Silva Homes Limited (202347386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347386

Silva Homes Limited

25 July 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about damp and mould throughout the property.
2. Reports about leaks into the bathroom and under the sink.
3. Concerns about asbestos disturbance due to the leaks.
4. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She resides in a 2-bedroom, ground-floor property with her 2 children.
The resident reported that her tap and sink were leaking, and that there was damp and mould throughout the property, in November 2023. A damp and mould survey was conducted on 21 December 2023 which identified causes including: a blocked gutter; a fault with the kitchen fan; the front door not being aligned allowing moisture in; the living room window seal was blown; and the trickle vent was damaged.
The resident complained to the landlord on 15 January 2024. She said she had reported an intermittent leak in her bathroom from the above property since she moved in in 2017 and questioned why the landlord had let the property without first resolving the issues. She said that mould, caused by the leak, had damaged her walls and she had been unable to decorate as this had been ongoing. She explained that there was mould present throughout the property, including the kitchen, living room, and toilet. She reported that she and her children had asthma and were coughing and wheezing, and the situation was exacerbating her health anxiety, and affecting her everyday life and work.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 29 January 2024. It said it had arranged for a leak detection survey to be conducted and had scheduled works to address the issues identified in the damp and mould survey. It confirmed it would carry out a mould wash on 7 February 2024 and outlined actions the resident could take to reduce reoccurrence.
The resident escalated her complaint the following day. She felt the mould wash would be insufficient to address the issues. She said the landlord had failed to act on concerns she had shared about asbestos and raised a further repair regarding her internal doors, which had swollen from the damp. She also described how mouldy water had been dripping onto her kitchen surface and she had to constantly replace items that had been damaged by conditions in the bathroom. She said the landlord’s contractors had come on several occasions and noticed issues needing repair but there was no follow up. She, again, described the impact on her family’s physical and emotional health and expressed frustration that she had to endure these conditions.
The landlord’s final response came on 11 March 2024. It acknowledged that the leak had been recurring and noted that a leak detection survey would take place the following day. With regards the damp and mould, it was acting on the recommendations of experts to address the root causes and provided an update on the works it had undertaken. It said it had shared pictures of the property with its compliance surveyor, who had confirmed there was no sign of damage and, therefore, no concerns around asbestos. It offered compensation of £2,000 for the inconvenience and distress caused and said it would address outstanding issues. It also directed the resident to its insurer, should she wish to make a personal injury claim with regards any impact on her health.
The leak detection survey indicated that the leak was coming from the above property. The landlord arranged for a further survey of that property in April 2024, which confirmed the source of the leak. The landlord conducted repairs at both properties throughout May 2024, including the replacement of the resident’s living room window and bathroom fan. However, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues and reports ongoing repairs, damp and mould. It is understood that she is seeking a management transfer on these grounds, which is being considered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident complained that the bathroom leak had occurred intermittently since she moved to the property in 2017. The landlord’s records suggest that, prior to the resident’s report in January 2024, the last leak was in June 2022. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme). The landlord accepts that the leak was recurring, and this context is considered in this investigation. However, due to the length of time since the issue was previously reported, the investigation focuses on the landlord’s response to reports from January 2024.
Similarly, the resident said she had previously reported issues contributing to damp and mould, including a faulty living room window and vent, but no progress had been made. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s experience, the records do not demonstrate that these issues were raised in the preceding 12 months. This investigation, therefore, considers the landlord’s handling of issues relating to damp and mould from November 2023, while recognising that the issue was pre-existing.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had not completed routine asbestos checks between 2017 and 2021, as it was required to under its policy at the time. Again, due to the length of time that had passed prior to the resident raising this issue, the Ombudsman is unable to consider this aspect of the complaint. Instead, this investigation focuses on how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about asbestos with regards the leak from January 2024.
In light of the above, it is important to note that the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s handling of specific complaints through the operation of its complaints process. In this case, we have investigated the issues raised in the complaint that was taken through the complaints process from January to March 2024. The resident’s concerns about reoccurring issues and a pattern of behaviour by the landlord are noted, but this Service can only reach a determination based on the specific events under investigation here.
The resident submits that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on the physical and mental health of all family members. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the family’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

Under current legislation and the landlord’s policy, the landlord has a responsibility to ensure its homes meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ and that they are fit for human habitation, considering factors including freedom from damp. The landlord’s policy also recognises its responsibility to take reasonable steps to identify hazards and assess risks, including around damp and mould, in line with the standards of the ‘Housing Health and Safety Rating System’ (HHSRS).
The landlord accepted its responsibility and conducted a specialist survey in December 2023, to understand and address the presence of damp and mould. This was an appropriate undertaking, in line with its ‘damp and mould management plan’, which says it will employ specialist contractors for surveying and remediation, where required, to meet its responsibilities for damp and mould safety.
Repairs identified in the survey, involving the living room window, front door, and kitchen extractor, were scheduled for 14 February 2024. At almost 2 months since the date of the survey, this constituted a long wait over winter when issues with damp and mould exacerbate. However, the landlord said that it only received the findings of the independent survey on 17 January 2024. It scheduled remedial works based on this report 20-working days later, which was in line with the period specified in its repair policy for routine repairs.
It conducted a mould clean on 7 February 2024, but the resident reported that the mould returned only days later. Given that work to address underlying causes had not yet been conducted, this was unsurprising. The resident had warned that she did not think this would suffice, but the landlord had already scheduled repairs, and undertook a further mould wash following these, so it is seen to have acted reasonably.
The landlord’s contractors visited on 14 February 2024 and determined that the fuse had gone in the kitchen fan, which it replaced. The resident reported that the fan had never worked and said this should have been identified during the void period. This Service agrees that checks during the void period should have included this, but it is not possible to say with any certainty that this issue pre-dated the resident’s tenancy and there is no evidence that the resident previously reported the matter.
Repairs were also made to the front door during this visit. However, in correspondence to the landlord on 13 March 2024, the resident noted that the door was already coming out of alignment. In response to a query from the landlord about any outstanding jobs in relation to the complaint, the resident informed it that her internal doors also needed attention as they had swollen due to the damp. She said this meant some had been removed and others remained stiff and were difficult to open, which caused her concern in the event of a fire. There is no evidence the landlord responded to these reports or co-ordinated further inspections/repairs. The landlord’s non-responsiveness, and failure to rectify these issues, was seen by the resident as part of an ongoing pattern and caused her frustration and distress. The landlord should inspect and remedy any issues with the doors as a priority.
The survey identified that the seal to the living room window had blown and recommended that this was repaired. The landlord attended to this on 14 February 2024 but was unable to rectify the issue and instead recommended that the glass be replaced. While it is recognised that the resident was inconvenienced because of further works being necessary to resolve this issue, the survey did not specify that the glass required replacement. It is not reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for this, and upon better understanding of the issue it appropriately co-ordinated works.
Contractors were scheduled to attend on 28 March 2024 to renew the glass. This was a further 6 weeks later and outside of the landlord’s 20-working day policy for routine repairs. The policy clarifies that larger repairs may take up to 60 days. It is not clear whether the repair fit within this latter category, but it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, given the resident had already endured a wait, and was clearly distressed by the ongoing presence of damp and mould, the landlord should have endeavoured to renew the glass sooner.
The landlord said there was no access on this date, but the resident said it attended and measured the window. While there is no clear evidence either way, given the resident was able to specify the action taken by the landlord, this Service accepts that it took place. The landlord is recommended to ensure more detailed repair notes are kept to provide accountability and demonstrate the actions it takes.
On the basis that the visit took place, the landlord mismanaged the resident’s expectations by stating in its complaint response that this was an appointment for the glass to be renewed, when it appears that, understandably, measuring was required first. It was not until 21 May 2024 that the glass was replaced, but the resident cancelled 2 previous appointments offered by the landlord, for which it cannot be held responsible.
The resident also contested that the landlord had repaired the trickle vent during its visit on 14 February 2024, noting that this was in the glass that required replacement. This is despite the landlord confirming that it had done so in its complaint response, which the resident felt demonstrated that it spread misinformation. Again, the landlord is recommended to keep more detailed repair notes to evidence what has been done and to ensure accuracy.
A further issue was identified by the contractors who attended on 14 February 2024, with regards a broken bathroom fan. A visit was scheduled to look at this on 18 March 2024, which was 3 days over the period specified in the policy for routine repairs. The circumstances of the slight delay are unknown and it is recognised that appointments needed to be scheduled in consideration of the resident’s work schedule. The landlord’s repair log notes that access on this date was subsequently refused. The job was ultimately completed on 21 May 2024, after the resident cancelled appointments on 19 April and 10 May 2024. Again, while this constituted a delay, the landlord cannot be held responsible given the resident was unavailable.
The resident was unhappy that she had to endure damp and mould and expressed a lack of faith that the measures would successfully resolve the issues. In its complaint response, the landlord assured her that it had instructed appropriate experts and was following their recommendations. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord did take the steps outlined in the report, but it remains that, having done so, the resident has reported ongoing damp and mould.
The resident has also reported that household items were damaged because of the damp and mould, including sentimental items, including a gift from her children. The resident did not give specifics about this in her initial complaint and escalation, but said she had to replace numerous items in her bathroom. While the landlord offered £2,000 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs, it did not compensate specifically for damaged items. It should reach out to the resident to establish what items have been damaged and support her in making a claim via its insurers.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of issues related to damp and mould. It acted appropriately in co-ordinating a survey and conducting repairs based on these findings. However, it could have arranged works more promptly, and it mismanaged the resident’s expectations about what work had, or would be, conducted with regards the windows. It also failed to respond to her reports about her doors. Its offer of compensation was generous and reflected the distress caused to the resident, who had endured these problems for some time, but the issues have clearly not been resolved to the resident’s satisfaction. For this reason the Ombudsman finds maladministration.
It is noted that the resident wishes to move and she reports that her request for a management transfer has now been approved, but this is subject to ongoing review and no timescale has been provided. While she remains in the property, the landlord should act to resolve the issues. It should allocate a dedicated officer and single point of contact to oversee completion of outstanding works. This should include a further inspection, and it should consider the use of monitoring equipment to establish any ongoing damp. It also needs to act on the resident’s reports about her internal doors and the front door. It should satisfy itself that works have been fully completed, by liaising with the resident and conducting a post-inspection.
The landlord is also encouraged to keep more detailed repair notes, so that it can appropriately track the program of works and relay accurate information about the action it has taken.

Reports about leaks into the bathroom and under the sink

The resident reported a leak under her kitchen sink on 7 November 2023 and the landlord’s contractors attended on 13 November 2023 to inspect. The repair notes suggest a new sink, unit, drainer, and worktop were needed and the cause of the leak was to be established when these were removed. In her complaint, the resident reported that the landlord attended a further time on 2 January 2024 and gave contradictory advice that only the tap and cupboard were to be replaced. In its complaint response, the landlord confirmed that all items were ultimately replaced when the work was completed on 14 February 2024.
The Ombudsman appreciates that it was frustrating for the resident to receive mixed messages about the scope of the work and this played into what she considered to be a pattern of the landlord giving contradictory advice or shirking its responsibilities with regards repairs. The circumstances behind the differing opinions of the contractors is unknown but it is not uncommon, nor unreasonable, that they had different perspectives, and the landlord ultimately replaced all components.
It was, however, unreasonable that, according to the resident, the landlord did not inform her of the appointment on 2 January 2024. The landlord has a ‘gaining access’ policy which sits alongside its repairs policy, and states that it must give ‘reasonable notice’ of appointments (considered to be at least 48 hours). It says confirmation of an appointment will be sent to the customer by email, post and/or text message. Text reminders will also be sent the day before, and on the day, to inform that the operative is on their way.
The landlord has provided no evidence that it complied with its policy in providing appropriate notification. It is also noted that the resident considered this to be the norm. In an email to the landlord at a later date, she expressed frustration that she had asked for email confirmation of appointments to no avail. The landlord should ensure this issue is communicated to the relevant team, with a reminder of the obligations outlined in the policy.
Within her complaint, the resident raised the issue of the ongoing bathroom leak. This leak is understood to have come from the above property through the resident’s bathroom ceiling. Under the terms of the tenancy and Section 11 of the the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep the structure of the property in repair and working order. This includes internal walls, floors, ceilings, drains, and pipes. However, this does not extend to properties which it does not own, as was the case with the above property.
The resident was not clear in her complaint that the leak was active at the time and there is no evidence she reported it to the repairs team. However, the landlord should have taken the reasonable steps of contacting the resident and making enquiries about the situation. Based on the information provided, an inspection of the resident’s property should also have been arranged to establish the cause and damage. There is no evidence this happened, but the landlord acted appropriately in contacting the above neighbour, who agreed to complete the necessary repairs.
Despite this, the resident said there was no change in the situation. In its initial complaint response, the landlord said that it had arranged for a survey to establish the cause. However, almost 2 weeks later, on 12 February 2024, this had not been requested and the resident sent a video to the landlord demonstrating that the leak was active. She called the landlord and sent a further 2 emails asking for a response, which came on 15 February 2024.
This was not appropriately responsive. The resident had directed her report to the complaint handler, rather than the repairs team, but she should have been promptly advised of the relevant team, or a request made on her behalf for this to be logged and responded to. By the time the landlord responded, the leak had stopped but the situation, as it initially was, had warranted prompt investigation.
A request for the leak detection survey was made on 15 February 2024 and this was scheduled for 13 March 2024. Again, this request was made too late, and resulted in an unreasonable delay for the resident, who had been clear that the issue had been going on for far too long, much to her distress.
Again, the leak resumed on 4 March 2024, resulting in the resident calling the out-of-hours team. The landlord’s call logs were not provided and the circumstances of this report are not known. However, in its complaint response, the landlord said it had listened to a recording of this call and said the operator should have been more empathetic and done more to establish whether it needed to attend as an emergency. It said it would feed this back to the team. The landlord acted reasonably in investigating the resident’s concerns here, acknowledging fault, and taking steps to learn from this.
The landlord’s repair notes indicate that it arranged to visit the above property on 7 March 2024. While it was not responsible for that property, given the problem was affecting its asset and impacting the resident, it acted sensibly in doing so. It found no evidence of a leak but acted in removing the boxing-in to let it dry. It is not clear if it shared this update with the resident.
The leak detection survey was undertaken in the resident’s property on 13 March 2024. This indicated, as the resident had maintained, that the leak was coming from the above property. This raises questions about the thoroughness of the landlord’s inspection of that space just days earlier. However, it then responded appropriately in arranging for a specialist leak detection survey to be completed in the above property, which was scheduled for 11 April 2024.
The resident was frustrated that both properties had not been surveyed at the same time, which is understandable given the ongoing detriment caused to her. It is also understandable that the landlord might have first wanted to inspect its own property, and it is acknowledged that its responsibility did not extend to the above property. However, by the time the survey was conducted, it had been 3 months since the resident reported the leak, and the cause had not yet been established or rectified. The context is important here too; the resident had been clear that the leak was recurring and issues had previously been attributed to the above property, so a full analysis of the situation was overdue.
The survey identified several issues in the above property, which the landlord said it communicated to the owner. However, the resident reported a further leak on 7 May 2024. The landlord then took ownership of repairs to the above property, which it completed on 16 May 2024. While the landlord was not legally responsible for this, it acted prudently and fairly in doing so.
There have been no further reports from the resident with regards the leak. However, she remains concerned it will reoccur and has received no confirmation from the landlord that it has completed works and provided a long-lasting solution. The resident had been clear that she had lived for years in a state of apprehension about the leak returning, and that this had prevented her from decorating and contributed to a sense that this was not ‘home’. The landlord should have kept her informed and offered assurance that the issue had been addressed. In its complaint response, it acknowledged that it had failed to update her with regards action taken on previous leaks, which made it even more pertinent that it communicated appropriately in this instance.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s efforts to address the leaks. It could have acted more promptly at times in co-ordinating inspections and repairs and was not always responsive. Going forward it should improve its communication with the resident with regards notification of appointments and provide updates on what work has been undertaken.
Works are ongoing with regards decoration and ‘making good’ the walls in the bathroom. The resident has expressed to this Service that she is unsure whether this will extend to the ceiling. The landlord should ensure all damaged surfaces are repaired and decorated.
While recognising that there were failings, a finding of reasonable redress has been made, in acknowledgment of the steps taken by the landlord, including its offer of £2,000 compensation. However, the landlord is encouraged to reflect on the failings identified and ensure that, going forward, its acts responsively.

Concerns about asbestos disturbance due to the leaks

The landlord has an ‘asbestos policy’ and an ‘asbestos management plan’ to aid it in achieving and maintaining effective management of risk posed by asbestos containing materials (ACM) in its properties. ACMs in good condition do not present a significant risk unless asbestos fibres become airborne, which happens when materials are damaged. The landlord conducted an asbestos survey on the property in 2017, which identified ACM in the bathroom floor tiles and the textured coating to the ceiling. This was categorised as low risk.
The resident raised concerns about asbestos in her initial complaint. She noted that the leak was coming through the bathroom ceiling and she was worried it had been disturbed. The landlord did not respond to this concern in its initial complaint response and it was left to the resident to raise this again in her escalation request. She noted that the leak was also penetrating the carpet, underneath which was ACM.
The landlord should have acted upon the resident’s initial report about the asbestos and requested pictures or attended to inspect. Instead, it responded a month later, on 15 February 2024. The complaint handler said the compliance project surveyor had reviewed a video she had sent, showing the damage, several days earlier, and concluded this was not significant enough to cause safety concerns.
The resident was not assured by this and felt her concerns were not being taken seriously. The landlord’s policy requires it to conduct a management survey where there is a significant change in the condition of asbestos. This Service has not seen the footage provided by the resident, and in any case, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine the extent of the ‘damage’. The indication is, that the landlord acted appropriately in referring this to the relevant surveyor, who reviewed the evidence and made an assessment based on it.
The landlord visited the resident on 6 March 2024 to discuss the works and her complaint. During this visit, the resident said she, again, raised concerns about the safety of her bathroom due to asbestos and was told by staff that they would check with the compliance surveyor and report back the next day. She was upset that it was not until 11 March 2024, several days later, that she received assurance. While this was only a matter of days, the Ombudsman appreciates that the situation was causing her worry and understands her disappointment that it did not respond when it said it would.
The landlord acted reasonably in arranging for an external company to conduct an ‘air test’ on 26 March 2024. While it had no concerns, it described this as a measure to bring ‘peace of mind’ for the resident. It said operatives attended on this date but were not granted access. It did not pass the cost of this on to the resident but would not reschedule. It was not the fault of the landlord that this appointment was missed and, given it had arranged this as a gesture of goodwill, its position is considered as fair.
Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports with regards its delay in responding to her concerns about asbestos, which caused her undue anxiety. It is recognised that the landlord subsequently sought to reassure her, going beyond the remit of its role in arranging for the air test, but it should have gone slightly further to fully redress the complaint. For the distress caused due to its delays, the landlord should apologise to the resident and offer £50 compensation.

Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

In escalating her complaint, the resident said that the landlord had misinformed her about the circumstances in which she could refer her complaint to this Service. This was in relation to an email it had sent acknowledging her initial complaint. Within this, it said this Service could only consider her complaint after 8 weeks, following a final response from the landlord. The resident was correct in highlighting that this was not accurate and that, as of October 2022, complaints come within our jurisdiction immediately after the final response has been issued.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident wished it to look at this as part of its final response. However, within this acknowledgement it reiterated that she must wait 8 weeks before referring her complaint to the Ombudsman and it did not address the issue within its response, to her frustration.
The resident raised this again with the landlord and it responded on 10 April 2024 confirming this had since been corrected. The Ombudsman is satisfied with the action taken by the landlord to address this issue.
In recognising that the landlord failed to address this in its complaint response, causing frustration to the resident, the Ombudsman finds service failure. It should apologise for this error in its wider letter of apology and offer £50 compensation for the distress caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould throughout the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Concerns about asbestos disturbance due to the leaks.
  2. Formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about leaks into the bathroom and under the sink.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 week of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation (£50 for complaint handling and £50 for its handling of the asbestos reports).
3. If it has not already done so, pay the resident the £2,000 previously offered for failings in its handling of her reports about damp and mould and leaks.
4. Allocate a dedicated officer as a single point of contact to oversee outstanding repairs.
5. Conduct an inspection to establish the scope of works required to eradicate the damp and mould and repair the doors. A schedule of works, including timescales, should then be shared with the resident.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is recommended to:
1. Reach out to the resident to establish what items have been damaged and support her in making a claim via its insurers, should she wish.
2. Ensure more detailed repair notes are kept making clear what action it has taken and where work is outstanding.
3. Remind the relevant staff/teams of the obligation, as set out in its repairs policy, to give adequate notification of appointments for works.