Platform Housing Group Limited (202212317)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212317

Platform Housing Group Limited

20 October 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property;
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of asbestos in the garden shed.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation offer.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s repair obligations to:
1. “keep in repair the structure and exterior of your home including:
  1. drains, gutters and external pipes;
  2. the roof;
  3. outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames including necessary external painting and decorating;
  4. internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration;
  5. chimneys, chimney stacks and flues but not including sweeping;
  6. pathways, steps or other means of access;
  7. plasterwork;
2. “keep in repair and proper working order any installation provided by us for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms “The Group is responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the structure and common parts of its properties as set out in the Tenancy Agreement and Tenants’ Handbook.” The policy lists the responsibilities of the respective parties. This includes confirmation of the landlord’s responsibility to repair the roofing including the roof, gutters and rainwater goods; repair a failed damp proof course; repair penetrative dampness; make safe health and safety related hazards to out-house repairs; repair blocked or leaking foul drain, soil stack etc within the property boundary; repair leaks to water pipes and water tanks; repair leaks to heating pipes and radiators, repair or replace the floor damp-proof membrane and associated concrete repairs. The policy states that condensation related repairs i.e. black-spot mould are the customer’s responsibility.
The Repairs Policy states that Emergency Repairs should be completed within 24 hours whilst Appointed Repairs which are “All non-emergency and nonspecialist repairs that need to be carried out to remedy building defects or component failure and that cannot reasonably wait for cyclical or planned/programmed works” should be completed at a “mutually convenient appointment”.
The landlord’s Customer Feedback policy (December 2020) states that:
1. first, it should consider a Quick Resolution by the service area within 2 working days. Where it is felt than an issue cannot be resolved within this timescale, a formal complaint shall be registered.
2. Formal Complaint Investigations should be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days.
3. if the resident escalates the complaint, the Final Review should be completed within 20 days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy provides for “compensation for service failure/lack of service to all customers”. The landlord’s Compensation Guidance Procedure states “Each case needs to be considered on its own merits and all the circumstances”. The procedure also recognised that the landlord “may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure” and “it can also include distress caused by delays in us resolving matters or by poor complaint handling. We should take into account the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as any other relevant factors.”
The landlord’s Asbestos Management Policy states the “Group will take all appropriate precautions to ensure the health and safety of its employees, and others, who may be affected by risks associated with possible Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs) present in the buildings and plant owned or occupied by us. No persons will knowingly be exposed to airborne asbestos fibres in excess of prescribed exposure standards.”

Scope of Investigation

The resident and medical professionals on her behalf have advised about her health issues. While 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 the 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.
The resident has also advised this service that she has had to dispose of possessions because of damp and mould. This service cannot decide whether a landlord has been negligent and is liable for damaged possessions; this should be determined the court or the landlord’s liability insurers. However, this service can consider whether there has been any service failure in how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of damaged possessions, and the distress and inconvenience arising from the service failure.
Although the resident had raised concerns about asbestos in July 2020, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2 March 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The earlier report has been noted as background context to the complaint.

Summary of Events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 4 June 2020. Her property is a one-bedroom bungalow, and the resident is the sole occupant. The landlord has advised this service that the resident is registered disabled and has heart problems, sinus problems and asthma. The landlord also records the resident as suffering from mental health issues and stress and anxiety.
The landlord carried out an asbestos survey in 2018 which considered the risk from asbestos in the cement sheeting of the roof of the shed. It identified an action priority of “longer term”, defined as “Low asbestos risk, little risk of exposure to occupants unless material is disturbed”. The survey stated “no action required. Inspect a regular interval and consider labelling if not already labelled”.
The resident has provided evidence to this service that in July 2020 she contacted Environmental Health to raise concerns about a plug socket and asbestos flakes from the shed. Environmental Health closed the complaint as it understood the landlord would deal with the asbestos issue and the resident has advised this Service that Environmental Health advised her this would be the case.
On 2 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s Customer Feedback Team asking it to deal with repair issues:
1. Flaking asbestos cement from the roof of the shed. She stated the landlord had inspected previously after she reported the matter to Environmental Health.
2. Damp and mould which had damaged her property. She advised of health issues worsened by the mould – asthma, sinuses, mental illness and hyperparathyroidism – and stated that she was living in the front room. She also noted that the landlord had stated that her property was too hot causing humidity, referring to a reading of 93 on its hygrometer; however, she had 3 hygrometers none of which read over 50.
On 2 March 2022 the landlord stated it had raised a formal complaint and would respond by 16 March 2022.
On 11 March 2022 the resident raised another complaint about asbestos flaking from the shed roof which she said was a health risk. She reiterated that she suffered from asthma and hyperparathyroidism which was at risk from black mould in her bedroom. On the same day the landlord raised a job for a specialist to remove a small piece of asbestos from the shed roof sheet.
On 12 March 2022 the resident reported water coming in from under her skirting boards in her bedroom which was already affected by damp and mould. An emergency plumber came to check if there was a burst pipe but found no leaks. The plumber advised the resident that there was dampness due to the damp course being faulty and that the neighbour had the same issue.
In an email sent on 13 March 2022 the resident advised that she had paid for an independent damp surveyor and that she was waiting for a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) report from Environmental Health. She requested a copy of the plumber’s report of 12 March 2022.
On 23 March 2022, the resident’s damp surveyor carried out an inspection. According to his report it found that the two rooms at the side of property with an external wall had condensation and that the concrete floor slab in the front room with an external wall showed a high level of moisture. The damp specialist recommended the application of a two-coat epoxy resin system to the floor and floor wall junction in the room, so that water vapour could not permeate from the floor slab.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord sent a holding response advising it would respond to the complaint by 30 March 2022. On 25 March 2022, the landlord sent the complaint response. It stated:
1. following the inspections of 1 and 4 March 2023, inspections had been raised to remedy upside down trickle vents and to install a passive air vent in the front bedroom. Its planning team would be booking the works.
2. its out of hours operative had provided another diagnosis of the issues. It was arranging follow-on works and its out of hours team would be confirming an appointment shortly.
3. as it had received differing information about mould growth, it would be arranging a specialist mould company to carry out a survey on 22 April 2022. Afterwards, it would be able to review any necessary works although it was unable to assist with removing mould from personal belongings.
4. also, on 22 April 2022 it would be removing the asbestos from the shed safely.
On 1 April 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She stated:
1. she never received the plumber’s report, just a general outline of it.
2. she had video evidence of water coming into the house after days of rain and that only one part under the damp proof membrane was wet.
3. her own damp proof survey had different findings to the landlord’s. Therefore, she did not think a vent brick and corrected trickle vents would rectify matters.
4. she wanted to know the root cause of the damp in bathroom, kitchen and bedroom. The house adjoining hers suffered the same problems with damp and wet floors and no damp proof membrane.
On 21 April 2022, the landlord received the resident’s contractor survey. It noted that the contractor had concluded the cause of the damp was condensation but had identified a different solution – epoxy resin. On the same day the landlord advised the resident that it would conduct a more intrusive survey by a specialist independent surveyor.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident it would need to brief the independent surveyor on the detail of the intrusive survey to be carried out and allow him safe access. In order to do that its repairs surveyor would visit to confirm which skirting boards and areas of flooring would need removal to allow the independent surveyor clear access. A sample area of asbestos tiling would need to be removed by an asbestos contractor once the area has been identified.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 14 March 2022 it raised an order to check the trickle vents in the property and install a low-level vent in the front bedroom. On 25 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she did not want the vent installed as she did not think it would resolve the damp and mould there, and because she was pursuing matters through her solicitor.
The landlord’s internal correspondence between 29 April 2022 and 16 May 2022 confirms that the resident did not provide access for the job to remove damaged asbestos from the roof sheet on the shed on the advice of her solicitor.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord’s solicitor advised the resident’s solicitor that if the landlord could not gain access to the resident’s property it may apply for an injunction. The resident’s solicitor advised that it was no longer representing her, and that the landlord should contact her directly. On 14 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord that her solicitor had advised her to not allow works to be carried out, only testing, but that the landlord had only contacted her about works, not testing.
On 20 June 2022 the resident enquired why the landlord wished to look for damp in her concrete floors in mid-summer as that would be unproductive. She noted that there was no mould growth in summer despite high humidity in her property. She suggested the landlord inspect the concrete floors in autumn when the heavy rain started. The landlord responded on the same day reiterating its intention to at first determine the best area of floor to test for damp, then to arrange for a specialist asbestos contractor to remove a patch of the black bituminous floor tile adhesive to expose the floor slab for further testing.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord sent the Review response to the complaint. It noted that the resident had not responded to its email of 20 June 2022 which confirmed the purpose of the proposed intrusive survey by a specialist surveyor. It reiterated what the investigations would entail and that it needed access to be able to determine what the issues in her property were and to consider compensation.

After the complaints procedure

The landlord’s repair records state that the works to remove asbestos from the shed roof were completed on 12 July 2022. The resident later advised this service that she was given an appointment with 24 hours’ notice. This appointment was inconvenient for her as she could not take all her belongings out of the shed alone. She added that she needed 5-10 days’ notice so she could arrange for a family member to assist her. There is no contemporaneous evidence of the resident’s contact with the landlord at this time. However, the parties do not dispute that the works were not completed on 12 July 2022 which contradicts landlord’s repair record.
On 18 August 2022 the resident responded to the landlord’s email of 20 June 2022. She reiterated her view that the landlord inspect the concrete floor after the heavy rain of autumn commenced. On 20 September 2022 the landlord repeated that to measure the floor for damp, it would first need to employ an asbestos removal firm to remove a patch of black tile adhesive.
Also on 20 September 2022, after the resident phoned, the landlord raised a new job to remove asbestos from the shed’s roof sheet. It noted that the previous job had been marked as being complete in July 2022 when in fact works had not been completed.
In correspondence over 21 and 22 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord of vertical cracks in the external wall though which she could prod the inner wall indicating that there was no insulation. She stated she would like an inspection of the mortar and cavity wall, and for the landlord to wait for rain so it could track where the water ingress was coming from. The resident further stated she could not understand the landlord’s surveyor advising the damp proof membrane was causing the floor to sweat as there was water pooling in the skirting where the mould was most prevalent.
During an exchange of correspondence on 25 October 2022 the resident reiterated that she would like the mortar and cavity wall looked at and asked for the date of the floor inspection. She reported that she was sleeping in the front room due to her sinus problems.
On 7 November 2022 the resident complained that a bricklayer who attended her property on 4 November 2022 had previously attended her property on 5 October 2022 and took no further action apart from taking photographs. The resident added that she needed adequate heating in the bedroom and that she had furniture that had been damaged by the mould.
On 17 November 2022 the asbestos contractor agreed an appointment with the resident of 25 November 2022 to remove the floor tile adhesive in the bedroom. The resident agreed for the landlord’s surveyor to also attend to look for building defects and damp related issues, plan the installation of the floor testing equipment and decide whether a structural survey was needed. The landlord has not provided a contemporaneous record of the visit of 25 November 2022. According to the landlord’s final complaint response of 25 August 2023, it confirmed that there was cavity wall insulation and that there were no areas of damp. It attributed the growth of mould to a humidity level of 69%. It noted the resident’s heaters was not on and recommended an upgrade.
In discussing her complaint with this Service on 23 November 2022 the resident advised that there was damp and mould in her bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. She advised that there was mould behind her kitchen units which had spread to her utensils. The resident also advised that the landlord had not at that point made an appointment to remove the asbestos from her shed roof.
On 2 December 2022, a surveyor from the landlord installed a floor hygrometer and took readings on 6 and 8 December 2022. On 5 December 2022 the landlord raised a job for a structural survey as, according to its internal notes, although it did not consider there to be any structural issues, the resident would not allow works until a survey had been completed.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord completed the works order of 20 September 2022 to remove asbestos from the shed roof. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord removed asbestos flakes and covered over it.
During December 2022 and January 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that the resident continued to report mould in her property and had even slept outside. She noted she had expected the landlord to carry out a mould wash of her kitchen; however, an out of hours operative attended with multi surface wipes. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report or of the job order the resident referred to.
During January 2023 the landlord installed data loggers. The data loggers collected data on the levels of humidity and temperature in order to determine whether the conditions for condensation and mould growth could occur.
On 27 January 2023, Environmental Health sent a letter to the landlord regarding damp and mould. It noted that only one out of four storage heaters were working, there were cracks in rooms and the survey the resident had paid for stated there was water ingress through the floor / base of property.
On 2 February 2023 a contractor carried out a structural survey and on 24 February 2023 the landlord received the report. The report concluded that there was no subsidence or settlement and the severity of the cracking and around the property was “aesthetic”. It stated that “whilst the structural integrity of the structure is not compromised as the masonry is load mearing, weather tightness may be impaired with loss of joints may be occasioned to door and window frames”. The report recommended:
1. Make good cracks in walls and floor slab.
2. Repoint areas of lost mortar to front, side and rear elevations.
3. Infill area of missing brickwork within loft space.
4. Monthly monitoring of the areas where the cracks were, between 6-12 months to determine if there was any movement.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord raised a job for an operative to “treat numerous issues with mould killer and damp paint” and on 22 March 2023 the works were completed.
On 23 February 2023 the landlord completed an internal damp reporting form noting a “medium amount” of black mould in the “Bedroom, Kitchen, Lounge, Bathroom or Shower Room, Hall” and that the heating system was in need of repair. On the same day the landlord raised an order for a damp and mould clean with a target date of 2 March 2023. Its repair records show a completion date on 2 May 2023.
On 8 March 2023 the landlord raised a job to insulate the eaves with a target date of 7 March 2024. The works were completed on 12 July 2023 according to the landlord’s repair records and photographs provided to this Service.
On 28 March 2023 the landlord installed a new heating system, central heating with a gas boiler.
During March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord’s Customer Feedback Team stating that her complaint was not resolved and that she had not received compensation.
On 13 April 2023 the landlord sent the Environmental Health a report which considered information from the data loggers in the resident’s property. The report contained graphs and concluded that:
1. “The loggers came back showing an average dataset that fell within the optimal limits. The relative humidity levels were on the higher end of the scale, and it would be the case that if the temperatures were not as consistent as they were then condensation could occur.
2. The second graphs shown for each room represent the average RH against the time of the day. This shows a general and expected pattern for all those rooms that were monitored. As they all show the humidity levels build up throughout the course of the day where they generally peak just after midnight. This is usually the case as ventilation decreases at night when doors and windows are closed, extract fans are mostly off, and occupants go to bed. This build up does steady as cooking and bathing activity abates but high levels of RH will remain until the point where a window or door is opened allowing fresh air transfer. The graphs show that this normally occurs around 6am and following on from this the general trend is that the RH builds up over the course of the day. There are small peaks around 2–4 pm and 6-8 pm which could be attributed to cooking /bathing activity.
3. The overall picture does not show any significant areas of concern.”
The report also noted that the landlord had tested the floor for damp using a protimeter between 2 December 2002 and 8 December 2022, having removed a patch of bituminous adhesive. The report concluded that “readings were taken showing ERH of 61% and 56% these reading show an ERH which is below of 75% and therefore the floor slab is considered to be dry and not requiring an additional damp proof membrane.” The local authority did not respond at the time and on 19 September 2023 it confirmed that it had closed the case. The landlord also sent the resident copies of the reports it had obtained and asked her to comment.
The landlord commissioned another survey by a different contractor which attended on 25 May 2023. The survey report recommended lifting the leadwork to the chimney breast as water ingress could be seen inside the loft, replacing the mechanical extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom with humidstat fans even though they were in working order, and installing insulation to a depth of 300mm and to wall junctions. The contractor also noted that it had cleaned patches of mould using stain block and using anti-mould paint.
The report also noted comments made by the resident, specifically that she wanted weather shield applied to the external wall, mould washes behind the kitchen units, and an inspection of the roof due to a leak and damage to the membrane.
On 18 August 2023 the landlord raised an order to carry out brickwork and plasterwork following the structural survey. The repair information provided to this service indicates that the works included repointing brickwork, renewing plaster, laying insulation and applying self-levelling latex screed.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord sent a follow up letter to the resident. It summarised the action it had taken to investigate the humidity and damp since 23 November 2022 and the outcome of the structural survey of 2 February 2023. It noted that the resident had not responded to the reports sent on 12 April 2023. It further stated that the recommended works were scheduled for 10 November 2023. The landlord also offered compensation of £1000 which comprised:
1. £250 for the time taken to provide the reports from the surveys.
2. £250 for the time taken to respond to the complaint with the final review being allocated in April 2022 and the response being sent in July 2022.
3. £500 for the inconvenience caused.
On 30 August 2023, the resident declined the compensation offer, in part because the offer did not cover lost possessions.

Assessment and findings

Damp and Mould

The landlord’s statutory repair obligations are set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 amended the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Act does not define “fit for human habitation”, but amongst other things, consideration should be given to repair, freedom from damp, ventilation, wate supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences. This report should be read in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021. The Spotlight report highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that condensation related repairs are the resident’s responsibility. This does not align with the landlord’s obligation or a recommendation within the Spotlight Report that landlords “avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident”. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord reviews this aspect of the policy.
The resident reported damp and mould on 2 March 2022, advising of the impact on her health and damage to possessions. Following the resident’s emergency repair request of 12 March 2022, the landlord’s contractor reported that there may be dampness to the floor slab due to the damp course being faulty. The resident took steps to investigate dampness herself, paying for an independent surveyor and contacting Environmental Health. Her surveyor also identified that floor slab was damp, as well as condensation in the property.
The landlord’s complaint response indicates that it had identified from visits in March 2022 that works to improve the ventilation in the property were required although there are no records of the inspection. This lack of records is concerning and a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records demonstrate that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Due to the lack of records, it is not clear that the landlord assessed the location and extent of the mould and how it concluded that the solution was increased ventilation.
The landlord checked the trickle vents and sought to install a vent in the front bedroom, in line with its findings. The resident disputed that ventilation was the cause of the damp and mould referring to the findings from her own surveyor. As the resident was contending that there were different reasons and had supporting evidence, in particular water pooling under the floor, it was reasonable that the landlord agreed to investigate further, and in particular carry out an intrusive inspection of the floor.
The landlord took steps to manage the resident’s expectation of the testing process by explaining on several occasions that it needed to identify the area to be tested and carry out an asbestos check first before exposing the floor slab, including in the Review response. It did not attend the property for several months until November 2022; however, as the reason was due to access difficulties, with the resident stating she did not think it worthwhile to carry out the testing over summer, this delay did not represent service failure by the landlord.
After the asbestos company attended the landlord installed instruments to measure dampness of the floor in December 2022 and data loggers. It thereby obtained data to assess whether there was disrepair to the floor and whether damp and mould could form due to the temperature and humidity of the property. By taking these steps the landlord took action in line with its commitment to diagnose the cause of the damp and mould.
From October 2022 the resident advised that she thought faults in the external brickwork and a lack of insulation contributed to mould in the property. The landlord carried out its own inspection on 25 November 2022. However, again the landlord did not keep a detailed contemporaneous record of the inspection. This was a significant failure in particular as one reason for visiting was to establish whether there was any disrepair to the brickwork that may have led to the damp and whether the property had insulation. There is also no evidence that the landlord assessed the extent of the mould throughout the property. Therefore, despite the investigations being carried out, the landlord did not have all the necessary information to decide how best to resolve the mould reported by the resident and what action could be taken whilst the investigations were being carried out.
According to the resident’s reports from September 2022, the letter from Environmental Health and the landlord’s damp inspection form there continued to be a significant damp and mould in the resident’s property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord treated and cleaned the mould until March 2023. It therefore failed to take any effective action to alleviate the situation for several months, including the winter months, which was when the resident advised the damp and mould was at its worst. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that she stated that she could not use her bedroom it was unreasonable that the landlord did not expedite the cleaning.
The landlord’s investigations included a structural survey. This was a reasonable step to take as the resident had raised specific concerns about the structure of the property in particular a possible fault to the brickwork. While the report found that the property was generally structurally sound, it noted some doors and window frames may not be weather tight and recommended works.
Inadequate heating may contribute to the formation of mould therefore it was also reasonable that the landlord upgraded the resident heating system, having identified that it was inadequate. However, the landlord did not act on the recommendations of the structural survey until over 6 months later, when it raised repair orders in August 2023. It is unclear why the landlord did not take action sooner. In the absence of any explanation, this was an unreasonable delay, in particular as it is important that a landlord ensures a property is weatherproof and has no water ingress when seeking to resolve damp and mould. Moreover, it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident who had specifically related the pooling of water in her property to rainfall.
In addition, the landlord has not acted on the findings of the survey of 25 May 2023. While it has installed loft insulation, there is no evidence it has investigated water ingress in the loft or sought to installed new extractor fans. The resident has advised this Service that there is a new moisture extractor in the kitchen but not the bathroom. The landlord has therefore not taken all identified action to resolve damp and mould in the resident’s property.
Nor has the landlord responded to the resident’s comments that were in the report, including her request for rendering and further mould washes. Therefore, aside from the delays in carrying out works, it has not therefore made adequately clear to resident why it considers the works it has raised to be sufficient.
The resident has consistently said that there has been damage to her possessions. If a resident says their possessions (including carpets or furniture) have been damaged by damp and mould, the landlord would be expected to assess the claim itself or refer it to its insurers. There is no evidence that the landlord took these steps. It has therefore not taken appropriate steps to assess this aspect of the resident’s complaint, exacerbating her inconvenience.
The resident also reported her health issues on several occasions. The Ombudsman supports a risk-based approach to damp and mould, that takes into account a resident’s vulnerabilities and needs. In this case, the resident explained her health issues and how the damp and mould was affecting her, to the extent that she felt she could not sleep in her bedroom. The landlord was also aware of mental health issues as well as physical health issues which indicated there was an elevated and composite detrimental impact to the resident. However, at no point did the landlord take a risk-based approach to the resident’s case which acknowledged her vulnerabilities or how the damp and mould affected her.

Asbestos in the garden shed

The resident reported asbestos in her shed roof of 2 March 2022 and made a formal complaint about this matter on 11 March 2022. The landlord subsequently raised an order for the removal of the asbestos and arranged an appointment for 22 April 2022 for the works. The landlord’s correspondence shows that it did not complete the asbestos removal on this date, but as this was due to not being able to gain access to the shed, there was no service failure on its part.
The landlord’s records indicate that the works to remove the asbestos from the shed roof were completed on 12 July 2022. However, it transpired that the works were not completed on this date. This indicates that there was a failing by the landlord in recording the status of the works and that consequently its repairs records were unreliable. As a result, the completion of the works was delayed.
After the resident pursued the works in September 2022, the landlord raised a new repair order. The works were not completed until 12 weeks later, in December 2022. While the Repairs Policy does not provide timescales for the completion of non-emergency works, the landlord was required to make a “mutually convenient appointment”. However, there is no evidence that it sought to make an appointment for the works in a prompt manner and not any earlier than 23 November 2022 according to the resident. The landlord therefore exacerbated its earlier delay in the completion of works to remove asbestos from the roof of the resident’s shed. Ultimately, it took 9 months for the landlord to complete the repair which was disproportionate length of time for a responsive repair. The detriment to the resident was potentially exacerbated by the fact that she would need to arrange a date for the removal of items in the shed before agreeing a date for the landlord to attend.

Complaint Handling

With regards to the landlord’s complaint handling, after the resident submitted her formal complaint of 11 March 2022, it sent the first stage response within the 10-working day timeframe and before the advised date of 30 March 2022. However, it neither responded to the initial complaint of 2 March 2022 nor advised whether it had been superseded by the further complaint of 11 March 2022. Therefore the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s complaint was unclear.
After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord did not respond within the target timeframe of 20 working days. While it was reasonable that the landlord investigate the substantive repair issues before sending the response, it had a responsibility to update the resident about the progress of the complaint, for instance by sending holding responses. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
At the time the landlord sent the Review response it had not completed its investigation into the mould and damp, and therefore was not in a position to make an offer of compensation. The resident also sought to reopen her complaint in March 2023 as it was not resolved. Given these circumstances, it was fair that the landlord carried out a further review of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord did not send the further complaint response until August 2023, 5 months after the resident asked it to reopen the complaint and 3 months after the last survey of 25 May 2023. This was an unreasonable delay.
It is appropriate that landlords provide redress for service failures to resolve a complaint. In this case the landlord offered £250 specifically for not providing reports in a timely manner. This amount is in line with the level of redress in this service’s Remedies Guidance for cases of maladministration with no permanent impact and is proportionate to the circumstances. The landlord also recognised delays in its complaint handling. However, its award only reflected the time taken to send the Review response of 7 July 2022 and not the time taken to send the more complete response of 24 August 2023. Therefore, this award did not reflect the full extent of complaint handling delays.
It is not possible for this service to determine that rooms in the resident’s property were statutorily unfit for habitation. The resident also indicated that the amount of mould varied with less mould during summer 2022. However, the impact of the mould was significant given the resident’s vulnerabilities and her stating that all rooms were affected, that she could not sleep in her bedroom and that her kitchen was affected. The impact on her use of her kitchen was particularly significant given the potential health risk from contaminated food and utensils. The landlord’s offer of £500 also did not cover the service failure for the removal of asbestos from the roof of the shed as this issue was not addressed in the response of August 2023. Therefore, it is not considered that the landlord’s offer was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its of reports of asbestos in the garden shed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling and compensation offer.

Reasons

While the landlord carried out investigations, there is no evidence that it assessed the extent of the damp and mould throughout the property. It also did not take any effective action to alleviate the damp and mould, by treating and cleaning the mould, for several months. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that she stated that she could not use her bedroom it was unreasonable that the landlord did not expedite the cleaning.
The landlord has not taken all identified action to resolve damp and mould in the resident’s property. This includes a delay in acting on the recommendations of the structural survey it commissioned. It has also not completed work identified in the survey of 25 May 2023. Aside from the delays in carrying out works, it has not therefore made adequately clear to resident why it considers the works it has ordered to be sufficient.
The landlord has also failed to respond to the resident’s reports of damaged possessions by assessing the claim itself or refer the claim it to its insurers. At no point did the landlord take a risk-based approach to the resident’s case which acknowledged her vulnerabilities or how the damp and mould affected her.
Although the landlord did not gain access to complete the repair to the shed at its first appointment, ultimately, it took 9 months for the landlord to complete the repair which was disproportionate length of time for a responsive repair. The detriment to the resident was potentially exacerbated by the fact that she would need to arrange a date for the removal of items in the shed before agreeing a date for the landlord to attend.
The landlord’s compensation award for complaint handling delays did not reflect the full extent of the delays. The landlord’s award for inconvenience was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered, within the next 4 weeks, to:
1. arrange for a senior member of staff to send an apology to the resident.
2. pay the resident a total of £2000. This comprises:
  1. £1200 in respect of the impact on the use and enjoyment of her room by the resident. This takes into the period 2 March 2023 when the resident initially reported the damp and mould to 18 August 2023 when the landlord raised work orders. The award takes into account that the landlord did carry out some works intended to help resolve the damp and mould, including treating and cleaning the mould, that the level of mould varied at different times of the year and that the resident refused works for a period in 2022.
  2. £200 for the delay in removing the asbestos from the roof of the shed.
  3. £250 offered in the letter of 24 August 2023 for the time taken to send the complaint response of July 2022 and a further £100 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble arising from the delay in sending the response of 24 August 2023.
  4. The £250 offered in the letter of 24 August to provide the reports from the surveys.
  5. The landlord may deduct the amount of any compensation already paid to the resident.
3. complete the works recommended in the structural survey that were confirmed in the response of 24 August 2023.
4. confirm to the resident its intentions regarding the works recommended from the inspection of 25 May 2023 and the works the resident requested at the time. The landlord should also agree an appointment for works to be completed.
5. consider the record keeping failings identified in this report, review its record keeping practices for repairs and maintenance, in particular for cases where damp and mould is reported. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of inspections and surveys carried out, and of works raised and completed. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required.
The landlord is ordered to, within the next 6 weeks, to review its processes for resolving of damp and mould cases. In particular it should ensure that it takes a risk-based approach that takes into account the vulnerabilities, detriment and needs of the resident.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. reviews its Repairs Policy to reflect the fact that it should not solely place the onus on the resident to deal with condensation related repairs.
2. devise a policy and procedure for responding to reports of damp and mould within its housing stock as part of its review of its approach to damp and mould. The policy and procedure should include reference to monitoring of and adhering to agreed timescales, completing work to appropriate standards and keeping residents informed.