Platform Housing Group Limited (202220099)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220099

Platform Housing Group Limited

27 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, and the tenancy started in March 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow where the resident lives with his wife and 2 children.
4. The landlord’s contact notes said it sent a damp and mould leaflet to the resident on 23 May 2019. The resident emailed the landlord with photos of mould in the property 2 days later. He said even though he ventilated the property, did not have too much furniture, and cleaned the mould regularly, he had still noticed damp in multiple places and the mould kept returning. He said mould was in both bedrooms, the living room and the bathroom, and was coming out from under new carpet he had installed. He was worried about his 2 year old asthmatic daughter, as he had noticed changes in her breathing and she was coughing. The landlord raised a job to inspect the damp and mould the same day, which it recorded as completed on 6 June 2019, although there is no record to say exactly what the surveyor noted. 
5. The resident called for an update on 2 July 2019. The landlord emailed its surveyor for an update the following day and asked them to contact the resident. The resident called the landlord again on 10 July 2019 asking to speak to the surveyor regarding the inspection. The landlord called its surveyor, who asked it to log a job to check, and either renew or repair, the trickle vents in both bedrooms and the lounge windows, which it did, and a repair appointment was booked for 30 July 2019. The surveyor also said he would log a job to install an extractor fan in the bathroom, which he did, and an appointment was booked for 7 August 2019.
6. There is no evidence of any further contact until 16 months later, when the landlord’s notes show the resident contacted it on 17 December 2020 reporting damp, mould and condensation in the hall, lounge, dining room, bathroom and bedroom. The notes said it was the first time the issue had been reported, so the landlord sent another damp and mould leaflet and asked him to wait 6 weeks to check for any improvement.
7. The landlord noted the resident called on 9 February 2021 and had followed the guidance as requested. Its repair records show it booked another inspection. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 18 February 2021, but noted the resident had been drying clothes in the living room, which he was advised not to do. It requested repairs to the double glazing of 3 bedroom windows affected by condensation, and for the loft insulation above the bathroom to be checked/added to. 
8. The window repairs were not raised until 25 March 2021 and were noted as completed on 9 April 2021. The landlord’s repair log notes the job for the loft insulation was completed on 11 June 2021, but does not confirm whether the insulation above the bathroom was just checked, or if additional insulation was added.
9. There is then no evidence of any further contact until 20 February 2022 when the resident raised a complaint, which said:
   1. He had raised problems with damp and mould previously, but the landlord just sent a leaflet which said to leave windows open and keep air circulating round the property, which he did.
   2. His (now 4 year old) daughter had sensitive lungs, breathing problems and suffered with a cough that was very painful. Her doctor had said to keep her away from damp and mouldy walls, but even though they clean the walls, the mould kept returning and her health had deteriorated.
   3. He did not think the landlord had carried out a thorough investigation into the root cause of the damp and mould, and even though he had little knowledge, he was “more than sure” ventilation was not the cause, and it was more likely to be a structural issue. Although he did acknowledge the surveyor attended and used a moisture reading device to check the walls which said the walls were not damp, and the surveyor described the walls as “bone dry” and said it was a condensation issue.
10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it aimed to issue its response by 7 March 2022. It called the resident on 22 February 2022 to explain its complaints procedure. The call notes reiterated the resident’s concerns around his daughter’s health and his requests for a full investigation into the cause of the damp and mould.
11. The landlord’s repair log shows a job raised on 2 March 2022 to complete repairs to mortar in the brickwork around the property. The repair notes relating to this job are not entirely clear, but it appears the surveyor said not to attend, as he had attended last summer to inspect the external condition of the property and it had already been dealt with.
12. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 March 2022, as follows:
    1. Its surveyor attended on 6 June 2019, confirmed the issues were caused by condensation attributed to household living, and arranged for repairs to be carried out including:
       1. Bedroom window handle replaced (completed on 16 September 2019).
       2. Trickle vents in the bedrooms and lounge repaired or replaced (completed on 30 July 2019).
    2. Its surveyor attended again on 18 February 2021 and carried out another inspection which included use of an electrical moisture reader, which did not record any moisture on the internal walls. The surveyor advised the black mould growth was caused by condensation attributed to lack of ventilation and household living, but identified 2 bedroom windows needed to be reglazed and repairs were completed on 9 April 2021.
    3. A further repair job had subsequently been raised for all brickwork around the property to be repointed, which was scheduled for 5 October 2022, to prevent any moisture ingress from occurring.
    4. It offered £100 compensation, as some of the repairs had taken longer than it expected.
13. It is not clear whether the resident accepted the compensation, but there is no evidence of any further contact until 23 May 2022, some 2 months later, when the resident contacted the landlord and requested a contact email address to send a doctors letter regarding his daughter’s health.
14. The landlord’s repair logs show a job raised on 3 October 2022 for external repairs to be carried out to the guttering and downpipes as they were broken and leaking. The notes relating to the job for its contractor asked ‘is this causing the damp and mould issues?’ The notes do not have an answer to the question, but the appointment (originally booked for 3 November 2022) was brought forward to 28 October 2022. There is no evidence to confirm whether the contractor attended and completed this work. 
15. The landlord’s contractor attended on 5 October 2022 and the resident said it took pictures and ordered materials, despite someone having attended in March 2022 and done the same thing. He said this was not acceptable and he had been waiting for brickwork repairs.
16. The resident complained to the landlord’s chief executive, in which he said:
    1. He had reported damp and mould issues, but every time he was told the issue was caused by ventilation.
    2. The surveyor told him the damp issue was in the wall cavity, and another operative said re-pointing the brickwork would not solve issues (this Service has not been provided with any evidence to support this position). 
    3. He waited 7 months for the contractor to attend to re-point the walls, but when it arrived, it just took more pictures.
    4. The landlord did not care about his child who was coughing all night because of the damp, and he had spoken to a solicitor and planned to take it to court over his daughter’s health.
17. The landlord requested a further inspection on 7 October 2022, but the surveyor refused and said, until the repairs were completed, there was no point carrying out further investigation as the work that was logged was essential. On 11 October 2022, the repair log said the contractor was unable to give a date it could attend to re-point the brickwork, and had only been passed the job 6 days previously. The landlord logged a further damp and mould inspection.
18. It is not clear when the landlord attended, but its repair log notes dated 17 October 2022 said a contractor was required to test all external walls for possible rising damp and report back, and follow-on work in the loft was required.
19. Internal landlord emails on 19 October 2022 said the resident’s complaint had been investigated earlier in the year, and it should have been escalated to stage 2 rather than logged as a new complaint. It wrote to the resident on 26 October 2022 acknowledging the complaint escalation and said it would issue its response by 23 November 2022, however wrote to him on 21 November 2022 extending the deadline to 7 December 2022.
20. The surveyor attended on 15 November 2022 but could not find any signs of damp or condensation. He raised a job for the loft insulation to be replaced.
21. The resident contacted this Service on 28 November 2022. He said his daughter had a bad chest, used 2 inhalers on a daily basis, used antibiotics approximately every 2 months to clear her chest, and he had contacted the landlord many times in relation to the damp and mould, but the issue had not been resolved.
22. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2022, in which it:
    1. Offered £500 compensation for stress and inconvenience caused by dealing with the issues.
    2. Said it spoke to him on 14 November 2022, and a surveyor had attended the following day and carried out a thorough survey, finding no signs of damp or condensation, but noting the loft insulation required replacing and raised a job.
    3. Provided a leaflet in respect of condensation, damp and mould.
    4. Provided referral details to this Service. 

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

23. On 14 December 2022 the resident sent undated pictures to this Service which he submits show water droplets on the loft hatch, which is causing condensation and damp. He said he kept the windows open, had heaters on, and had painted the walls with anti-damp paint, but as the landlord had not conducted a proper investigation, the issue was not resolved.
24. The resident also sent an email to his local MP, in which he detailed the history of the complaint, explained the impact on his family, confirmed the steps he had taken to resolve the issue (including buying a dehumidifier for £360) and stated that he felt the problem was with the internal walls. The MP forwarded the correspondence to the landlord on 20 December 2022 and asked it to look into the matter and provide a response to the resident.
25. The landlord’s repair log said it raised a full damp and mould survey on 16 January 2023. It noted it had attended several times previously, but some internal and external walls were now reading as wet. It is not clear whether the full survey was carried out, but the job was logged as complete on 30 January 2023.
26. The MP chased the landlord for a response on 6 February and 7 March 2023 and the landlord ultimately replied on 8 March 2023. It said it had carried out a full damp and mould survey, and once the results had been summarised it would provide a response. Its repair log also said it raised a job to replace the extractor fans.
27. The MP chased the landlord again on 3 April 2023 and the landlord responded the following day that a surveyor inspection had been carried out on 15 November 2022 and no signs of condensation were present. However as a duty of care, it had arranged further monitoring to establish the exact cause of the reported condensation. It said the damp proofing survey did not consider there to be damp issues, and condensation would need to be managed by the resident. The report recommended checking and re-distributing loft insulation which had been carried out, and changing the extractor fans to humidistat fans, which a repair had been raised for. The MP forwarded the response to the resident on 25 April 2023.
28. The resident emailed this Service on 15 May 2023 and said:
    1. The surveyor that attended raised the option of moving to a bigger property as they had a newborn baby, and he would raise it with the landlord.
    2. The surveyor said there was a roof issue, and the way the air circulated made it difficult for air to escape which is why there was mould and condensation.
    3. He wanted an increased offer of compensation to acknowledge the physical and mental suffering he and his family had suffered over the last 3 and a half years.
29. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 July 2023 requesting a copy of the full damp and mould survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

30. During the complaint journey, the resident has told the landlord and this Service about the impact the damp and mould has had on his daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt these comments and empathises with the resident’s situation, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his family’s health.
31. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his family’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property

32. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy says the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the home including: gutters and external pipes, outside walls, windowsills, window catches and window frames, internal walls, floor and ceilings. Its policy says for appointed repairs (all non-emergency specialist repairs that need to be carried out to remedy buildings defects), residents will be offered a mutually convenient appointment at first point of contact, and repairs will be completed in a single visit where possible.
33. The landlord repair records show that it had been aware of damp and mould concerns since 2019. 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 the HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
34. It was correct that the landlord arranged for an inspection following receipt of the resident’s pictures of mould. This Service has not seen any notes or a copy of the first inspection report, but the evidence suggests the initial handling of the reports was reasonably effective. The landlord rightly accepted responsibility, attended promptly, and carried out repairs (albeit slowly) in the summer of 2019, which helped improve ventilation. It was only when the resident chased for an update a second time that the repairs were logged. It is not clear why this took 24 working days to do following the inspection, but the delay to log and complete the repairs was a failing.
35. The resident then contacted the landlord again approximately 16 months after the initial repairs had been completed, in December 2020. At this point, the landlord wrongly noted that this was the first report of its kind and so issued a further information leaflet. While the resident could have corrected the landlord’s mistake, he duly followed its instructions and this meant there was a further 6 week delay in the cause of the mould being properly investigated.
36. After the 6 weeks, the landlord rightly sent its surveyor to complete a further inspection in February 2021. This Service has again not seen any notes or a copy of the inspection report, but neither party disputes that the surveyor used an electrical moisture reader which did not record any moisture on the internal walls. It is also not disputed that the resident had continued to dry clothes in the living room which could have been a cause of, or contributing factor towards, the presenting issues.
37. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its suitably qualified expert and, following the inspection, it completed identified repairs to the windows and loft. However, there were unreasonable delays in it doing so. In addition to the 6 week wait following the landlord’s information leaflet for a second time, the resident waited 7 weeks for the windows to be repaired, over 14 weeks for the bedroom window handle to be repaired, and 16 weeks for work/inspection to be carried out to the loft insulation. These delays would have impacted any potential improvement to the mould and condensation.
38. There is then no evidence the resident contacted the landlord between June 2021 and February 2022 when he raised a stage 1 complaint. This was 8 months after the loft insulation work, and over 2 and a half years after the issue had first been reported. It is not clear how severe the mould and condensation were during these 8 months, or whether the window repairs and loft insulation had improved the situation. However, this Service would have expected the resident to contact the landlord in this period to pursue the issue if there was no improvement and it was having a serious impact on his family.
39. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord cannot be held responsible for ongoing issues during periods when the resident was not actively raising any concerns. These long periods of no contact are therefore taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the landlord’s response and the level of redress which is appropriate in this case. 
40. When the landlord issued its stage 1 response in March 2022, it acknowledged that there had been a degree of failure, for which it apologised and offered £100 compensation. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does not set out guidelines for what amount it will award for failures, but this sum was not sufficient to adequately redress the delays identified in this report (as reflected in this Service’s own guidance on remedies). This was a missed opportunity to follow the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
41. Following the stage 1 response, there was a further 6-month period of no contact until October 2022, when a further inspection was suggested (apart from one email in May 2022 when the resident asked for an email address to send a doctor’s letter). It is not clear why the contractor did not attend until October 2022 and, even when it did, it did not carry out the requested re-pointing work.
42. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and led him to complain directly to the landlord’s chief executive. However, it is also accepted that the resident could have mitigated the situation by being more proactive in following up the repairs during that 6-month period and providing further evidence of worsening mould and condensation.
43. That being said, having been put on notice of the issues, the landlord was ultimately responsible for the repairs and the onus was on it to ensure they were completed in a timely manner. It should have done more to follow up with its contractors, which was a further failing, and there is repeated evidence of communication issues between it and its surveyor. Further communication issues are demonstrated by the landlord’s failure to respond to the MP’s correspondence promptly, and it had to be chased on 3 occasions before providing a detailed response. 
44. Following the resident’s complaint to the chief executive, the landlord took appropriate action, chasing for the repairs to be completed and requesting another inspection. The surveyor was not unreasonable in wanting to wait until the re-pointing had been completed, and attended on 15 November 2022. Again, there are no notes or a copy of the inspection report, but there is no evidence the resident disputed the findings of no damp or condensation. Whilst a full damp and mould survey could have been completed earlier, it was understandable that the landlord waited for surface evidence of damp before applying resources in that way.
45. In its stage 2 response in December 2022, the landlord raised a job to replace the loft insulation and demonstrated it was looking to review its approach to resolving cases where this occurs, with a view to becoming proactive rather than reactive in the future. It also offered a further £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by dealing with the issue.
46. Having considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our guidance on remedies this offer was reasonable to acknowledge the resident’s distress and inconvenience. However, it did not offer further compensation for the continued delays completing repairs to the brickwork, so an order for a further £200 compensation is made.
47. Without evidence of the severity of the mould and condensation throughout the process, and in light of the multiple, long periods of delay in the resident’s contacts, it is not possible to definitively determine the impact of the landlord’s actions on the conditions within the property. However, what is clear is that there were unreasonable and avoidable delays completing identified repairs, and poor communication between the landlord and its contractors, its surveyor, the resident and the MP. Further, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s daughter’s medical issues which have known links to damp and mould.
48. There was little evidence of a clear and joined-up approach to tackling reports of damp and mould, or anything to suggest that an action plan was in place to ensure repairs were completed and that the efficacy of those repairs was monitored. Together, these factors are likely to have exacerbated and prolonged the issues, and this has ultimately caused detriment to the resident and his family. As a result, there was maladministration by the landlord.
49. This Service notes that the landlord has provided evidence of a Damp and Condensation Mould project it is undertaking which aims to improve its handling of reports in the future, and it has completed a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould which demonstrates it is learning from outcomes as per the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. Further orders are made in this regard to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to avoid similar issues occurring in future.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

50. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
51. Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The presence or potential presence of damp and mould in a property is a significant matter that presents a risk to health and safety of its occupants.
52. This Service would expect the landlord to have completed detailed assessments and/or retained accurate contemporaneous records of any assessments it undertook, whether visual or technical to verify with certainty what action, if any, it could undertake. The landlord did not provide evidence of any of the inspections carried out by the surveyor, or the full damp and mould survey. It also did not provide records of all calls with the resident. Further, it did not appear to have accurately recorded the resident had already reported the same problems in May 2019, and had already had repairs done to address the issue, when he contacted it in December 2020. 
53. The landlord’s inability to provide documents demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. Its record keeping negatively impacted the service it provided to the resident, and the lack of certain records also delayed the Ombudsman’s investigation, causing further time and trouble to the resident. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping as it affected its service delivery, and it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that the landlord pay £150 compensation to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. handling of damp and mould in the property.
    2. knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Follow up with the resident in relation to the possibility of moving to a bigger property, if it has not already done so.
    2. Pay the resident £950 compensation (if the £600 offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses has been paid, this can be deducted from the total) made up of:
       1. £300 for the delays in completing repairs and the associated impact on the property.
       2. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused, if it has not already done so.
       3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s delays as a result of its knowledge and information management. 
    3. Confirm repairs to the gutters and brickwork have been completed.
    4. Hold a meeting with its surveyor to discuss this report, the communication issues identified that caused repair delays, the improvements that can be made going forward, and share the outcome of the meeting with this Service.
    5. Provide evidence of a surveyor report confirming there are no further damp and mould issues at the property, or arrange for a qualified surveyor to attend the property and confirm whether there are any outstanding damp and mould repairs for which the landlord is responsible. The resident should be given an opportunity to communicate with the surveyor to set out concerns before the inspection is completed. If repairs are identified, a schedule of works and proposed dates should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
    6. Consider the failings identified in this report which relate to the handling of repairs and the complaint to determine what action the landlord should take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Damp and mould Spotlight report of October 2021 and ensure its staff responding to damp and mould reports are aware of it. The review should include consideration of:
       1. The landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to and diagnosing damp and mould.
       2. The landlord’s processes and procedures for communicating with and managing its repair service company including when formal complaints have been raised.
       3. How the landlord takes into account a resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to a repair report.
       4. Whether it can action some of the Recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Damp and mould Spotlight, including: