Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sanctuary Housing Association (202305427)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305427

Sanctuary Housing Association

30 April 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 response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at her previous property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property, which the resident has since been moved from, was a 3-bedroom house. The resident is understood to have 3 children, some of whom have health issues.
  2. The Ombudsman understands that after living in the property for over 10 years, the resident started to experience damp and mould in Summer 2022, which she initially treated and painted herself. In late 2022, she reported that the issue still continued, she was having to throw away damaged belongings, and she was concerned damp was caused by issues with gutters and facias. Following this, there were a number of inspections between December 2022 and August 2023.
  3. There was an independent damp survey in February 2023  which noted that there were high levels of condensation and mould particularly around windows. This was noted to be mainly due to high levels of humidity in the property and lack of adequate ventilation and heating, rather than structural reasons. The damp survey recommended for a dehumidifier system to be installed, which there were later difficulties in progressing due to part shortages. The resident also had concerns about running costs, including after she was informed these would be low and a contractor would cover the running costs for the first year.
  4. There was an inspection of the roof and gutters in December 2022 which found these to be fine, but some works to the gutters and roof were later carried out in April 2023. The landlord subsequently assessed concerns from the resident about the workmanship of these with the contractor and was satisfied with the works.
  5. There was a contractor inspection in December 2022 that recommended for the windows to be surveyed as they were old metal ones. The windows were later assessed and approved for renewal by the landlord in May 2023, due to their age and not helping with ventilation and heating. The same month, the landlord was in receipt of a ‘Hazard Awareness Notice’ from the local authority’s environmental health, making it aware of category 2 hazards at the property.
  6. There were mould treatment and plastering works raised which the resident was reluctant to progress until the roof and potential water ingress were investigated. After the landlord co-inspected the roof in May 2023 and was satisfied with the works, a contractor attended in June for mould treatment but reported that there was active water ingress from the rear of the property. While the issue was investigated, mould treatment was re-requested for August, which was then rescheduled by the resident to October 2023 due to a hospital appointment.
  7. There were further inspections of the roof and in August 2023 this was found to be leaking. Following this, the landlord requested quotes for extensive works at the property which reflected issues identified by it, its contractor and the local authority. This included further roof and gutter inspections and works; plaster work; kitchen and bathroom replacement; radiators replacement; and replacement of the patio so that rain ran away from the property.
  8. The resident complained from February 2023 after the damp survey. She disputed its findings that the issues were mainly due to condensation, and she raised concern about lack of proper inspections of the roof, loft, windows and rising damp.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 1 response in April 2023. It detailed actions it took after the resident reported damp, inspections outcomes, and intended works including roof works and internal treatment. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues and delay responding to the complaint, and offered £250 in recognition of this. It noted that the resident had agreed to provide evidence for it to consider damage to belongings as part of the complaint but this had not been received.
  10. The resident requested escalation of the complaint in May 2023. She requested compensation for damaged items totalling over £5,000. She said that she and her family had a lot of health issues including headaches, chest and throat infections, and breathlessness. She noted that she understood a move had been agreed and expressed a desire to move by September 2023, as she was concerned the housing conditions would deteriorate.
  11. The landlord provided a stage 2 response in June 2023. This detailed actions it took, inspection/survey findings, and intended works for the dehumidifier system; windows replacement; mould treatment; and water ingress investigation. It acknowledged that there had been delays for the dehumidifier system, windows and stage 1 response, and apologised for the delays and inconvenience. It noted that the list of damaged items did not include evidence for all the items, and it asked for her to provide clear photos and receipts. It noted that compensation was applicable but suggested that it review this once works were completed, so the full impact of the time taken to complete them could be considered.
  12. The landlord provided a further stage 2 response in September 2023. It apologised for further delays. It noted that after a visit in August to identify all required works, a quote for the works was now going through its approval process. It noted that it had reviewed provided photos and made an offer based on surveyor feedback and the likelihood of damage due to ongoing issues. It explained that the photos provided did not show mould had caused damage to electrical items to stop them from working, and it explained that the offer was based on second hand value in line with its compensation policy apart from items such as flooring. It offered £5,034.99, which it broke down as £800 for time, trouble and inconvenience; £400 for complaint handling; £1,500 for loss of enjoyment of the property taking into account completion of works by November 2023; and £2,334.99 for damaged items.
  13. The information provided advises that the landlord subsequently approved the resident’s May 2023 request for a management transfer, and moved her into a new property in November 2023 around the time when it previously estimated that the works to her previous property would have been completed.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident says that issues at the property resulted in damage to many items and impacted her and family’s mental and physical health. The Ombudsman understands how distressing the issues at the property must have been for the resident and her family, and understands how distressing it must have been for her to move from the home she had lived in for over 10 years.
  2. The resident was unhappy that the landlord believed damp and mould issues at the property were mainly caused by condensation, lack of heating and ventilation, but up until around June 2023 this seems reasonable. This was based on inspections including a damp specialist’s in February 2023 and the landlord’s own in May 2023, which assessed elements such as the roof and facias. The resident was unhappy that the independent damp report said heating was an issue, as she says the temperature was 18 degrees, but it is noted that the damp specialist recommended for heating to be at 19 degrees. This was reasonable as this is consistent with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, used by local authorities to assess hazards, that says a healthy indoor temperature is around 21 degrees. The proposal to install a dehumidifier system was also reasonable as this reflected the recommendation of the damp specialist, whose opinion the landlord was entitled to rely on. The landlord and its contractor made positive attempts to try to encourage the resident to allow installation of this by committing to cover the running costs for the first year.
  3. The local authority environmental health department had concerns and issued a ‘Hazard Awareness Notice’ for category 2 hazards. Without undermining the issues at the property and impact on the resident and her family, it should be noted that a local authority issues these types of notice where they do not require improvements by a certain deadline, and assigns category 2 to hazards that are considered less serious and less urgent. However, there were clearly more issues with the condition of the property than was initially identified, and service issues in the handling of matters.
  4. The contractor recommended a window inspection in December 2022. This does not seem to have been reviewed in any substantial way until May 2023, 5 months later. The earlier replacement of the windows, reportedly more than 25 years old, could have helped the property become more heat efficient and helped improve the situation. There were communication issues and confusion. The contractors attended without notice or 2 days after scheduled appointments. The resident was misinformed that works would commence in July 2023, when this was a leak inspection. There were delays in repairs related to the roof, damp treatment and plastering. The management of the issue and the resident’s concerns will have caused her frustration and led her to feel that she was not being heard at points.
  5. It is evident that the landlord appropriately acknowledged issues related to the above, confirmed it would discuss findings internally to improve service, and sought to put right the service failings and recognise the impact on the resident and her family. This included moving the resident and assisting her with her move; paying £2,334.99 for damaged items; and compensating £1,500 for loss of enjoyment of the property; £400 for complaint handling; and £800 for time, trouble and inconvenience – £5,034.99 in total.
  6. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability for issues such as the impact on belongings and health, but the landlord demonstrated it considered the resident’s claim for damaged items in a reasonable way by considering information and evidence about the claim. On the level of evidence seen, the £2,334.99 the landlord offered seems reasonable, and if the resident wishes to pursue a claim further she has the option to seek independent advice, or discuss this with her insurer who was in contact with the landlord’s insurance team. The £400 and £800 seems reasonably proportionate to complaint handling issues and time, trouble and inconvenience caused in the complaint. The £1,500 equates to 25% of the resident’s rent for a 39 week period and this also seems reasonably proportionate to the circumstances, impact on the property and timeframe of events.
  7. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord provided reasonable redress. There were service failings and the issues the resident and her family experienced were clearly very distressing for them, and the landlord recognised this; made commitments to improve service; and paid compensation that is reasonably proportionate to the evidenced issues, impact on the resident and her family, and our own remedies guidance. The landlord demonstrates some positive learning from a previous 2023 decision and has since confirmed it is taking steps to improve its processes in line with our spotlight report for damp and mould, so some separate recommendations are made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould at her previous property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended, if it has not already, to:
    1. consider improvement of processes for contractor recommendations, such as the December 2022 recommendation for assessment of the windows, to ensure these are followed up in a timely manner.
    2. ensure contractors communicate effectively with residents about appointments and confirm these directly with them in a timely manner.