. Copies of all additional surveys must be provided to the resident. Copies of the schedule of works must be provided to the resident and this Service.
    2. Commit to offering annual inspections of the resident’s property for damp and mould for the following 2 years once works identified as per the above paragraph are carried out. The resident must be reminded of this offer either in writing or via telephone call in the early winter period or as agreed with the resident. This Service must be provided with written confirmation that the landlord has accepted this commitment.

Recommendations

37. Carry out a learning review of this complaint, identifying what it has leant from this case and what it will do differently in the future. This should also consider what actions it thinks the resident is not taking to properly manage condensation in her property. This review must consider the Ombudsman’s report titled ‘Spotlight on: Damp and mould – It’s not lifestyle’ (available via this link: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Spotlight-report-Damp-and-mould-final.pdf), the landlord’s own self assessment against this spotlight report, and discuss what steps the landlord will take to prevent issues identified in this report from happening again.