Silva Homes Limited (202300325)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300325

Silva Homes Limited

30 May 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 concerns about drainage issues, water penetration and the subsequent damage to his property and personal belongings by damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The leaseholder owns a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat under the terms of a lease of 125 years granted by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The leaseholder is referred to as the resident in this report.

Scope of investigation

This Service’s complaint handling code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s reports about the drainage system (French drain) and guttering date back to 6 July 2021. The evidence indicates that he expressed a dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the repairs on 10 December 2021. Although this Service is unclear as to how this was dealt with by the landlord, we consider it fair to include the events that occurred from July 2021 in our investigation. Whilst the resident’s complaint about repairs was not formally logged until January 2023, this Service is satisfied that the resident raised a complaint within a reasonable period. Furthermore, the landlord backdated its investigation of the resident’s complaint to July 2021.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of the repairs on his and his wife’s health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations

Under the terms of the lease, the resident covenants with the landlord to keep the property and every part including all landlords’ fixtures and fittings in good and tenantable repair and to make good all defects. The landlord covenants with the resident to repair and keep in tenantable repair the structure and exterior of the property (including drains gutters and external pipes together with the windows of the property and external decoration) and to make good any defect affecting that structure.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would aim to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and respond to routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy further notes that it has public liability insurance to cover injury or damage caused to people or their property during the course of carrying out its business.
Leaseholders who are experiencing severe problems with the management of their building, may be able to apply for the removal of the manager and the appointment of a replacement.
The landlord has 2-stage complaints handling process. It will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord will consider financial compensation where it has caused difficulties by failing to respond to an issue or to take action in response to a report from a resident.

Summary of events

The resident reported a drainage issue to the landlord on 6 July 2021. He said that the drains on the sides of his property were overflowing above the damp proof course line. He asked the landlord to look into it urgently because water was being absorbed by the exterior walls and damaging the property. The landlord acknowledged his email and asked him to confirm the property address so it could investigate the issue for him. The resident’s email indicated that he had sent some pictures to the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord for an appointment on 2 August 2021, but it noted there was nothing on record. He said the guttering needed to be cleared urgently as it was overflowing and causing damp to the interior of his property. The landlord later said in its internal emails that, the repair was raised to the block and not the resident’s individual property. It also noted the same day that the resident said an engineer turned up and told him he had to rebook the repairs.
The landlord’s records indicate that it arranged an investigation of the drainage issue on 12 August 2021. It noted that the guttering to the back and front of the property should be cleared.
In an email dated 31 August 2021 the landlord said the gravel soakaway along the front and side of the property was filling up with water every time it rained.
The landlord said a works order was raised, and an appointment booked for 4 November 2021 to carry out repairs to the french drain and gutters. It said the appointment was rearranged due to operatives’ sickness absence and rebooked for 16 February 2022 when the guttering was completed.
The resident chased up an update on the repairs on 15 November 2021.
The landlord said the resident made an expression of dissatisfaction with its service regarding the delays on 12 December 2021.
The landlord cleared the guttering on 16 February 2022.
The resident chased up the repairs to the French drain on 8 September 2022. The landlord arranged an inspection on 29 September 2022 and recommended works to install two drainage pipes through the retaining brick wall. It said this would allow water to dissipate quicker away from the building and alleviate potential flooding in the area.
The landlord’s service charge team discussed a complaint (regarding service charges) received from the resident on 11 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 November 2022 to raise another stage 1 complaint. He said this concerned the repairs to the French drain which had been outstanding for several months. He said he was recently offered an appointment for 8 November 2022, but no one attended.
The landlord acknowledged the correspondence on 15 November 2022. It said it would ensure the concerns were investigated and respond by 24 November 2022.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns about the repair to the French drain.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint regarding service charge actual costs (for year ending 31 March 2022) on 24 November 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 and 30 November 2022. He said he had not received an acknowledgement of his complaint sent on 15 November 2022. He said although the landlord acknowledged the complaint, it did not reference the issues raised about the repairs. He said he was previously assured that the complaint would be dealt with separately.
The landlord tried to contact the resident by telephone on 1 December 2022. The resident later provided an alternative number to contact him on.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2022 regarding its response to his service charge complaint. He disputed the charges and said the landlord did not resolve the drain problem until 1 December 2022 and only cleared the gutters on 16 February 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 December 2022 and apologised for the cancellation of a previous appointment. It asked if the resident still wished to pursue his complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint (about his service charge bill) on 13 January 2023.
The resident provided additional information regarding his complaint on 20 January 2023. He complained about the poor service, poor communication, unannounced visits, and delay in responding to his request for repairs to the gutters and French drain. He further said:
1. The landlord should have treated the repair as an emergency as he explained that water was penetrating his property causing damp and black mould.
2. He was not provided with a dehumidifier when he requested one as water was running down his walls and they were very wet.
3. The landlord took more than 7 months to clear the gutters despite many months of calling and chasing up the repairs. Although the gutters were cleared, the French drain still needed repairs but the landlord failed to respond to his emails and phone calls.
4. The landlord failed to progress his complaint raised on 15 November 2022 despite clear instructions that he wished to complain.
5. He would like to be compensated for the damage to the interior walls of his property from damp and mould, cost of cleaning, heating costs and for damage to his personal items.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 26 January 2023.
The landlord noted in an internal email dated 1 February 2023 that the resident’s claim for compensation should be referred to its insurers due to the total value requested.
The landlord said in its internal email on 8 February 2023 that it was unable to find records of emails or any calls with the resident as the recordings were only held for 3 months.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2023. It said this was in response to his complaint received on 25 January 2022. Below is a summary of the response:
1. Following his request for repairs on 6 July 2021, it agreed that an unplanned visit was made to the property by an operative on 22 July 2021. However, it scheduled an appointment with him on 12 August and 4 November 2021 and these were attended. Subsequent follow up appointments were attended on 15 and 16 February 2022.
2. It attended on 29 September and 27 October 2022 to inspect the French drain. It attended on 1 December 2022 and carried out repairs to resolve the drainage problem to help alleviate the flooding.
3. It had attended each time a repair was reported and clarified that guttering works would not be dealt with as an emergency appointment. This would be booked within the normal target time of 60 days.
4. Although it attended the repair within 60 days each time he made contact, it recognised that it could have attended sooner.
5. It offered £150 to the resident and apologised for his experience, time and trouble and the frustration caused due to the delays in getting the repairs completed.
6. It also advised that it had since made changes within in its management with a focus on ensuring the issues do not occur again in the future.
7. Its executive board were working on the procurement of a new scheduling system which would improve efficiency, speed and reliability of repairs being booked.
8. The resident was advised to raise his claim for damages with its insurers in accordance with its policy as a public liability claim. He was assured that the matter would be managed by a specialist liability team who would liaise directly with the landlord for further investigation.
The resident requested the escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2023. He complained that:
1. The landlord incorrectly stated that he raised his stage 1 complaint on 25 January 2023. It delayed logging the stage 1 complaint.
2. The earliest appointment the landlord offered for the repairs was on 4 November 2021, but no one attended. He was left with no choice than to continuously chase the landlord for another appointment and this was scheduled for 16 February 2022.
3. The landlord acknowledged the repair was an emergency, but it failed to treat the repair as such.
4. His request for dehumidifiers was refused and he was advised to turn up the heating and open all the windows.
5. It did not attend to clear the guttering until 16 February 2022, which was 225 after the date he requested an emergency repair but no repairs were carried out to the French drain.
6. The workmen who attended on 16 February 2022 stated that they had only been asked to clear the guttering and did not know anything about the drainage works.
7. It was at an open day on 8 September 2022 that he was able to get an appointment arranged for 8 November 2022. However, the appointment was not attended, and no prior notice was received so he had to contact the landlord.
8. The landlord completed the repairs on 1 December 2022, taking 513 days from 6 July 2021, to drill two holes in the perimeter wall to prevent flooding of the French drain.
9. The landlord’s repairs page defined serious gutter leaks as an emergency repair which it would respond to within 24 hours or sooner if affects health and safety.
10. The compensation offer of £150 was not adequate and it did not consider the length of time he had been chasing the works and his repeated attempts at informing the landlord of the black mould and mildew forming on the interior walls and on the furniture. This was now affecting his and his wife’s health.
11. He had contacted the landlord’s insurers but was advised that the policy did not cover leaseholders. They advised that the landlord should contact them directly to discuss.
The landlord sent written acknowledgement of the stage 2 complaint on 27 February 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 23 March 2023. It said:
1. It acknowledged that the repairs took too long, and it would like to apologise for the inconvenience and frustration caused.
2. A leak to the gutters is not classified as an emergency.
3. Due to turbulent weather conditions, there was a significant service demand for repairs, particularly emergency repairs for burst pipes. This unfortunately had impacted its routine repairs service.
4. Although it is not its policy to loan dehumidifiers to leaseholders, it did not have any available.
5. It had listened to the resident’s concerns and considered improvements to its services. It had since procured a specialist gutter cleaning contractor and developed an annual gutter cleaning programme to help reduce the build-up within gutters on blocks which its contractor will undertake.
6. Its insurers provide cover for property and public liability insurance. This applies where a tenant, leaseholder or third party, feel it has been negligent in the way it carried out its business. It would advise the insurers if the resident wished to make a claim.
7. It was sorry it did not log the resident’s stage 1 complaint when it was received in November 2022 until January 2023. Further training had been provided to its resolutions team to ensure that complaints are logged in compliance with its policy.
8. It recognised the frustration caused to the resident due to the lengthy delays in the repairs. As such it would like to increase the compensation to £250.

Summary of actions after the complaints process had been exhausted

The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 and said:
1. Its website listed an uncontainable leak including roofing and serious guttering leaks as an emergency repair.
2. He was having difficulties pursuing his claim with the landlord’s insurers.
The landlord noted in an internal email dated 24 March 2023 that the resident was not satisfied with the stage 2 response. It further said its website incorrectly listed guttering leaks under emergency repairs and it made arrangements to amend this.
The landlord and its insurers communicated regarding the resident’s claim on 30 March 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident around May 2023 and made arranged for the resident to collect a dehumidifier.
The claims insurance company informed the landlord on 5 July 2023, that it had recently undertaken a review and concluded that it was never the intention of the policy to provide cover for liability arising from third party claims for bodily injury or damage caused by mould. It said its review had determined that such liability is therefore not covered under the policy.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 2 November 2023 for the confusion caused by the outdated information on its website. It advised that the mould and mildew within the property was his responsibility to address as the leaseholder. It said it was committed to providing any information requested by the insurers as promptly as possible.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2023, regarding his claim for the internal damage to the property and its contents. It said it would like to arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and identify the cause of the damp and mould. It said it would work with him to put things right if the damp and mould was caused because of issues with the guttering. It said once the survey had been completed, it would consider his compensation claim for damaged items with a full understanding of how the damage occurred.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
In our investigation of this case, this Service has had to rely mostly on the summary of events provided by the landlord. Whilst the evidence shows that the resident first requested repairs to the drainage system in July 2021, the records provided by the landlord do not fully account for the long gaps between July 2021 and December 2022 when it completed the repairs. For instance, the repairs log only show that the landlord visited the property on 22 July 2021 and 12 August 2021. However, the next entry in the log was on 4 November 2021, which was an appointment to sort out drainage problems and to clear the guttering. There were no further entries until 15 February 2022 when it attended to clear the guttering and no explanation for the delays communicated to the resident or updates.
Also, the resident stated in its stage 1 complaint that he had chased the landlord repeatedly by phone and email between July 2021 and December 2021. The landlord noted in its internal email on 8 February 2023 that it could not find records of his calls or emails. It is also noted from the resident’s stage 1 complaint that his earlier attempts at raising a complaint were prevented by the landlord on 16 February 2022. He said the advisor he spoke to on the phone failed to pass him through to a manager or register his dissatisfaction about the landlord’s services. The resident said he continued to chase the landlord by email, phone calls, social media and his online account but no one responded to him. However, we have not been able to ascertain the actual events that occurred from the records provided by the landlord.
The landlord provided additional information to this Service, explaining some of the periods unaccounted for. These indicate that it communicated with the resident in September 2021 about a repair booked for 4 November 2021. It said the repair could not be completed due to staff sickness and it rescheduled it for 16 December 2021. According to the information provided by the landlord, the resident chased for an update on 15 November 2021 and later expressed dissatisfaction with the delays on 10 December 2021. The landlord noted that the resident held it responsible for the damage caused to his property, but it is not clear if any advice was offered to him. What is clear from the evidence is that the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident and in so doing failed to manage his expectations. This would have caused the resident some distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
It is a fundamental part of providing a good repairs service to keep accurate records of repairs. This should include dates repairs were requested, accurate detail of the works required, dates for appointments and works completed. We have noted earlier in the report that the landlord’s repairs log did not appear to provide a full timeline of events. We have seen from the supplementary information provided by the landlord, that there were some inhouse activities regarding the repairs that were not recorded in its repairs log. An example is the appointment scheduled for 8 November 2022, which was not recorded in its repairs log. The appointment was neither attended nor an explanation offered to the resident. This is unreasonable.
We have seen from the evidence that despite numerous visits and appointments, the landlord took approximately 8 months to clear the gutters (6 July 2021 to 16 February 2023) and a further 10 months (1 December 2022) to complete the necessary repairs to the drainage to prevent further leaks. While the landlord explained that it would not normally update residents on the status of communal repairs, the resident made it clear from the outset that the leak was causing damage to the internal parts of his property. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered advice earlier on in the life of the case, about his options concerning any damages. Its poor communication, particularly considering the resident’s concerns about damp and mould is concerning and shows poor customer care.
This said, it is stated in the lease that the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the internal parts of the property. The landlord would therefore have reasonably expect him to carry out repairs needed within the property or submit a claim under its insurance policy for any repairs needed. The leaseholder information pack advises leaseholders to arrange their own contents insurance. It also sets out that leaseholders can make a claim for repairs to the interior parts of their flats on the landlord’s building insurance policy. We have seen that the landlord learned from this and offered advice and support to the resident on 8 February 2022 on how to submit his claim for damages. However, this was approximately 7 months after the resident first informed the landlord that the leak was causing damage to his property.
The landlord also recognised, in its responses to the resident, that it had taken an extended period of time to complete the repairs and it apologised for the frustration and inconvenience caused. It sought to put things right by completing the repairs in December 2022 and it listened to the resident and offered him a dehumidifier. It said it had revised the process of how work orders are completed on its repairs system in February 2023 and implemented a more proactive way for managing the guttering in the future. It also provided a detailed explanation of the challenges faced during and after the covid 19 pandemic and how this had impacted its ability to respond to routine repairs.
The landlord acknowledged in its comments to this Service that there had historically been gaps in its record keeping, but it had taken steps to improve its knowledge and information management. It offered £250 to the resident for the frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble incurred. However, it did not recognise or acknowledge the impact of its poor communication in its handling of the repairs on the resident. Its repairs policy states that it will update residents if any unforeseen service pressures cause alterations to its stated policy timescales, including the potential suspension of some routine repair categories. There is no evidence that it adhered to the policy or provided clear updates to the residents about the repairs.
The resident waited approximately 18 months for the repairs to be completed to the property. This was a repair he initially reported as an emergency due to misleading information on the landlord’s website. It was after the complaints process had been exhausted that the landlord acknowledged that the information was incorrect, and it sought to have this updated. Whilst it is the resident’s responsibility to address any repairs within their property, the water ingress into the property was the landlord’s responsibility to address. The landlord delayed this progress without any clear evidence of effective communication with the resident for a period of 8 months.
During this period, the resident made the landlord aware of the detriment to his family due to the damp and mould forming in the property. Although the landlord has since completed the repairs, the £250 offered did not reflect the distress, frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. In view of the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drainage issues, water penetration and subsequent damage to his property and personal belongings.
Following its insurer’s review of their policy provision regarding damp and mould claims, it now reviews claims in house and compensation is considered as part of this review.

The associated complaint

The Ombudsman notes from the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint that it delayed its response to the stage 1 complaint. It disregarded the resident’s concerns about the delay in logging the complaint and his request for a dehumidifier in the stage 1 response. However, we have seen from the stage 2 response that it learned from this mistake.
The landlord acknowledged that it should have logged the complaint in November 2022 as the resident was clear about his request. The complaint was received on 15 November 2022, but the landlord did not respond until 8 February 2023. We have seen that this was because of a delay in accepting the complaint and dealing with it accordingly. This meant that the resident had to wait for approximately 12 weeks for the response to his stage 1 complaint. This was clearly frustrating for him, as he expressed in various correspondences that he wanted the landlord to investigate the matter under its complaints process. The landlord therefore did not adhere to its internal complaints process.
The landlord recognised that it got things wrong, and it apologised to the resident. It explained that it had learnt from this error and provided further training to staff to ensure complaints are logged within the timeframes specified in its complaints policy. It also informed this Service that it had recruited additional staff to its resolutions team and provided training on how to deal with multiple complaints from the same complainant.
While the Ombudsman welcomes the measures taken by the landlord to put things right, it failed to offer compensation for the time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. It said its offer of £250 was in recognition of the overall delays experienced with its handling of the communal repairs and the complaints. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount offered does not reflect the detriment to the resident. Considering this, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about drainage issues, water penetration and subsequent damage to his property and personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s concerns about the water penetration. Although the evidence shows that it inspected the external areas of the property in July and August 2021, it failed to act on the resident’s concerns about the impact this was having on his property. The resident expressed earlier on in the case, that water was seeping into his property causing damp and mould but there is little evidence of any actions taken to support him.
There is evidence of some learning as the landlord completed the repairs and it promised to make changes to its services. This was however 18 months after the resident had initially reported the repair. Its offer of compensation did not make up for the inconvenience and the landlord failed to learn throughout the life of the case that it handled its communication with the resident poorly.
The landlord delayed in logging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It recognised its errors and apologised for the inconvenience to the resident. However, the compensation offered did not account for the inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £850 broken down as:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for failures identified in its handling of the resident’s repairs.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in the complaint handling.
  3. £250 previously offered if it has not already done so.
The landlord self-assessed against this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould on 14 September 2022. It noted that it needed to improve communication on actions taken with residents and incorporated this in the new damp and mould procedure. It also noted that improvements were needed to its complaints policy to address compensation. This Service has therefore not deemed it necessary to make any orders in this regard.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact the resident and follow up its offer to assess the resident’s property for the cause of damp and mould. It should consider the resident’s claim for compensation for damaged goods and provide a response to him in writing. The landlord should provide this Service a copy of the response.