Selwood Housing Society Limited (202403418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403418

Selwood Housing Society Limited

31 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak in a neighbouring property.
2. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s intention to dispose of the property.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 3 September 2018. The property is a 1 bed ground floor flat in a block of four maisonettes. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord informed the resident of its intention to sell the block of maisonettes where he resides. It explained that this was a commercial decision because the properties were not energy efficient and some experienced severe damp and mould.
The landlord said the resident is vulnerable. He has mobility issues, anxiety, depression and asthma.
On 19 January 2024, a water leak occurred in an unoccupied first floor flat adjacent to the resident’s property. The leak was due to a burst water pipe in the loft after a spell of cold weather. Whilst the water leaked into the flat below, the landlord said it found no evidence that the damp penetrated through the party wall into the resident’s flat.
On 19 March 2024, the landlord met with the resident at an available bungalow to establish whether the resident liked the area, his wishes and understand his needs. It said this was also to consider if the property was affordable to the resident.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2024, which the landlord acknowledged the following day. His complaint was about:
1. The letting process for the bungalow he viewed.
2. Outstanding repairs in his property.
3. The flooding to the adjoining flats was preventable.
4. The resident explained that the issue of damp and mould in his property had worsened since the flood and having empty properties neighbouring him. He believed that the damp and mould membrane in his property was breached or there was a leak and requested the landlord to inspect it.
5. He had been unable to use his bedroom and had to sleep on his sofa. He also said that he was becoming unwell.
6. Some of his belongings have been damaged and he occurred additional cost to heat his property and run a dehumidifier.
7. He explained that he no longer wanted to move, instead he requested for the landlord to modernise his property to make it more efficient.
The landlord noted that on 3 April 2024, it opened a damp and mould case in relation to the resident’s property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 April 2024 and apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. It issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 24 April 2024, it was as follows:
1. On 19 March, it met the resident at a bungalow to better understand his wishes, needs and affordability. It clarified that this was not a formal offer of accommodation. It explained that it decided not to progress with the property as it assessed it was not affordable to the resident. It apologised for the disappointment caused to him and for raising his expectations.
2. It said that after reviewing its housing management system it identified no outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. It explained that it would attend and inspect the property to identify any potential repairs.
3. It said it did not know the underlying reason for the leak in the neighbouring flat. It clarified that it could only be considered negligent if it had known about the underlying issue and failed to act.
4. It informed the resident that a surveyor would attend his property to assess any issues of damp and mould, provide advice, a diagnosis of the cause and whether any remedial repairs were required.
5. It described the process for making decisions about removing a property from its housing stock. It confirmed that the resident’s property was one of the property it intended to sell and as such it had no plan of modernising it.
6. It reassured the resident that it was committed to work with him to find him a suitable property and that financial support would be available. It offered to meet the resident to discuss the process.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 25 April 2024. He reiterated that he did not want to move from his property and wanted the landlord to modernise it. Additionally, he said that the landlord did not offer him compensation for his damaged belongings nor the additional heating costs he incurred. He also requested for an independent survey of the damp and mould in his property.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property for damp and mould on 29 April 2024. It noted that it found no evidence of mould in the property but acknowledged that one internal wall was damp following the leak from next door. It said the external walls showed no sign of damp and the damp proof course appeared intact. It agreed to carry out work to improve the resident’s living conditions. It said it would check the electric in the adjacent void properties and install dehumidifiers to speed up the process of drying them. It would also remove any wet insulation in the void properties loft and compensate the resident for the additional heating costs he incurred.
The landlord met the resident on 7 May 2024. It discussed his complaint, shared the damp and mould inspection findings and the repairs it planned to carry out. It also said it would pay compensation to the resident and explained its reasons for disposing of the maisonettes. The resident informed the landlord that he had to sleep in his living room and the damp effected his health, especially his asthma.
On 13 May 2024, the landlord reviewed the progress of the remedial work and considered what else was required. It said it inspected the empty properties, checked the electric and installed dehumidifiers. On 20 May 2024, it planned to remove waste from the neighbouring property, cut the overgrown garden and fix a pothole by the property. It would also check the rainwater gully and install equipment to monitor the humidity levels in the resident’s property, which the resident agreed to on 17 May 2024. Whilst it agreed to find an alternative property suitable to the resident’s needs, it committed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations to avoid him further disappointment.
The landlord contacted the resident to discuss the outcome of his complaint prior to issuing its stage 2 response on 17 May 2024. Its stage 2 response was as follows:
1. It reiterated its position about the disposal of the resident’s flat and not planning to carry out improvements works in his property.
2. It confirmed that it tested the electric in the voids properties, drained the water system and put dehumidifiers in. It also inspected the loft and found that the insulation was dry. It confirmed that it would continue to monitor both void properties for leaks.
3. It said that it would clear the overgrown gardens, fill the pothole at the entrance and address the missing fence between the gardens.
4. It acknowledged that the resident said he had asthma, which worsened because of the damp and mould. It offered the resident a decant whilst the neighbouring property dried out so he could live comfortably.
5. Whilst it did not think it was necessary for an independent survey to attend the resident’s property, it agreed for its specialist damp and mould surveyor to carry out a full inspection of the property to identify any damp and mould and potential remedial repairs needed. It confirmed that it would ask his damp and mould surveyor to inspect the brickwork and check for water ingress.
6. It offered to pay the resident £310 compensation, which the resident accepted on 17 May 2024. It said the compensation was equivalent to £240 for his damaged items and £70 for his additional heating costs.

Post internal complaint process

On 14 June 2024, the landlord identify the learning from the resident’s complaint about its handling of the viewing in March 2024, and shared it with the relevant team.
On 16 June 2024, it carried out a full damp and mould survey at the property. It found no evidence of rising or penetrating damp. It concluded that the minor spotting of mould in the bedroom was caused by condensation and recommended to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans and adequately heat the property. It provided advice to the residents on managing level of humidity in his property. It also advised to clear all the external gutters in the autumn.
Between June 2026 and September 2024, the landlord provided a single point of contact to the resident and liaised with him about alternative accommodation and repairs.
In August 2028, the resident accepted a new permanent property and is due to move in on 11 November 2024. The landlord agreed to complete all the repairs requested by the resident prior to him moving in. This included work it would not normally complete such as fencing, laying turf and removing a tree. It also agreed to cover the resident’s moving costs, new flooring, to pay the resident the home loss payment and cover his rent shortfall for 3 years. The resident informed this service that he is satisfied with the new property and the landlord’s actions to bring it to standard. He also confirmed that the landlord had paid him the compensation it offered at stage 2 of his complaint

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman recognises that the presence of damp and mould at the property has caused the resident some distress. The resident expressed concerns about the potential impact on his health. Unlike a court, the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused a health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the Landlord offered to pay the resident £240 for his damaged belongings, but this Service will not make a decision on that offer because it is outside our remit to assess damages. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. However, we can look at how the landlord dealt with the resident’s request for damages and allegations of damaged possessions.
Additionally, although the resident said there was an issue with damp in his property prior to the leak, no evidence was seen that he reported the issue prior to his complaint in April 2024. Whilst the Ombudsman is not doubting the resident’s account, in this case we cannot determine there was a service failure from the landlord regarding any concerns prior to April 2024. This is because the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Additionally, landlords can only be considered negligent if they had known about a problem and failed to act. In this case, the Ombudsman saw no evidence showing that the landlord knew about an issue with damp and mould in the resident’s property prior to him raising it in April 2024.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and queries by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident. We will determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman has identified failures on the landlord’s part, we can also consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Damp and mould in the resident’s property

Over the past few years, there has been an increased awareness of the risks to health from damp and mould. It is understandable that residents would be concerned if damp and mould were present in their property. The issue can cause considerable distress to residents, especially residents with certain health conditions and vulnerabilities.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential category one hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amounts to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) recommends that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. In this case the resident reported an issue with damp and mould on 3 April 2024, the landlord opened a damp and mould investigation on the same day, which was reasonable. It showed that it took the issue seriously in keeping with its obligations, his damp and mould policy and the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection at the property approximately 3 weeks after the resident reported the issue. This was unreasonable from the landlord, especially as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and his reports of being unwell. Additionally, there is no evidence that prior to the inspection, it had discussed the problem with the resident to assess the severity of the issue and consider how quickly it should respond. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it acted with a sense of urgency, which was unreasonable. This also contributed to the resident feeling unheard.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that following its damp and mould inspection in April 2024, the landlord was proactive in identifying the required repairs. We recognise that although the landlord planned to dispose of the resident’s property, it agreed to complete repairs to improve the resident’s living conditions. For example, it checked the electric in the voids property and installed dehumidifiers to speed up the drying process following the leak to resolve the issue of damp penetrating into the resident’s flat. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. It would have reassured the resident that it was committed to resolving the problem and put things right.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that in May 2024, it agreed to carry out a full damp and mould survey at the resident’s request. This was in keeping with its damp and mould policy to carry out a full survey when a resident had ongoing complaints of damp and mould. We recognise that whilst it carried out the inspection 30 days after it agreed to it, it had already assessed the severity, risks and taken steps to remedy to the issue. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to allow time before completing a second damp and mould survey. It also enabled it to assess if the measures it had taken following the first inspection had improved the matter. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord, it was in keeping with its repairs policy response times.
Additionally, the evidence shows that it completed the repairs recommended by the surveyor and agreed during the complaint process within its published timeframe of completing such repairs within 60 days. The evidence also shows that it was flexible to the resident’s needs and delayed repairs to a time suitable to him. For example, it had planned to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom fans in July 2024, but delayed the upgrade until 5 September 2024, at the resident’s request. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord.
The resident informed the landlord that because of the issue of damp in his property and having empty properties next door, he incurred additional heating costs. The evidence shows that the landlord discussed the matter with him and agreed to pay him £70 compensation for the additional costs he incurred. This was in keeping with its compensation policy to make a goodwill payment as a way of resolving a complaint when a resident incurs increased utility bills.
Whilst this was reasonable from the landlord, the resident raised the issue of compensation when he made his stage 1 complaint. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which outlines the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling, states that landlords must respond to each element of a resident’s complaint. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord failed to respond to this element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response and only responded during stage 2 of its complaint process. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with the Code. This also caused inconvenience to the resident who had to raise the issue again when he escalated his complaint.
Overall, the landlord demonstrated that it acted on the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It carried out 2 damp and mould surveys and completed all identified remedial works within its published timeframe. However, we acknowledge that it failed to demonstrate that it acted with urgency in completing its first damp and mould survey. This impacted on the resident’s confidence in the landlord to resolve the issue and caused him distress. Additionally, it failed to fully respond to the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation to reflect its failing in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the distress caused to the resident.

The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s intention to dispose of the property.

The Ombudsman recognises that the resident lived at the property for several years and considered it as his property. He said he liked the area and his neighbours. It is therefore understandable that he was reluctant and concerned about moving.
The landlord refers to removing properties from its housing stock as “disposal or disposing of”, therefore this report will use the same terms whilst referring to the removal of a property from the landlord’s housing stock. The landlord’s property disposal policy sets out the circumstances in which it would consider the disposal of its housing stock. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord’s disposal of the resident’s property from its stock was commercially fair or its decision was in keeping with its legal obligations. However, we can consider whether the landlord acted in keeping with its policy and appropriately communicated with the resident.
In this case, the evidence shows that the resident viewed a potential new property with the landlord approximately 2 months after a major leak happened in a neighbouring property to the resident. Whilst the landlord did not share with this service when it decided to remove the resident’s property from its stock, it is reasonable to conclude that the viewing it organised with the resident in March 2024 was linked to that decision. This is because, the landlord shared that after the leak, the resident’s neighbours moved out and their properties remained void. The evidence show that apart from repairing the leak, the landlord had no plan to carry additional repairs in their properties, which suggest there was no plan for the resident’s neighbours to return.
Additionally, the evidence shows that the viewing took place prior to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property and to the landlord’s assessing the problem. It was therefore unlikely that the viewing or moving the resident was connected to his reports of damp and mould. Furthermore, neither party has provided evidence to suggest that the resident was being considered for a transfer. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident viewing a potential new property was because of the landlord’s decision to dispose of his property.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in April 2024. He said he felt the letting process for the property it viewed should have continued. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that the property was not a formal offer. It said the purpose of the viewing was to understand the resident’swishes, needs and affordability. It also explained that it assessed the property was not affordable to the resident and as such it would have been unreasonable to offer it to him.
Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord not to offer a property, which was not affordable to the resident, it recognised in its stage 1 response that it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations effectively. It said it did not explain to the resident that the property was not a formal offer, but instead a way of assessing his requirements in a new property. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and apologise to the resident, it was unreasonable to have raised his expectations. This caused distress to the resident, who felt disappointed that he could not move forward with the property he viewed.
The evidence shows that in April 2024, the resident said he would no longer consider moving and instead wanted the landlord to upgrade his property to become energy efficient. The landlord provided a detailed stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint and a reasonable explanation for not modernising his property. It explained that it would not modernise his property as it had planned to dispose of it. It also explained the process for identifying properties in its stock for disposal and why it selected his property for disposal. It reassured the resident that it would work with him to find a suitable property and provide financial support. Those were reasonable actions from the landlord. It demonstrated that while it made its position clear to the resident, it was also sensitive in the way it communicated this to him.
Furthermore, when the resident maintained that he did not want to move, the landlord offered to find him a temporary alternative accommodation. It said this would be for a maximum of 13 weeks until it resolved the issue of damp in his property. It reassured the resident that after that period, he would move back to his property. It also explained that its offer of moving the resident to a temporary alternative accommodation did not change its decision of disposing of his property in the future. This was reasonable from the landlord, it shows that it was considerate of the resident’s needs. It was also in keeping with its obligations to continue to repair and maintain the resident’s property while he had a tenancy at that address.
Since May 2024, the landlord has worked with the resident to find a property, which met his needs. The landlord’s internal communications and its contacts with the resident show that it was careful not to repeat its earlier failings and was conscious of managing the resident’s expectations. The evidence also shows that it reflected on the learning from the resident’s complaint and shared it with the relevant team. This is in keeping with the Code to learn from complaints. Those actions were appropriate from the landlord. It demonstrated that it understood the impact its failings had on the resident and was committed not to repeat the same mistakes. The evidence also shows that it was keen to rebuilt trust with the resident
The landlord and the resident informed this service that they had identified a suitable property for the resident and he would move in November 2024. The resident confirmed that it was a permanent move and he was satisfied with the property. The landlord said it provided the resident with a single point of contact throughout the process. The evidence shows that it also agreed to complete all the repairs requested by the resident at his new property and cover his moving costs and flooring. This was reasonable from the landlord in the circumstances. It would have made the process easier for the resident and reassured him that his new property met his needs.
Additionally, the landlord agreed to complete repairs that it would not normally do, such as returfing and fencing the garden for the resident’s dog, which was important to the resident. This was good practice and reasonable from the landlord, it shows its commitment to put things right. This was also in keeping with its property disposal policy to remain customer focussed and consider the resident’s situation and circumstances when relocating a resident to a new property.
Furthermore, the landlord also agreed to cover the resident’s rent shortfall at the new property for 3 years. This demonstrates its willingness to go above and beyond to meet the resident’s needs and mitigate the impact of its commercial decisions on the resident. This was also in keeping with its property disposal policy to remain customer focussed and offer discretionary support packages bespoke to the resident’s situation and circumstances.
In summary, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord failed to communicate effectively about the viewing in March 2024, and manage the resident’s expectations. We recognise that the landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, we also recognise that the landlord acknowledged its mistakes, apologised to the resident, learned and took steps to prevent those from reoccurring. We also recognise that the landlord demonstrated that took appropriate steps to rebuilt trust with the resident. Since May 2024, its handling of the resident’s move and disposal of his property was in keeping with its property disposal policy and its obligations.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord said it will pay a discretionary payment of £8100 for home loss to the resident when he moves, which is in keeping with its obligations in such cases. It said that in addition to paying the home loss payment to the resident, covering his rent shortfall and completing the requested repairs, it will also pay a disturbance payment of £2121, which is inclusive of the resident’s moving costs. This is reasonable from the landlord, it is also in keeping with its obligations and its property disposal policy. It is the Ombudsman opinion that the landlord’s total offer reflected the failings identified. Therefore, the Ombudsman determined that, in all circumstances of the case, the level of compensation offered amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak in a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to his complaint about his concerns about the landlord’s intention to dispose of the property prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Provide a written and detailed apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. In addition to the compensation the landlord has already paid to the resident for his additional heating costs, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay £125 in compensation directly to the resident. This is to reflect its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the impact on him.

Recommendations

The landlord is to make good on its offers to complete the repairs it agreed to do at the resident’s new property, the home loss payment and the discretionary payment of £2121 to the resident.