Southern Housing Group Limited (202227443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227443

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 March 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:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for repairs.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She occupies the property with her partner and two young children. The property is a two bed first floor flat. She moved into the property following a mutual exchange in March 2022.
The resident’s tenancy terms provide that the landlord must keep the structure and outside of the property in repair and proper working order. This includes:
1. drains, gutters, outside pipes, and the roof.
2. Outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames.
3. Inside walls, plastering (aside from minor cracking), floors, ceilings, doorframes, but not inside painting and decorating.
4. Chimneys, chimney stacks and flues, but not including chimney sweeping.
The landlord is also required to keep in working order any installations for water, gas, or electricity and for heating, hot water, and sanitation. The tenancy agreement states that repairs should be carried out within a reasonable time of receiving a report, and to a reasonable standard.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as ‘emergency’ or ‘non-emergency’ repairs. Emergency repairs are those which cause immediate risk to the health, safety and security of occupiers or visitors to the home, or immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures, and fittings. Examples of emergency repairs include water leaks, unsafe electrical fittings, and blocked main drains. These repairs must be carried out within 6 hours of being reported. No target response timescale is given for non-emergency repairs, with the policy stating that an appointment will be arranged ‘as soon as possible’. Its procedure allows for repairs to be prioritised where there is a resident with vulnerabilities or disabilities. As no timescale is given for routine repairs, a timeframe of 28 days is considered reasonable for the purpose of this investigation, in line with best practice.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Government’s Decent Homes Standard guidance says the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould are listed as a potential hazard.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says as part of the pre-exchange procedure, it will schedule an inspection of the property to assess the condition and identify any repairs needed. It will rectify any major repairs or safety issues for which it is responsible, and aware of, prior to the exchange taking place.
The landlord has a decant policy which provides that it will consider a decant where there is disrepair. This includes cases where there is damp. In initial communications with residents, it will consider a resident’s vulnerability. It says that a permanent decant may be considered for planned large scale schemes but may be considered for one-off moves.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 within 5 working days of it being made. It will then respond within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. Where a resident is dissatisfied with its complaints response, it can ask for a review of the complaint at stage 2 of its policy. The request must be made within 20 working days. The request will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a decision will be issued within 20 working days of this acknowledgement. If an extension is required at both stages, this will not exceed 10 working days. If this timescale is not possible to meet, it will provide referral rights to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s compensation policy details that it may make a compensation payment where there has been a service failure up to £50. It may pay compensation for delays or failure to complete a repair up to £50. It may also pay compensation for not following policies and procedures and for missed or failed appointments.
The landlord contracts out its repairs functions to a separate company, who raise repairs, arrange for some routine repairs to be completed and sub-contract out more specialist repairs on the landlord’s behalf. However, the landlord retains overall responsibility for repairs in its tenanted properties. Therefore, for the purpose of this report, references to ‘the landlord’ will include the company managing its repairs service.

Summary of events

On 22 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the terms upon which the proposed mutual exchange would go ahead. The landlord’s letter outlined repairs that it had agreed to do. This included repairing a hole in the roof, fixing the property’s thermostat, undertaking a mould wash, replacing the shed roof, resealing windows throughout the flat and repairing the kitchen worktop. The resident’s tenancy began just over a month later, on 28 March 2022.
The resident reported to the landlord on 22 April 2022, that the seals to the windows in her bedroom, lounge and entrance hall had blown, and that there was condensation between the glass panes.
On 20 May 2022, the landlord raised works to repair the damaged work tops, kitchen sink and adjoining worktop.
Contractors arrived at the resident’s property on 13 July 2022, to replace her kitchen units. However, as they had not arrived at the agreed time the appointment did not go ahead.
On 5 August 2022, an operative attended to fit the kitchen but did not have the worktops to install, so the job did not go ahead. The resident was told that the job would be rescheduled when the worktops were delivered, but no follow up appointment was raised. The resident chased this in November 2022, and works were undertaken in January 2023, however the resident reported that the works were completed to a poor standard.
On 14 September 2022, the resident reported that a wall above the door in the kitchen appeared to be damp. She was advised that this could be due to the hole in the roof and that an inspection would take place once the roof repair had been completed. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 29 November 2022, and noted that there was no visible damp on the walls, and they were reading dry on his humidity meter. The surveyor’s report concluded that no works were required.
On 9 December 2022, the resident reported again that the seals had blown in windows in the lounge and hallway. An inspection was raised for 11 January 2023.
In January 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that:
1. she had reported in March 2022 that the kitchen worktops and units required repair. The repairs were delayed, and the works undertaken in January were of a poor standard.
2. there was mould throughout her property, but particularly in her main bedroom.
3. there was still a hole in her roof.
4. window repairs remained outstanding.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 February 2023. She was informed that she would receive a response by 15 February 2023.
On 2 Feb 2023, the resident asked that the landlord address additional issues as part of her complaint:
1. She said that her shed roof had not been replaced.
2. The built-in bedroom cupboards were damp.
The landlord informed the resident on 2 February 2023, that a job to repair the roof had been raised and the contractors would be contacting her to arrange an appointment. Works had also been raised to repair the windows.
On 6 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its surveyor would be attending the property on 2 March 2023. On 10 February 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that she had found black mould in her baby’s cot.
Between 14 and 17 February 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the roof had been repaired and that there was an appointment for the kitchen works on 23 March. She was waiting for a date for a damp survey. On two occasions between these dates, she asked the landlord for an update on the window repairs and works to the shed roof.
On 15 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident that its stage 1 complaint response was delayed as it was waiting for information from its repairs team. It said that a response would be issued by 22 February 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 20 February 2023. It said that:
1. The works to the kitchen were completed in January 2023. However, as the resident was dissatisfied with the standard of work, this had been re-raised.
2. The resident first reported the roofing issue in September 2022. Roof tiles had been replaced and repairs had been undertaken to fascias above the doors. The resident has raised further roof issues in January 2023. Contractors had attended on 16 February 2023 and added a lead saddle to the roof.
3. The landlord was waiting for a quote from contractors about the shed roof. This had been chased and it was awaiting an outcome.
4. The resident had raised several issues with the windows and some repairs had been completed. The contractor would be visiting her to inspect the windows and carry out any necessary repairs.
5. The resident had first reported damp and mould in November 2022. The surveyor attended on 29 November 2022, and could not detect moisture in the walls. The surveyor was to attend on the 2 March 2023, to inspect the kitchen, roof, areas affected by mould and blown window seals. Thereafter, any outstanding jobs would be raised. The windows would also be assessed to determine whether they needed replacement, or if they could be repaired.
6. Contractors would be attending on 8 March 2023 to overhaul the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, to install a new vent in the rear bedroom, and to stain block the front bedroom.
7. Two additional jobs had been rebooked for 23 March (to fit insulated plasterboard in the bedroom) and 5 April (for damp specialists to attend and inspect the property).
8. £195 in compensation was offered as redress for the distress and inconvenience of the resident.
On 21 February 2023, the resident called the landlord to report that her son had to be taken to hospital with breathing difficulties, which she believed were related to the damp conditions in the property. She asked that her complaint be escalated to stage 2.
This was followed up in writing on the 22 February 2023 in which she said:
1. Her son was hospitalised on 19 February 2023 with severe croup. She believed that this was related to the black mould and damp conditions in the property. She had found black mould in his cot, and his room was very damp.
2. While the roof had been repaired, the rest of the works had yet to be carried out. She asked that her complaint be kept open until all repairs were completed to an acceptable standard.
3. She felt that the compensation offered was inadequate, given the length of time the issue had been ongoing, and the impact it had on her young family.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the same day. It said that its complaints panel would be meeting to review her complaint on 23 March 2023. It asked that any additional information in support of her request be provided by 15 March 2023. She would receive the outcome to her review on 6 April 2023.
On 15 March 2023, the resident provided the landlord with 27 pictures of the areas in her property that had been damaged by the mould and damp. She said that the electrician fitting the extractor fans had discovered a new hole in the roof, and that water was leaking through the living room ceiling.
Following the inspection on 2 March 2023, the surveyor raised works to inspect the loft on 25 April 2023.
The damp report, following the survey of 5 April 2023, concluded that there was insufficient ventilation and heating used in the property to reduce mould and condensation during the winter. It also observed that there were low thermal readings to external walls, particularly to the rear bedroom. It recommended works to install thermal insulation to the walls, and to the front bedroom walk-in cupboard.
On 13 April 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response which stated that:
1. The windows throughout the property were to be repaired and the contractors would be in contact with the resident to arrange this directly.
2. Kitchen repairs had now been completed.
3. It was waiting for a date for the shed roof repairs to be undertaken.
4. Affected areas had been treated with a mould wash.
5. The insulated plasterboard installation had been rebooked for 26 and 28 April 2023, as these works could not be completed on 23 March 2023.
6. New extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom had been fitted, as well as a plastic vent in the rear bedroom.
7. The loft area would be inspected on 25 April.
8. Information about how to pursue a claim with the landlord’s insurers was included with the complaint response.
9. Additional compensation of £50 was offered due to complaint handling failures. Its total compensation was £245 which comprised of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s inconvenience, and time and trouble, in raising the complaint.
  2. £15 for repeat visits to resolve repair issues.
  3. £15 for its failure to follow process.
  4. £15 for its repeated failures to respond to the resident.
  5. £100 for its unsatisfactory handling of the complaint
On 25 April 2023 the resident referred her complaint to this Service for investigation. She said that a contractor had attended her property and said that her whole loft needed to be insulated. Remedial works recommended by the damp specialist had not been raised to date. The landlord’s surveyor had told her that a heating specialist would be attending the property, but this had not happened either.

Post complaint

On 3 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to raise that several of the works remained outstanding including the sagging roof, insulation in the loft, missing shed roof, damaged mould covered windows, heating inspection, thermal insulation fitted, and that there was damp and mould in 3 storage cupboards. She asked to be moved given the condition of the property and its impact on her family. The resident has reported that the landlord had responded that the works required to the property did not necessitate a move.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord’s internal communications indicate that some of the works to the cupboard repairs were delayed due to the availability of operatives. Works were re-raised for 2 June 2023.
The landlord identified that works to insulate the roof were outstanding. This was chased again on 23 May 2023. The resident had reported finding more mould in her son’s cot at this time.
On 25 May 2023, works were raised for moss to be cleared from the resident’s roof so that any issues with tiles could be identified and resolved. Its repairs records logged that “The loft appears to be sweating and in need of better air flow, and damp insulation removed and replaced with new.”
On 30 May 2023, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and highlighted that the following repairs remained outstanding:
1. The kitchen fan was not working.
2. Mould had returned in the master bedroom.
3. Further works needed to be completed to finish plaster boarding the cupboards in the front bedroom.
4. There were repairs required to the windows in main bedroom, the front and back windows, and the hallway.
This was raised with the windows contractors and repairs team by the surveyor on 6 June 2023. Between May 2023 and August 2023, the landlord’s records show that there had been some progress with the works, but a number remained outstanding. The repairs to the windows were marked as completed between 16 and 22 June 2023.
On 13 June 2023, works were raised for contractors to supply access to the roof, clear moss, fit 6 vents, remove old insulation, and replace with new insulation. Contractors were due to attend on 28 July 2023, but the appointment did not go ahead. This was followed up on 27 September 2023. It was identified at this time that there were additional repairs with sagging of fascias and soffits in the bathroom. On 29 September 2023, further works were authorised for soffits to be removed and joists adjusted. However, these works were not undertaken when checked again on 7 November 2023.
On 11 October 2023, the resident contacted this Service to report further issues with damp and mould. Her husband had inspected the loft and said that there was still a hole in the roof. She also reported that the kitchen fan was not working, that the kitchen drawers had dropped soon after they were repaired, and that the worktop needed refixing.
In February 2024, the resident reported that a survey of her windows had been undertaken, and that the repairs to the windows had been unsuccessful. The windows were still draughty, particularly in her daughter’s room. The window seals were loose, and the room was very cold, even with the heating on. She had measured humidity levels in the room which were high, and her daughter’s bedclothes and soft toys were damp and smelled of mildew. While mould washes and stain blocking have been undertaken, the bedrooms continued to smell mouldy and musty.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Throughout the timeframe investigated the resident told the landlord that the mould in the property and the lack of action taken to address this, had led to her son having breathing difficulties. She said that he had frequent coughs and colds from when he was a baby.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her son’s health and notes the impact of damp and mould on one’s health is well documented. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould within the property and the resident’s son’s health. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this type of claim is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated. However, consideration has been given to whether the landlord appropriately assessed the resident’s and her households’ needs when handling the issues raised. This includes the landlord’s consideration of any vulnerabilities it was made aware of and how it factored these into its responses. Also, the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to them because of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. The landlord had recorded that the resident first raised issues relating to damp and mould in the property in November 2022. However, it is apparent from correspondence with the resident in February 2022 that mould had been identified in the property, and this was raised again by the resident in September 2022. Historical issues with damp in the property appear to be substantiated by the landlord’s repairs records.
The records confirm that there was a delay in the landlord undertaking an inspection of damp in the property. When the resident raised this in September 2022, it took the landlord a further 2 months and 16 days for a surveyor to attend to inspect for mould. This was because it wanted to repair a hole in the roof before it undertook the inspection.
The surveyor took appropriate action by measuring humidity levels in the one area identified by the resident to have damp, which did not reveal the presence of moisture. Given the history of property, and the recent repair to the hole in the roof however, it may have been reasonable for the surveyor to have taken a more thorough investigation by taking readings from other parts of the property. Thereafter, there have been many reports from the resident of damp and mould growth throughout the property. The first report following the surveyor’s attendance was around December 2022. An inspection took place in February, with a surveyor attending in March and a damp survey undertaken in April 2023. However, despite works subsequently being raised including mould washes, the installation of plasterboard in cupboards, stain blocking the affected areas and renewing extractor fans in the bathroom and the kitchen, the issue was not resolved.
While the landlord did arrange for a specialist damp survey in April 2023, the resident reported that the inspection undertaken focused on one room only and that the recommendations for works arising from the report were never undertaken by the landlord. The resident also said that the landlord had agreed to undertake a heating survey in the property but, to date, this had not happened.
Resolving an issue such as mould and damp at a property requires a collaborative and investigative approach and where an issue is complex and unresolved, a holistic one. The landlord did take appropriate action by, for example, arranging a damp survey and overhauling extractor fans. However, there is no evidence of attempts in this case to approach the issue methodically to identify the cause of the damp and eliminate other potential causes.
There were historical issues with damp at the property. Mould growth was reported throughout the home in December/January 2023 which became worse over time. It was identified that there was damage to the roof causing moisture ingress in the loft, the loft was inadequately insulated, the walls and built in cupboards were poorly insulated, windows were damaged, damp, and draughty, and ventilation was poor. The landlord appeared to take a narrow and short-term approach to addressing the problem, with repeated inspections, and jobs being raised without the issue being resolved. There were several issues that could have contributed to the damp conditions in the property, and the landlord’s approach in looking at these in isolation, prevented a timely resolution and led to a prolonged impact on the resident and her family.
Of particular concern to this Service is the lack of consideration the landlord had given to the resident’s reports of her child’s respiratory problems. The evidence provided to this Service establishes that the resident informed the landlord at the beginning of February 2023 that her baby has required hospital treatment for breathing difficulties. Photographic evidence provided to the landlord shows that there has been mould throughout the resident’s property, including on the baby’s cot bed. This Service has been provided with no evidence to show that, on receipt of this information, the landlord had assessed the risk to the health and safety of the household.
Irrespective of whether the landlord considered the property to be habitable, or that works could be undertaken with the resident and her family in occupation, given the concerns raised by the resident about the risk to her baby and the length of time she had been making the reports, it would have been reasonable to have considered offering the resident a temporary decant. This would have allowed the landlord access to fully investigate the damp and complete any repairs and would have provided reassurance to the resident that it was taking the matter seriously. The landlord’s records do not evidence that it had considered the possibility of a temporary or permanent decant with the resident at any stage. The resident has advised that she requested this in May 2023, but it had been denied. This was a failing, particularly as works to resolve the issue had not been successful and the resident reported in May 2023, that her baby was hospitalised again and that she had detected further mould growth in his cot.
When the resident enquired about rehousing in May 2023, she was advised that she could apply for a mutual exchange, she could apply to be on the Council’s housing register, or she could look for private rented accommodation. The suggestion of a mutual exchange was inappropriate, given that the resident sought to move due to the poor condition of the property. It would be unreasonable for the resident to mutually exchange a property that had not been fully investigated for any issues that could potentially be impacting the damp and mould conditions within the property.
The landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports in the property was, and continues, to be inadequate. It is evident that there was no sense of urgency on the part of the landlord to resolve the issue. This is of particular concern to this Service given the existence of a potential category one hazard (HHSRS) in the property and as there were vulnerable young children in occupation. The resident has continued to report issues with damp and mould however the landlord has responded by undertaking a mould wash and painting the walls, which seems untargeted at solving the ongoing damp problem in the resident’s property. The resident has also reported that this is only a temporary solution as the mould returns. The landlord’s lack of a proactive approach to the resident’s issues of damp and mould has clearly caused detriment to the resident and her family.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould – ‘it’s not lifestyle’ (October 2021) includes several recommendations that landlords should take to combat damp and mould in a property. It says that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. Landlords should communicate their diagnosis clearly with residents and provide a clear action plan and timetable for the work. Landlords must ensure that jobs are not closed before they are fully resolved. The landlord has used the Spotlight report to conduct a self-assessment and it has produced a damp and mould framework and standard operating procedure in 2023. This is a positive step which illustrates that the landlord has reviewed its approach to damp and mould. While the framework post-dates the resident’s complaint, the damp problem is ongoing, and this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has followed its procedure by taking urgent steps to prepare and implement an action plan for resolution.
Overall, the landlord repeatedly failed in its management and oversight of the investigation to identify the source of the problem. This was despite the resident consistently raising concerns the damp conditions were having a serious adverse effect on the health of her baby. The landlord’s cumulative failings are serious, having caused significant distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Its overall response, including the outstanding repair issues and the length of time that the resident has been experiencing these issues, warrants a finding of severe maladministration.
This Service has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as well as the length of time (to present day) that she has been reporting issues about damp and mould and loss of amenity for this period, in assessing compensation. This has been considered further below. Further, as the damp issue is ongoing, and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this, an order is made below to address this.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of additional repairs

Leak in the roof

The landlord had first identified that there was a hole in the roof in its pre-mutual exchange correspondence with the resident, dated 22 February 2022. This was just over a month before the resident moved into the property. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when initial works to fix tiles and fascias were undertaken, however it appears that this happened between the resident raising issues with damp and the roof in September 2022, and the surveyor’s inspection in November 2022.
However, this was raised again by the resident in January 2023. The landlord acted appropriately in undertaking works on 14 February 2023 however further issues were raised by the resident in March 2023. A further inspection took place in April and works were raised to remove moss in May 2023 but had not been completed by September and the resident reported another hole in the roof in October 2023 and ongoing problems since.
The resident had reported that there were holes in the roof several times over the period of a year. It would have been reasonable and likely, more cost effective, as an initial step, for the landlord to consider removing moss growth on the roof to locate any damage or structural issues. It could then undertake a full survey of the roof to identify all remedial works, including fitting adequate insulation. Instead, the landlord undertook patch repairs as they arose. This meant that issues went undetected, potentially resulting in further leaks and resultant damp and mould.
Overall, the landlord’s approach was ineffective. Although timely inspections were undertaken, the resultant works were ad-hoc and failed to resolve the issue, save for in the very short term. This caused detriment to the resident as the property remained cold and damp, and she was put to time and trouble in repeatedly raising issues with the roof. As, according to the resident, the situation is ongoing and it is unclear what action the landlord plans to take to resolve this, an order is made below to address this.

Windows

Between February and June 2023, the resident reported issues with blown seals in doubled glazed windows as well as defective window handles and latches. The previous resident had sealed windows with polyseal and there was mould growth around the seals. The landlord appeared to consider replacing the windows in December 2022, however since that date repairs were raised and undertaken in April 2023 and June 2023, but despite these works the problems were ongoing.
The resident had said that she must use some cardboard to close the window in her bathroom and to prevent draughts. She has said that the windows in her daughter’s bedroom remained draughty and consequently the temperature in the room was consistently low, even with the heating on. A window survey was completed on 8 February 2024, the outcome of which is not known to this Service. However, the resident maintains that the windows are beyond repair and require replacement.
It can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as windows, as part of a planned programme of works. Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord, as an initial step, to look at repairing rather than replacing the windows. However, when repairs undertaken on several occasions were ineffective, the landlord should have reviewed whether the windows should be replaced. In these circumstances, it is good practice for a landlord to obtain a second opinion from an independent surveyor with no previous involvement in the case. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging for a new contractor to inspect the windows and complete a condition report. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to have taken 7 months to arrange for a condition inspection, and attend to undertake repairs in the interim, when the resident continued to report that the repairs were ineffective.
Further, as the resident had reported concerns about the cold temperature in the property and the impact this may have on her and her family’s health, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered commissioning a thermal impact survey to assess the heating efficiency in the property to consider works to improve insulation. Overall, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord addressing the issue with the windows, which is still ongoing. This has had a detrimental impact on the resident and her family, not only as her home is cold and draughty but as she does not feel safe and secure in her home.

Kitchen units

The faulty kitchen units were also included as outstanding works in the landlord’s pre-exchange correspondence with the resident in February 2022. There was an initial delay of 3 months in the landlord responding to the issues raised, which was unreasonable.
Further, there were issues with operatives attending at unscheduled times, or without the correct supplies, and jobs not being re-raised. Works undertaken in January 2023 were to a poor standard. The resident was put to time and trouble having to chase these works. She was inconvenienced as she was without the full use of her kitchen for this period.
It was not until March 2023 that the works were completed with a post-inspection on 5 April 2023. The delay of 12 months in the works being undertaken was excessive, particularly where it would be reasonable for the resident to expect these repairs to be undertaken in 28 days.

Shed roof.

The resident reported this to the landlord in her complaint of the 2 February 2023. It is unclear whether the resident raised this as a service request in advance of this date. Irrespective of this, the shed roof was another repair that was listed as a repair the landlord would undertake in its letter to the resident dated 22 February 2022, in advance of the mutual exchange. This repair was chased a further six times by the resident between February and April 2023, with the landlord providing assurances that a job had been raised but with no progress. The resident advises that the roof was replaced in or around June 2023, four months after she had requested this, and 16 months after it had been on notice to do this. This delay was unreasonable, and the resident was put to time and trouble in chasing this up with the landlord.

Bedroom cupboards

It is evident from the landlord’s records that the issue with damp in the resident’s bedroom cupboards pre-dated her tenancy. The landlord should have been on notice, therefore, that this was a recurring issue and when raised again by the resident in February 2023, should have taken prompt action to address this. Works were raised in April 2023 to insulate the cupboards with boarding, to seal and then to plaster them. Despite operatives attending on approximately 9 separate occasions, the resident reports that the works were not completed. It was not until February 2024 that the plasterboard was skimmed and sealed. By this time, the resident had reported mould spores had covered the plasterboard. This is of particular concern as the cupboards are in the bedrooms, where her young children sleep.
The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the period under investigation was also inadequate. It did not explain the reasons for delays to works. If the delay was unforeseen, it should have considered what it could do at each stage to minimise the distress and inconvenience caused. In any case, having regular discussions with the resident would have demonstrated openness. The resident was left to contact the landlord herself for updates, which suggests she made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repairs. This should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
The resident’s case would also have benefited from increased scrutiny and oversight of the contractor’s activities. When scheduled repairs were not completed in 2023, the landlord missed opportunities to address this effectively with its contractors and put measures in place to prevent recurrence. There was also evidence of poor internal communication, which led to appointments being cancelled or not suitably prepared for.
The avoidable distress caused to the resident because of lengthy delays to repairs, poor communication, and workmanship, as well as the time and trouble she felt the need to invest in chasing this matter over a significant period, has resulted in a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman can reach this finding where there is evidence of significant failure or failings which have adversely affected the complainant.

Compensation

The landlord had offered £145 in compensation in relation to repairs, however, its offer of redress falls significantly short of recognising the impact on the resident. In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay additional compensation.
Therefore, in recognition of the amount of time these issues have been ongoing, and the impact on the resident and her household, compensation has been calculated as follows:
1. £680 for loss of amenity for the period 28 March 2022 to 22 January 2022 based on 15% of the daily rental amount.
2. 2020 for loss of amenity for the period 23 January 2022 to 21 March 2024 based on 30% of the daily rental amount.
3. £400 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, it is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account. These include aggravating factors which would warrant an uplift in compensation according to the Ombudsman’s remedies guide, such as the impact on a family with young children in the household.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. It took steps to confirm with the resident what her complaint was about and what outcome she sought. Where a response was delayed, the landlord agreed an extension in advance with the resident and provided the reasons for the delay. Where the landlord’s complaint response was delayed at stage 2, the landlord offered compensation for this service failure of £100.
It is noted, however, that the landlord’s response at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint procedure, while identifying service failure, did not resolve the issue for the resident and instead provided her with a list of potential dates for repairs to be completed. Where the resident escalated her complaint at stage 2, the landlord took the same approach and several of the works remained outstanding at the date of its response. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept the complaint under review pending the completion of the works, but this did not happen.
Further, the landlord failed to acknowledge the detriment that the resident and her family had experienced in any meaningful way. It failed to put things right for the resident or to identify lessons learned so that service failures would not be repeated.
The landlord’s offer of redress was perfunctory and the presence of vulnerable children in the household did not appear to be a factor in the landlord’s assessment of compensation.
For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. While redress had been offered, the compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient, given the failings identified by this investigation.

Compensation

The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £300 to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of additional repairs raised by the resident.
2. maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

There were unreasonable delays in raising works to address damp and mould in the property. When works were undertaken, they were poorly co-ordinated, and it took for the resident to raise these issues repeatedly for further works and inspections to be raised. The landlord did not show a commitment to resolving the damp issue in the property, as such the problem has persisted.
Several of the repairs raised by the resident had been identified by the landlord prior to the mutual exchange taking place. The resident therefore had a valid expectation that the works would be undertaken within a reasonable period. Instead, some of the issues remain unresolved after a period of 14 months and the resident raising them repeatedly with the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints handling was lacking. It failed to keep the complaint under review until the works were completed, and its responses failed to evidence that it had sought to “put things right” and “learn from outcomes”.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Arrange for the CEO to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified as part of this investigation.
2. pay the resident the amount of £3400 in compensation which comprises of:
  1. £2700 based on a calculation of loss of amenity for repairs and damp and mould as detailed above.
  2. £400 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, because of the landlord’s services failures regarding repairs.
  3. £300 in compensation for its ineffective complaint handling.
3. This replaces the landlords offer of £245. If this amount has already been paid to the resident, this should be deducted from £3400 ordered and the balance paid to the resident.
The landlord should review its actions in this case against its damp and mould framework and standard operating procedure and provide a copy of the review to this Service within 8 weeks.
The landlord should arrange for a specialist damp survey to be undertaken within 8 weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the report is to be provided to this Service.
The landlord should arrange for a roofing survey to be undertaken within 8 weeks of the date of this report. A copy of the report is to be provided to this Service.
Within 3 weeks of the date of the reports, the landlord is to prepare a schedule of any works arising from the reports and then confirm with this Service within a week of the works having been undertaken.
The landlord is to consider offering the resident a decant for the duration that is required to inspect the property and undertake any works arising and provide this service with a summary of its considerations and conclusion within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord should consider whether, having regard to presence of young children in the household, the condition of the property and the extent of any works required, any decant offered should be offered as a permanent move. The landlord should confirm its decision in writing to the Ombudsman and resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report, along with its reasoning.