Platform Housing Group Limited (202337199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337199

Platform Housing Group Limited

29 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant and he occupies the property with his wife. Their joint tenancy began on 14 March 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident is elderly and recovering from cancer. The evidence suggests his wife is also vulnerable and one of them has a breathing condition.
4. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported damp and mould at the property during a phone call on 10 February 2023. A related record shows the kitchen was affected along with a bedroom. On 15 February 2023 the landlord completed a “settling in visit” to the resident. Its related paperwork shows the resident made a further report of damp and mould on this date. It also shows the landlord subsequently raised the resident’s report internally.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 May 2023. Call records show he reported “large amounts” of damp and mould were affecting his family’s health. He wanted to know when the landlord would address the situation. He said the family were vulnerable and he asked the landlord to relocate them. The landlord completed a damp inspection around 2 weeks later. Its subsequent inspection report said, “very little mould” was seen during the visit and damp “was not an issue”. Other key points from the report were:
   1. There were “heavy condensation issues” and signs of water droplets on ceilings.
   2. The resident had switched off both of the property’s fans and a tumble dryer was fitted “very tightly” in a storage room.
   3. The landlord would replace the fans, check the property’s insulation, and reinstall badly fitted roof vents.
   4. It would also clear the guttering and remove heavy moss from the “valleys” (assumed on the roof).
6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 June 2023. This was around 28 working days after the resident complained. It said the landlord had been unable to comply with an inspection timescale that it previously gave the resident during the settling in visit. This was on the basis the landlord had received a large number of damp and mould jobs. The response also said the landlord had changed its process due to the backlog, and it could no longer provide timescales for completing damp inspections. Other key points were:
   1. The landlord relayed the findings from its inspection the previous month. Its response also included the list of recommended repair works.
   2. The landlord said the works had not been scheduled yet. However, it would monitor the repairs until they were complete.
   3. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord felt it had acted in line with its relevant processes at all times.
   4. The resident should discuss his rehousing request with the landlord’s local representative.
7. The evidence suggests the landlord replaced the property’s fans on 27 June 2023. However, subsequent correspondence between the parties shows some of the recommended repair works were still outstanding in September 2023. On 22 October 2023 the resident reported the damp was getting worse. He said black mould was affecting the family’s health and he was considering legal action. His email prompted the landlord to escalate his complaint. Within days of the resident’s report, a specialist damp and mould contractor inspected the property on the landlord’s behalf. The contractor’s key findings were:
   1. There were “big gaps” in the pointing “all around” the property’s exterior. All the external walls were “extremely cold”. “Lots of moss” on the roof had blocked gutters and fall pipes.
   2. The resident had reported he regularly cleaned mould and a carpet in his lounge was often wet in the morning. He also said he had thrown away mouldy beds, clothing, and furniture.
   3. Repairs were needed to the kitchen, porch, lounge, and a bedroom. Each room required mould treatment. Other works included the installation of thermal wallpaper.
8. Records show most of the specialist contractor’s recommended works were completed around 13 November 2023. They also show the resident declined any repairs to a bedroom. Subsequently, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. This was around 42 working days after the resident’s complaint was escalated. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. The main points from its response were:
   1. The landlord was sorry the response was issued outside of its applicable timescale. It awarded the resident £150 in compensation to address the delay.
   2. The landlord had taken steps to address the damp and mould. In addition to completing treatment works, it had replaced the insulation in the property’s roof space. It “strongly” encouraged the resident to use the property’s fans correctly to reduce condensation and mould.
   3. The landlord acknowledged it could have completed the repairs sooner. It awarded the resident £200 in compensation for delays that occurred after its initial damp inspection in May 2023.
   4. The resident should make a claim through his contents insurer to address any damaged personal items. If he did not have insurance, he could raise a claim with the landlord’s own insurer. Relevant contact details were provided.
9. There was a gap in the evidence following the landlord’s response. However, the parties’ records and correspondence suggest the following events occurred between 5 February and 7 June 2024:
   1. The parties discussed the resident’s complaint during a phone call. A related email shows the resident felt the landlord had blamed him for the mould. In addition, he was unhappy the landlord had not inspected its completed repair works. He also felt its compensation was inadequate.
   2. The same email shows the resident reported he was sleeping on a rubber mattress, he had been told to throw away mouldy belongings by the landlord’s surveyor, and one of the property’s bedrooms had been unusable for around 12 months.
   3. The evidence indicates the landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 20 February 2024. The landlord did not provide a corresponding inspection report. Emails it sent the resident beforehand indicate the visit was arranged so the landlord could inspect its previous repair works. In subsequent correspondence to the landlord (detailed in paragraph 9(e) below), the resident later reiterated that a post-works inspection had not occurred.
   4. Around a week after the visit, the landlord increased its previous compensation award by £500. Its new offer was based on the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It said Citizens Advice could help him raise a claim against the landlord’s insurer and damaged carpets could be included in the claim. The landlord also said its surveyor had confirmed the property was habitable, all repair works were complete, and 2 rooms would be redecorated in due course.
   5. The resident replied on 29 February 2024. He said there had “been no follow up viewing” to confirm if the repairs were successful. In addition, there was ongoing black mould in the kitchen and more works were needed “to deem it habitable”. He also said the situation in the “second room (had) improved greatly and there (was) no evidence of black mould (there)”.
   6. On 1 March 2024 the landlord increased its compensation award again. Its new offer was £2,100. Payment records show the landlord paid the resident its revised figure several days later.
   7. In late March 2024 the landlord told the resident it had approved “follow on works” that were recommended by its specialist damp and mould contractor. The landlord did not provide a copy of the contractor’s corresponding inspection report. The landlord’s email to the resident referenced a “possible leak”.
   8. The landlord updated the resident in late April 2024. It said its insurer was about to make him an offer in respect of his damaged items. It also said the landlord’s new local representative would contact him about rehousing options in due course.
   9. About a week after the landlord’s update, the resident reported the insurer’s offer only covered “a fraction” of the family’s damaged items. He reiterated he had been told to throw away mould damaged items. The resident also said the landlord had withheld important inspection reports from its insurer. He felt these reports attributed the damp and mould to structural damage. He said the situation had been ongoing for 15 months and it was urgent.
   10. In May 2024 a representative contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said he was “seriously unwell and the stress of his living situation (was) becoming life threatening”. Several days later, the representative reported the landlord’s damp contractor had failed to attend 2 prearranged appointments. The representative also said they wanted to discuss the landlord’s compensation. Their correspondence suggests the landlord felt the property’s roof could be damaged and there were issues with either the ventilation or insulation.
   11. The landlord updated the representative in June 2024. It said a small amount of mould was identified during an inspection the previous week. However, the issue was mainly affecting the porch. It provided advice around managing condensation and said there was no evidence of a roof leak. It offered to remove the property’s conservatory to improve the air flow in a connected room. It said it would consider installing an airbrick if the resident wanted to keep the conservatory.
   12. In response, the representative disputed the landlord’s description of the mould. This was on the basis other areas of the property were also affected. They felt the landlord should inspect the roof or (at least) the loft to establish if there was a leak.
10. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 8 July 2024. He said the property was inspected recently and the landlord had been advised to replace a section of the roof. In addition, lagging and ventilation works were also recommended along with additional damp and mould treatments. He said there had been no further updates from the landlord about these repairs. Other key points were:
    1. The landlord’s initial damp treatment works took place around October 2023. The external pointing was repaired around this time. The mould later returned around March 2024.
    2. The landlord’s offer of £2,100 in compensation was made to address the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures. The offer was made during a phone call. The landlord did not provide a supporting breakdown or a rationale for its calculation.
    3. The resident’s damaged items were worth about £8,000. The landlord’s insurer had only offered around £1,900. The resident felt this offer was unacceptable. He was unable to evidence the damage due to the landlord’s previous advice.
    4. The resident did not want to move. He wanted a home that was warm and dry so his health could recover. He would be “quite happy” as long as the damp issues were rectified, and he was properly compensated for his damaged items.

Assessment and findings

11. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we are unable to establish liability or award damages. This means we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
12. In March 2024 the landlord increased its previous compensation award by a large amount. This was around 10 weeks after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It was also around 1 month after the resident approached the Ombudsman. The resident has said the landlord did not provide an adequate rationale or breakdown to support its revised calculation. While its revised award was welcome and significant, the landlord did not explain it sufficiently. The landlord’s award also seems to have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement.
13. Given the circumstances, its late compensation award is evidence of complaint handling delays and failures on the landlord’s part. Its revised figure cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

14. The resident first reported damp on 10 February 2023. He complained on 5 May 2023 because the landlord had not addressed the problem. In his complaint, the resident highlighted his family’s vulnerabilities and asked the landlord to rehouse them. The landlord did not inspect the property until 18 May 2023. This was around 14 weeks after the resident’s initial report.
15. The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property “in repair”. This includes the roof, walls, and gutters. The resident is responsible for decorations. The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy. Our assessment used a “Repairs and Maintenance Policy” that was available on the landlord’s website. It shows the landlord will complete routine repairs within 28 days. Major repairs will be completed within 90 days.
16. Based on the information in its repairs policy, the landlord should have completed an initial damp inspection within 28 days. It is reasonable to conclude it should have completed any identified repairs within 28 days afterwards. This shows the landlord’s initial inspection timescale was inappropriate. The failing was aggravated by the family’s vulnerabilities. The landlord was informed of the resident’s vulnerabilities on 5 May 2023. It was aware of information that indicated there was an increased risk to the resident at this point. Based on its case evidence, the landlord was unable to show it considered the increased risk when scheduling the required inspection. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
17. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided a screen shot that shows it has no record of the family’s medical conditions. The screen shot does show the landlord’s systems include a vulnerability marker that says English is not the resident’s first language. On that basis, the screenshot confirms the landlord’s systems/records include incorrect information about the family’s vulnerabilities. The landlord should have checked its records when the resident first raised concerns about his vulnerabilities. If its records were inadequate, the landlord should have updated them accordingly.
18. The landlord did not provide any information to show how it responded to the resident’s request for rehousing. It was therefore unable to show it responded accordingly. The evidence suggests it failed to engage with the resident’s vulnerability concerns and rehousing request in timely manner. This was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances. It is likely the situation caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident.
19. In the inspection conducted in May 2023, the landlord recommended several repairs to address “heavy condensation issues”. They included works to clear the property’s guttering and remove heavy moss from the roof. In its stage 1 response on 16 June 2023, the landlord assured the resident it would monitor the recommended repairs through to completion. Subsequently, the resident’s complaint was escalated in October 2023 after he made a further report to the landlord. The landlord’s specialist damp contractor attended the property on 25 October 2023. It found there was still a significant amount of moss on the roof.
20. Damp and mould are potential hazards to be avoided or minimised under the government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS confirms homes should not contain deficiencies that may give rise to hazards. Landlords typically use inspections to assess, monitor, and control hazards. Inspections should specify any required repairs. When repairs are complete, reinspection is recommended to ensure any hazards have been removed or minimised.
21. The presence of moss on the roof in October 2023 confirms some of the repairs recommended by the landlord’s initial inspection were still outstanding around 5 months later. The situation was unreasonable and it points to an inappropriate delay given the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs. It confirms the landlord also failed to monitor the recommended repairs as promised. The damp contractor also highlighted a serious problem with the landlord’s initial inspection. It identified “big gaps” in the pointing “all around” the property’s exterior. This confirms a significant repair issue was previously overlooked.
22. Ideally, this serious pointing defect would have been identified during the landlord’s initial inspection. To avoid similar issues, the landlord should consider using specialist operatives to complete its damp inspections going forwards. Alternatively, it could allocate specialists to serious cases involving multiple affected rooms or residents with vulnerabilities. The damp contractor’s recommended works were completed in mid-November 2023. They included mould treatment works to several of the property’s rooms.
23. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. During its internal complaints procedure (ICP) (which ended around the time its stage 2 response was issued), the landlord awarded the resident £200 in damp and mould related compensation. Though it attempted to put things right, the above assessment shows this figure was disproportionate given what went wrong. The small amount of compensation it awarded shows the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its failures, or the significant impact to the resident, within a reasonable timeframe.
24. The evidence shows the landlord’s delays and failures (up to this point) included a delayed inspection, a failure to engage with the resident’s vulnerabilities, and a failure to complete recommended repair works to address the damp and mould. By this time, the resident had told the landlord that he felt its failures had resulted in damage to the family’s personal belongings. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s redress at this stage was both unfair and unreasonable.
25. The landlord did not inspect its completed repair works until the resident requested a further inspection in February 2024. Given the specialist damp contractor’s findings and the overall number of repairs that were required, the landlord should have used its own initiative to arrange a post-completion inspection of the recommended works. A proactive approach would have been consistent with the reinspection recommendations in the HHSRS. Chasing the landlord should not have been necessary and the situation likely caused the resident additional distress.
26. The resident feels the landlord blamed him for some of the property’s ongoing damp and mould issues. Since a significant number of repair issues were identified during both of its initial inspections, it would be unfair if the landlord placed undue emphasis on the resident’s lifestyle. The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Damp and mould (It’s not lifestyle) report from October 2021 also shows landlords should avoid automatically apportioning blame or using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
27. In this case, the evidence shows the landlord provided advice about managing condensation as part of a package of measures to address the reported damp and mould. For example, its initial inspection identified repairs to the property’s ventilation and guttering. There was no indication it sought to avoid completing any necessary repairs based on the family’s lifestyle. However, the evidence confirms the landlord’s approach caused some distress for the resident. The landlord should consider how best to ensure effective and sensitive communications are maintained and the landlord and tenant relationship is preserved during interactions around damp and mould.
28. The evidence shows the resident was impacted by several significant delays and failures from February 2023 until around March 2024. Ultimately, the landlord’s insurer accepted his claim against the landlord. This shows the landlord was liable for damage to the family’s belongings. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was both avoidable (if the landlord had adhered to its published repair timescales) and distressing for the resident. In his recent call with the Ombudsman, the resident said he slept on a rubber mattress for 6 months because his bed was damaged.
29. The evidence indicates there were further issues in the latter part of the timeline. For example, the resident’s representative referenced missed appointments during an interaction with the landlord in May 2024. In his recent call with the Ombudsman, the resident also said there had been a lack of updates since the landlord’s most recent inspection. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman was unable to substantiate any related failures by the landlord. Our recommendations will seek to ensure the landlord keeps the resident updated.
30. In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
31. In relation to the landlord’s post-ICP compensation (£2,100), the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance shows that compensation awards in excess of £1,000 are likely to be proportionate in cases where serious failings by a landlord have resulted in a severe long-term impact to a resident. Awards of this value are often consistent with “severe maladministration” findings from the Ombudsman. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord’s late compensation award was proportionate given what happened. If it had been awarded during the landlord’s ICP, it is likely the Ombudsman would have found that the landlord previously offered the resident “reasonable redress”. 
32. The evidence shows damp and mould problems are ongoing at the property. From the evidence provided, it is unclear if they relate to the same repair issues that the resident reported in February 2023. The parties’ correspondence from February 2024 onwards shows the landlord and its agents have completed several inspections since the resident reported that mould had returned to the property. Overall, the Ombudsman was unable to substantiate any additional failures by the landlord in the latter part of the timeline.
33. In summary, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould. The evidence also shows it failed to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities in its decision-making. Its significant delays and failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period. Though it attempted to put things right, the landlord failed to recognise the full extent of its failures, or their resulting impact, within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s complaint handling

34. The landlord provided a copy of its relevant complaints policy and procedure documents. The documents show the landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It aimed to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. Additional time was available at each stage providing the resident was kept informed. Insurance claims were excluded because they are handled separately by the landlord’s insurer.
35. The evidence shows there were several issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. Although its stage 1 response was delayed by around 18 working days, there was no indication the landlord recognised this delay or redressed the resident accordingly. Its stage 1 response acknowledged the landlord did not adhere to a timescale that it gave the resident during a previous settling in visit. This was clearly a failure, but the landlord failed to recognise it as such. Its unfair approach was likely to be distressing for the resident. Since it failed to fulfil an important commitment, the landlord should have redressed the resident accordingly.
36. The landlord’s stage 2 response recognised the delay at this stage. However, it failed to identify any of the issues with its previous response. It also focussed on delays that occurred from May 2023 onwards (the resident’s initial report was in February 2023). This confirms the landlord’s investigation failed to cover the full complaint timeline. Its failure to award the resident proportionate compensation within a reasonable timeframe likely stems from this issue. To avoid similar issues, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. This includes establishing the full complaint timeline and addressing any delays or procedural issues accordingly.
37. The relevant version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was published in March 2022. Section 5.6 said, “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. Section 6.2 said, “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”.
38. During the post-ICP period, the landlord failed to provide an adequate explanation for its final compensation award. This was not consistent with sections 5.6 and 6.2 of the Code. It is reasonable to conclude the resident had difficulty assessing whether its offer was fair due to the lack of a supporting rationale. From the Ombudsman’s perspective, it made our assessment more difficult since we could not establish whether any complaint issues, or impacts, were overlooked by the award. We took a holistic view of the landlord’s redress out of necessity.
39. Subsequently, the resident raised serious concerns about advice he received from the landlord’s surveyor. In summary, he feels the landlord sabotaged his insurance claim by telling him to dispose of mould damaged items. He has said he remains significantly out of pocket even though the landlord’s insurer settled his previous claim. Though he raised similar concerns in February 2024, there was no indication the landlord has attempted to investigate the surveyor’s advice accordingly.
40. Given the resident’s clear dissatisfaction, the landlord should have logged a new complaint to address the matter. During its corresponding investigation, it should have asked the surveyor what happened before reviewing any records or call recordings if necessary. Ultimately, there was no evidence to show the landlord took any similar steps. The evidence shows it missed a number of opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused additional distress for the resident.
41. The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. It also shows the resident was impacted. His insurance related concerns remain unaddressed around 5 months after they were first raised. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s previous offer of £150 in compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong. The Ombudsman will order increased compensation to put things right for the resident. Our calculation will reflect the evidence both parties provided. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. The landlord must pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation within 4 weeks. This is to address any distress and inconvenience he was caused by the above identified issues with its complaint handling.
44. The landlord must ensure its records accurately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. Before updating its records, the landlord should contact the resident to gather the correct information. It should evidence its actions to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
45. The landlord must raise a new complaint to address the resident’s concerns about the surveyor’s advice and insurance. It should share its new complaint reference with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. If its investigation shows the resident was advised to throw away damaged belongings, the landlord should gather information about the items from the resident with a view to refunding him accordingly. It should avoid placing onerous evidence requirements on the resident if it failed to follow its correct procedure in the first instance.
46. The landlord must share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. Specifically, it should respond accordingly when residents provide information about vulnerabilities, reinspection may be needed when extensive works have been undertaken to address potential hazards, and the landlord’s complaint investigations should consider the whole complaint journey from beginning to end. The landlord is free to include other issues. It must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

47. The landlord to update the resident about its current position on the repairs. The update should confirm the findings from the landlord’s most recent inspection. The landlord should also consider sharing an action plan with the resident. This is to ensure he is aware of the landlord’s expected completion timescale.
48. The landlord to consider its communications during damp and mould related interactions with residents. This is to ensure the tone and content of its communications are sensitive and constructive. In line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on: Damp and mould (It’s not lifestyle) report, it should avoid using language that leaves residents feeling blamed.
49. The landlord to consider using operatives that specialise in damp and mould to complete its damp inspections going forwards. Alternatively, it could allocate damp specialists to serious cases involving multiple affected rooms or residents with vulnerabilities (in this case, the landlord’s surveyor initially overlooked a significant defect in the property’s external pointing).
50. The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.