Southern Housing (202300899)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300899

Southern Housing

29 November 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 reports of:
1. Mould.
2. Damp and flooring.
3. Silverfish infestation.
4. Damaged personal possessions.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a flat.
The resident complained to the landlord on 17 May 2022 about its response to her reports of damp and mould. She believed the landlord’s contractors had not reported the accurate condition of the mould and asked for the landlord to take steps to resolve it for good.
On 24 May 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It explained:
1. It contractors attended on 2 March 2022 to carry out a mould wash.
2. They reported there was mould in the bathroom and bedroom. There were also cracks in the ceiling of the kitchen which had worsened since their last visit.
3. A further job was raised on 21 March 2022 and it was reported back there was minimal mould and the resident should monitor the mould.
4. An inspection was booked for a supervisor to attend on 28 April 2022, however it could not locate a copy of the report.
5. A mould wash was carried out on 17 May 2022 however, as the resident advised she worried the mould would return, a damp and mould surveyor was booked to attend on 26 May 2022.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It apologised, said that it had taken learning to make service improvements in managing damp and mould, and acknowledged the following failures:
1. Delays from 8 December 2022 to 26 January 2023 when the specialist surveyors were approved to proceed with the inspection.
2. The flooring in her daughter’s the bedroom was not installed until 7 March 2023.
3. The damp and mould had historically been treated with continual mould washes and a permanent remedy sought.
4. The management of the quotations and approval requests from itself and contractor were factors which contributed to the delays.
5. The lack of communication from itself and contractors resulted in the resident making repeat calls and emails,
6. There were repeat visits from its contractor and surveying team before a resolution was considered.
The landlord offered £1,206.17 in compensation calculated as:
1. £476.17 for Loss of the use of the bedroom from May 2022 to 6 March 2023.
2. £600 for discretionary payment for inconvenience.
3. £80 for service failures including complaint handling delays, repeat visits and poor communication.
4. £50 for repair delays.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord paid the resident this compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that damp and mould affected her property for 7 years.
Paragraph 42.a. and 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
2. were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising
On 3 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to explain the damp and mould returned 3 months after the landlord completed works in March 2023. However, she did not report this to the landlord at the time due to the distress it had previously caused her.
This Service is unable to investigate the resident’s historic reports of damp and mould as the events occurred over 12 months before she formally complained to the landlord. Additionally, this Service can only investigate complaints which have been formally made to the landlord and completed its formal complaints procedure. The resident’s repair history shows that the damp and mould was reported by the resident as far back as March 2021, however there were no further reports of this until March 2022.
Whilst we note the resident’s comments about earlier damp and mould concerns, this investigation will begin from when the resident reported damp and mould in March 2022 and until the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 March 2023. This is because these are the concerns that formed the basis of her complaint to the landlord in March 2022, and this is the period that it considered in its complaint responses. Should the resident be dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould since she reported new concerns in June 2024, she may wish to make a new formal complaint.
The resident states the damp and mould caused an impact on her family’s health. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters such as the impact on health, as this is not in this Service’s expertise and jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its dispute resolution principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.

Mould

The landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in her property on 10 March 2022 was to arrange an inspection. The repairs history provided by the landlord is unclear on the date of the inspection, however the evidence confirmed a mould wash of the property was completed by 22 March 2022. This was an appropriate response. The landlord had not received a report of damp and mould for approximately 1 year, therefore it was reasonable to provide a wash and monitor its effectiveness.
On 5 May 2022, the resident reported the mould returned. A second mould wash was carried out on 17 May 2022. On 27 July 2022 a third mould wash was requested and completed on 1 August 2022 and a further mould wash was completed in October 2022. While the landlord’s repairs policy was silent on the timeframe for a resident to expect the landlord to respond to repair reports, the evidence suggested it did not unreasonably delay its response and completed the mould washes within a reasonable timeframe. This was good practice by the landlord.
While the resident grew frustrated by the regular mould washes which took place and wanted a different resolution, it was good practice from the landlord as smaller remedial works such as mould washes and anti-mould paint could improve the resident’s living environment, while it awaited a survey to plan on next steps.
The resident informed the landlord that she was worried the mould would return. The landlord initially arranged for a damp and mould surveyor to attend on 26 May 2022. However, the resident reported the surveyor did not attend and the mould had returned. While mistakes can happen, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not follow up with its surveyor to request the survey findings or to contact the resident to obtain an update on the mould in the property. This suggested the landlord did not take its responsibility to inspect and monitor the mould growth seriously. It should have been proactive rather than waiting for the resident to provide a further update. This was evidence of a service failing.
The damp and mould survey did not take place until 7 September 2022. The resident continued to report the damp and mould was returning, despite her own efforts to clean the mould. On several occasions she requested an update on the landlord’s next steps. It was unreasonable she had to wait approximately 3 months for the survey to be rescheduled and chase the landlord. The landlord did not treat the resident reasonably or manage her expectations on its planned next steps. This was evidence of a service failure.
The survey confirmed the cause of the damp and mould was due to condensation and lack of ventilation. It recognised the need to improve ventilation, where the resident was keeping the property warm. It recommended installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit. The landlord agreed to the recommendations and installed the unit on 23 November 2022. It also discussed ways to reduce condensation in the home with the resident.
In addition to the survey recommendations, the landlord agreed to complete further works to:
1. Treat mould around the bathroom
2. Repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.
3. Re-seal areas of the wet room allowing in insects.
4. Seal upstand around wet room wall.
5. Strip wall in bedroom and treat of mould (1 wall).
6. Treat mould around internal face of external door frame and internal doors.
7. Paint affected areas with anti-mould paint following treatment.
The landlord acted appropriately to follow the recommendations and improve the ventilation in the property. It also completed further repairs and took its responsibility to address the mould seriously after the survey was completed. While there was a delay of approximately 2 months to complete all works, a landlord email dated 10 November 2022, confirmed the resident would not allow these works to be completed by the contractor until the landlord addressed the silverfish infestation. This delay was therefore understandable as it could not gain access to complete the works.
This Service recognises there were additional works being carried out to the floorboards and to address damp in the property after the landlord completed its repairs and installation of the PIV unit. It was therefore reasonable for it to wait for completion of all works to understand their effect on the mould in the property.
While there were delays to arrange the damp and mould survey and poor communication with the resident, which would have resulted in a finding of maladministration, the landlord offered £600 for the inconvenience caused. This was reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman may award in similar circumstances.
The landlord also offered £50 for its repair delays and £80 for its communication, complaint handling and repeat visits. Whilst the landlord had taken steps towards putting matters right, its compensation for its communication failings with the resident was below what would be appropriate to fully recognise the impact on her. The communication failures resulted in a delay to complete a damp and mould survey which delayed the case as whole, causing the resident time and trouble. The landlord’s handling of the mould was therefore service failure. An order has been made for further compensation to be paid to the resident.
The resident reported she still experienced mould in the property since the landlord’s stage 2 response. This service has made a recommendation the landlord completes a further inspection and progresses the resident’s concerns under its new damp and mould action plan.

Damp and flooring

On 21 October 2022, the resident was concerned her floorboards in her daughter’s bedroom were damp and mouldy. She believed this caused an infestation of silverfish. On 15 November 2022, the landlord agreed to replace the resident’s flooring in her daughter’s bedroom. However, it explained the flooring was inspected during the damp and mould survey on 7 September 2022 and was in good condition. The cost therefore needed to be covered by the resident. It eventually agreed with the resident to cover the cost in lieu of compensation which may be payable to her. While the flooring in the property was not within the landlord’s responsibilities to repair, it showed willingness to assist in resolving the resident’s concerns by finding a solution she was happy with. This was good practice by the landlord.
The landlord’s evidence confirmed it arranged for its contractor to replace the flooring however, it identified a black substance which needed further inspection when removing the floorboards. On 8 December 2022, the landlord arranged a damp survey of the flooring. Its surveyor found no concerns with damp on the subfloor however, they believed it would be appropriate for a specialist building consultant to inspect the black substance of the subfloor for damp. On 31 January 2023 the landlord’s consultant confirmed the flooring and concrete sub-floor was dry. The landlord did not lay the new flooring until 7 March 2023.
The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances to conduct further specialist inspections, which showed it listened to the resident’s concerns and treated her fairly. The resident understandably wanted the flooring to be replaced as soon as possible and contacted the landlord on a regular basis during this period. However, on 20 December 2022, 3 and 18 January 2023 the resident and her representative were advised of the delays while it found a specialist to ensure it was safe. This was evidence the landlord communicated reasonably with the resident while it awaited completion of the surveys. It also shared the findings of the surveys with her. The landlord treated the resident reasonably.
There were additional issues with communication around the installation of the flooring and delays caused by the landlord’s efforts to find a contractor to complete the works. However, the landlord did apologise and acknowledged in its stage 2 response, that its communication had been unreasonable where delays occurred when trying to find a contractor. It offered £417.76 compensation, for the time her daughter did not use her room from May 2022 and £600 for the inconvenience it had caused. This was good practice and proportionate to recognise the impact of the failings identified.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of compensation in recognition of the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp was reasonable redress which resolved this part of her complaint.

Silverfish infestation

On 26 July 2022, the resident reported sightings of silverfish and provided photographs. She said they were coming from the floorboards. The landlord also arranged to replace the floorboards in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom on 15 November 2022.
The date of treatment of silverfish is unclear from the evidence however, it was confirmed to have taken place between 21 October 2022 and 16 November 2022. The resident explained she continued to suffer from the infestation. However, on 7 November 2022 the landlord’s pest control team advised the resident that 1 treatment was enough and it needed to give a reasonable length of time to ensure the product applied could take effect. The landlord was reluctant to complete further treatment when there were other measures being put in place, including the PIV unit and replacement of the floorboards to reduce the moisture in the property. It was expected these improvements would help to remove the silverfish.
While the resident had to use her own cleaning products to address the silverfish infestation, it was her responsibility to manage the infestation as part of the landlord’s pest control policy. Silverfish were considered a low–level pest problem and did not cause a health and safety risk under the policy. It was also reasonable for the landlord to follow the advice of its pest control team, in addition to waiting for all the measures put in place to assess whether it had been successful in treating the infestation.
The landlord’s actions to help in the elimination of the silverfish showed the landlord was proactive and wanted to reduce the distress caused to the resident and her daughter, despite its policy limitations. This was good practice. It was not unreasonable to refuse completion of a further silverfish treatment on 3 March 2023. The landlord’s handling of the silverfish infestation was no maladministration.
This Service does appreciate the resident has been treating the infestation herself with a chemical and says the silverfish are still present. While this Service appreciates it is not the landlord’s responsibility to treat this matter further, a recommendation has been made for it to inspect and monitor the damp levels in the flooring and consider whether a further treatment could be provided to address the issue.

Reimbursement of damaged personal possessions

The resident asked the landlord to reimburse her for damaged personal possessions. Its stage 2 complaint response explained it was the resident’s responsibility to purchase contents insurance and it would not reimburse her.
This Service recognises the financial impact caused to the resident by damage to personal possessions. However, the items did not fall within the landlord’s insurance procedure to make a claim from its liability insurer.
The resident’s tenancy agreement required the resident to purchase her own contents insurance for cover in the event of damage to her personal possessions. While we sympathise with the resident’s situation, the landlord followed its policy in refusing to reimburse the resident.
The landlord acted reasonably to refer the resident it its community investment team to discuss possible ways they could help with obtaining grants to replace essential furniture in her home.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of damaged personal possessions.

The associated complaint

The resident continued to report concerns with the landlord’s handling of the repairs after its stage 1 response dated 17 May 2022. While it advised the resident of the escalation process in its formal response, there was no evidence the resident formally requested her complaint was escalated to stage 2 until 18 August 2022. However, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
The landlord should have recognised sooner that the resident was dissatisfied with its handling of the damp and mould after she continued to report her concerns following the stage 1 response. It should therefore have discussed escalation of the resident’s complaint with her. This was evidence of a complaint handling failure and did not uphold The Code.
The landlord’s complaint policy required it to provide a response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It did not provide its stage 2 response until 10 March 2023. This was a delay of approximately 7 months. Its response times were significantly outside of its own complaint policy timescales and the timescales set out in The Code.
The landlord did not recognise the impact caused to the resident and that it had left her in the complaints process without a clear timeframe for a resolution since 18 August 2022. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint was unreasonable and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was maladministration.
While it was good practice to apologise to the resident for its complaint handling delay and offer compensation, the compensation was part of an overall amount to recognise additional service failures for delays and communication during the case at £80. It is unclear how the landlord apportioned this money. However, the sum was not adequate to recognise the failings in its overall complaint handling. A further order for compensation has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of silverfish infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damaged personal possessions.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. A senior manager of the landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. In addition to its £1206.17 compensation already paid to the resident, it should pay the resident a total of £500 compensation comprising of:
  1. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor communication in respect of its actions regarding the mould.
  2. £400 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

In response to the resident’s reports the damp and mould are continuing to affect her, the landlord should:
1. Inspect and monitor the damp levels in the property and flooring. It should also consider whether any further actions can be taken to resolve any damp and mould.
2. Consider what further steps it can take to advise or assist the resident in managing the silverfish infestation.