Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202217789)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217789

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

14 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations in the property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom end-of-terrace bungalow under an assured tenancy agreement. The resident moved into the property with his 2 adult children following a mutual exchange on 27 January 2020.
The resident raised a complaint on 7 September and 12 September 2022. The resident was dissatisfied that:
1. he had been told by the landlord on 8 August 2022 that there was a mouse infestation in the loft which had dislodged the insulation
2. the kitchen was infested with slugs and he had to wash each item stored in the cupboards before use
3. the landlord had made temporary repairs to his shower, but had not returned to complete the repairs
4. the property was significantly affected by damp and mould
5. there were leaks from the bathroom pipes to the outside wall, which may be contributing to the damp and mould
6. radiators throughout the property were old, rusted, and in need of replacement
7. pipework in the kitchen continuously dripped.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2022, the landlord:
1. explained it had booked an inspection of the property on 16 September 2022 but the resident had refused its operatives access to the property
2. explained it needed to inspect the property and that refusal for it to do so would delay repairs being completed
3. invited the resident to rearrange the inspection appointment
4. stated that a damp inspection had been completed on 8 August 2022 and that it was awaiting the report from its operative
5. stated it had booked repairs to the bathroom for 20 September and 22 September 2022.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 December 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied with the condition of the property and believed this had caused a deterioration in his and his daughters’ health.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 12 January 2023, the landlord:
1. acknowledged that there were outstanding repairs in the property, including:
  1. damp and mould
  2. mouse infestation in the loft
  3. slug infestation in the kitchen
  4. leaks in the bathroom
  5. rusted and broken radiators
  6. rusted and dripping pipework in the kitchen
2. acknowledged that there had been a delay in the landlord completing repairs
3. stated that on occasions the resident had refused access to its operatives
4. explained that the level of repairs did not necessitate a temporary decant
5. recognised that the resident worked night shifts and therefore would be significantly disrupted by the repairs
6. offered to either reimburse the resident a day of annual leave, or pay for one nights hotel stay to allow the repairs to be completed
7. explained that it could not locate any evidence of the resident escalating his complaint on 27 October 2022
8. apologised if it had missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint
9. provided the resident with advice about mutual exchanges and registering on the local authority’s housing list
10. apologised for the delay in completing the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In his complaints to the landlord and this service, the resident reported that the damp and mould had caused or contributed to his ongoing health problems. He was also concerned about the impact the property may have on his daughters’ health.

The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s response to the damp and mould and the impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should seek independent legal advice.
The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and whether this was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

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

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends that landlords take a proactive and zero-tolerance approach to dealing with damp and mould. This includes investigating the causes of damp and mould and providing effective long-term remedies within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will undertake effective investigations and implement all reasonable remedial repair solutions to eradicate damp. The policy also states that the landlord will make use of qualified contractors when dealing with damp and mould.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was first made aware of the damp and mould in the property following an inspection on 29 November 2021. Due to the lack of adequate records provided by the landlord, it is not possible to determine:
1. what the extent of the damp and mould was at the time
2. what action the landlord took in response to the damp and mould, if any at all.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord responded to the reports of damp and mould appropriately in the first instance. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated that a damp survey had been completed on 8 August 2022. No notes of that survey or accompanying report have been made available to this service. It is therefore not possible to verify:
1. whether a damp inspection was completed on that date
2. whether the inspection was carried out by a competent and qualified agent
3. what the findings of that inspection were
4. what solutions were identified, if any at all.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord responded to the resident’s ongoing reports of damp and mould appropriately. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
Furthermore, even if a damp survey were completed on 8 August 2022, this was at least 9 months after the landlord was aware of the damp and mould. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was reasonable or unavoidable. This was a further failure by the landlord.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord described 2 occasions on which the resident had refused access to its operatives. It therefore concluded that the resident was partially responsible for the delay in completing repairs.
The first occasion was on 14 September 2022, when the resident cancelled an appointment for an inspection later in September 2022. This has not been disputed by the resident. Considering the circumstances, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord cannot reasonably be held responsible for this delay.
The second occasion was on 26 September 2022. This was because an operative attended in the morning following a night shift at work by the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the resident’s refusal was reasonable, given that the landlord was aware of his working arrangements.
As of the date of this determination, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord has taken any action to address the damp and mould in the property. This is a significant failing by the landlord.
In correspondence with this service, the resident described the impact the ongoing damp and mould has had on him. This included:
1. being unable to store any perishable goods in the kitchen, due to the rapid accumulation of mould
2. being unable to hang curtains, lay carpets, or decorate walls due to the damp
3. being told by his colleagues that he smelt of damp, which he found degrading and caused him distress.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould, in that:
1. there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address the damp and mould when it became aware of it
2. there is no evidence to support that the landlord carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in August 2022
3. there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any action to identify the causes of the damp and mould, or taken any action to remedy those causes
4. there has been a significant detrimental impact on the resident due to the landlord’s failures.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property

The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
2. explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays
3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out repairs within the following timescales:
1. emergency repairs within 24 hours
2. urgent repairs within 7 days
3. routine repairs within 28 days
4. planned works within 6 months.
The evidence indicates that there was an inspection of the resident’s home planned for 26 August 2021 to assess the bathroom, kitchen, radiators and pipework. Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to verify:
1. whether any inspection took place in August 2021
2. what repairs were identified at the time
3. whether the landlord took any action to carry out those repairs at the time.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord handled the repairs appropriately, or in a way that was consistent with its policy in the first instance. This was a failure by the landlord.
The evidence indicates the resident reported repairs during the landlord’s inspection on 29 November 2021, which included leaks and rusted radiators. As noted at paragraph 15 of this report, it is not possible to verify what repairs the landlord had identified at that inspection.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s ongoing handling of the repairs was appropriate. This was a failure by the landlord.
The resident continued to report outstanding repairs in his complaints in September 2022. This further indicates that any repairs which may already have been identified had not been completed.
As noted at paragraphs 20 to 22 of this report, the landlord asserted that the resident was partially responsible for the delay in completing repairs, because he refused access to inspect the property on 16 September 2022. The Ombudsman cannot reasonably hold the landlord responsible for this.
The landlord’s records state that the cancelled inspection was completed on 30 September 2022. No notes, reports, or other contemporaneous records of this inspection have been made available to this service. It is therefore not possible to verify that the inspection took place, or what repairs were identified.
Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord has responded to the repairs appropriately in this instance. This was a further failure by the landlord.
Following the September 2022 inspection, the landlord raised repair orders for repairs to the bathroom, radiators, and kitchen. The evidence also indicates that these repairs were not acted upon because the landlord had raised them ‘incorrectly’.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to establish in what way these repairs had been raised incorrectly, or how the error had been allowed to occur. This was a failure by the landlord, and a missed opportunity to complete the repairs.
In an email to the resident on 18 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that it would take the following actions:
1. the landlord booked an appointment for 2 February 2023 to replace kitchen units, alter pipework, inspect radiators, and inspect the property to identify any other repairs
2. the landlord would arrange a survey to assess whether the property would benefit from a ventilation system.
The landlord’s repair logs record that on 2 February 2022, ridge tiles and pipe covers were replaced. No contemporaneous records regarding these repairs have been made available. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that all the repairs identified were completed on that date. There is also no evidence that the landlord took any action to satisfy itself about the adequacy of these repairs. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair logs also record that on 9 March 2023, the radiators in the property were replaced. Again, due to the lack of adequate records, there is no evidence that the landlord has taken any action to satisfy itself about the adequacy of these repairs. However, in correspondence with this service the resident has confirmed that the radiators were replaced.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs, in that:
1. due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what repairs were identified or when
2. due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what repairs were completed or when
3. there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord had responded to the repairs appropriately
4. the evidence indicates that the landlord has not responded to the repairs within the timescales set out in its policy, or otherwise explained any reasonable delays in completing the repairs to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestations in the property

The landlord has provided a draft tenancy agreement to this service. Section 20 of that agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property free from pests.
The resident moved into the property in January 2020 following a mutual exchange. Therefore, the resident has inherited the previous tenant’s tenancy agreement. A copy of that agreement has not been made available to this service. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement are the same as those set out in the draft agreement provided by the landlord.
Generally, residents are responsible for treating pests in their homes. This is standard practice across the housing sector. However, landlords remain responsible for carrying out repairs.
The resident first raised concerns about a mouse infestation in the loft, and a slug infestation in the kitchen, in his complaints in September 2022.
In an internal email dated 12 September 2022, the landlord identified that the resident was responsible for treating the slug infestation. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated this to the resident at any time. This was a failure by the landlord. Had it informed the resident of this, he could have taken action sooner to deal with the slug infestation.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident was also responsible for treating the mouse infestation, and there is no evidence that this was ever communicated to the resident.
On the contrary, the landlord’s repair logs indicate it instructed a pest control contractor to treat the mouse infestation in or around January 2023. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have reasonably implied to the resident that the landlord had accepted responsibility for treating the mouse infestation.
The pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 26 January 2023. They informed the landlord that the mice were likely gaining access to the property from an overgrown hedge further down the terrace, and from a missing pipe cover at the rear of the property.
Due to the lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took in response to this email, if any at all. There is also no evidence that the landlord communicated this information to the resident. This was a failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to reports of pests at the property, in that:
1. it has not communicated its position regarding the slug infestation to the resident
2. it appears to have taken responsibility for the mouse infestation, and then taken no further action.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) is best practice that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes. This includes responding to all aspects of residents’ complaints.
The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Under its policy the landlord ought to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 days of being logged. The landlord ought to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The resident raised his complaint on 7 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2022, which was 9 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident reports that he escalated his complaint on 27 October 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord explained that it was unable to locate any evidence of an escalation on that date and apologised if it had missed an earlier opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated his complaint via this service on 20 December 2022. The Ombudsman is unable to verify if the resident had escalated his complaint at any earlier time.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 January 2023, which was 14 working days after the complaint was escalated by this service. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the following matters:
1. no action had been taken following an earlier damp and mould survey
2. nothing had been done about the mouse infestation
3. nothing had been done about the slug infestation
4. there were leaks in the bathroom
5. rusted and broken radiators
6. dripping kitchen pipes.
Despite acknowledging that the resident was dissatisfied with these matters, the landlord did not directly address what it intended to do about them in its stage 2 complaint response, if anything at all. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman expects landlord’s to be able to handle complaints effectively without the involvement of this service. This includes responding to all aspects of residents’ complaints. This was a failure by the landlord.
Considering all the circumstances, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that it did not respond to all aspects of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to 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 its handling of repairs in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of pest infestations in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident compensation totalling £1,200 comprised of:
  1. £600 for the unreasonable delay in responding to reports of damp and mould, the landlord’s failure to carry out the associated repairs, and to recognise the distress, inconvenience and impact caused to the resident
  2. £500 for the unreasonable delay in responding to and completing repairs in the property
  3. £100 for the failure to respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
2. provide evidence of this payment to the Ombudsman
3. inspect the property to identify what repairs remain outstanding and provide a copy of this report to the resident and the Ombudsman
4. instruct a qualified professional to conduct a damp and mould survey of the property and provide a copy of that report to the resident and the Ombudsman
5. confirm to the resident in writing whether it is responsible for treating the pest infestations at the property, and if it decides it is not, provide evidence of this to the resident and the Ombudsman
6. consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) and assess its performance in relation to this
7. share its findings with the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 56 days of the date of this determination:
1. complete all repairs identified in its inspection
2. complete all repairs identified in its damp and mould survey
3. provide evidence of the repairs to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review this case to identify lessons learnt. This review ought to consider:
1. the landlord’s record keeping
2. how the landlord responds to reports of damp and mould
3. how the landlord monitors repairs.