Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Stockport Homes Limited (202326592)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326592

Stockport Homes Limited

27 January 2025


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat. The resident reported to the landlord and this Service that he has mental health vulnerabilities, as well as breathing difficulties that cause him to use an inhaler.
  2. On 5 January 2023, the resident reported black mould in the property. The landlord tried to complete a mould wash on 10 January 2023, but the resident refused access. He said he wanted an inspection so the landlord could determine the cause of the mould.
  3. The landlord conducted an inspection on 21 February 2023. It raised various repairs on 20 March 2023. The repairs included mould washes, replastering a wall in the kitchen, repointing brickwork, remedial work to internal doors and renewing an extractor fan.
  4. On 19 April 2023, the landlord said it completed the required plastering work. Between 28 April 2023 and 13 June 2023, the landlord made numerous attempts to complete mould washes. However, the resident refused operatives access to complete them. The landlord completed the repairs to the internal doors on 25 July 2023.
  5. Following a further occasion of the resident refusing a mould wash, the landlord visited him on 3 August 2023. It followed up with an email to the resident, where it confirmed that it needed to do mould washes alongside other repairs. The resident said that he wanted the external work completing before it addressed the internal repairs. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 August 2023 and confirmed that it would complete the external repairs on 15 August 2023. However, the resident refused the work.
  6. The landlord acknowledged a complaint raised by the resident on 19 October 2023. However, this Service has not received a copy of or seen any supporting evidence of the content of the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord said that the resident’s complaint was about delays in resolving the damp and mould in the property. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to consider the repairs that he suggested.
  7. On 2 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It confirmed that it had rescheduled the external work for 24 October 2023, which the resident refused. The landlord said that the resident wanted paving slabs at the front of the property, and the property’s damp proof course checking. However, the landlord explained that as the ground level was below the damp proof course, it did not need to install paving, and it would have no effect on the interior of the building. The landlord had determined the required repairs to address the damp and mould, and the resident’s refusal to allow access to complete the work was likely contributing to the mould.
  8. The landlord reminded the resident of his obligations to allow access for repairs. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 3 November 2023. The resident was unhappy that the landlord could not guarantee that the damp and mould would not return. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not investigated his suggestions, and he said that the landlord wanted to complete mould washes “to disguise the root cause of the issues”.
  9. Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2024. It said that since issuing its stage 1 response, the resident had raised further concerns about the property condition. Therefore, the landlord conducted a further inspection on 13 December 2023, and it agreed with the resident for the required work to place in the new year. The landlord confirmed that it completed all repairs on 16 February 2024. It also agreed to complete the paving work as request by the resident, despite its view that it was not contributing to damp and mould. The landlord offered to complete a post inspection.
  10. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint when it should have. It said that it had implemented an improved system to ensure that it was less likely to happen in the future. It offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures.

Post internal complaints process (post-ICP)

  1. The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had installed new paving on 13 March 2024. It said that the resident had refused a post inspection of the internal repairs. The landlord confirmed that installation of an extraction fan remained outstanding. This was because the resident had refused access, therefore the subcontractor cancelled the job.
  2. The resident remains dissatisfied as he told this Service that there are still issues with damp and mould, and the repairs undertaken did not resolve the issues. The resident wants the landlord to do all repairs properly to resolve the issues, and to receive compensation due to the significant impact that the problem has had on his physical and mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident referenced in his communication with the landlord and this Service that the delays in resolving the damp and mould had affected his physical health and mental wellbeing. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these concerns, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s action (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health concern, the courts are able to rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or effect on health and wellbeing. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she should do so via this route.
  3. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstance. This Service will also consider the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s actions.

Damp, mould & repairs.

  1. Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
  2. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which places a statutory obligation on the landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of the property.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement states in paragraph 4.17 that he must allow the landlord and its contractors access to the property to inspect or carry out repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should “adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report notes that it is imperative that residents are not living with damp and mould for an extended period. If damp and mould is not dealt with at the earliest opportunity this will increase the frustration and discomfort of the resident and can lead to problems worsening and becoming more complex and intrusive to resolve.
  5. The landlord operates a dampness and condensation policy. It states that following a report of damp and mould, it will attend within 10 working days to complete an initial mould wash. It will also complete any minor related repairs. Should it identify any further necessary related repairs, it will refer them to its repairs service and attend in line with its repairs policy.
  6. While the repairs policy supplied to this Service does not outline repair timescales, the landlord’s website does. It states that it will address routine repairs within 30 working days of the repair being reported. With repairs that require multiple trades and/or multiple visits to complete, timescales will be dependent on the complexity of the work.
  7. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord attempted to complete a mould wash within 5 calendar days. This was reasonable and well within the timescales outlined within its damp and mould policy. This evidenced a willingness from the landlord to promptly alleviate any discomfort to the resident.
  8. Various repairs were raised on 20 March 2023. This was 20 working days after the initial inspection took place. While there would be no expectation for the landlord to complete routine repairs within that timeframe, it would have been reasonable for it to raise the repairs sooner. There is no evidence to suggest why the landlord delayed raising repairs. This was a shortcoming.
  9. The landlord and contractors failed to gain access to the resident’s property on 3 occasions between 28 April 2023 and 13 June 2023 to complete mould washes and repair works. It tried to complete a mould wash again on 3 August 2023, which the resident refused. The resident is obligated in line with his tenancy agreement to allow access to the property when required for inspections, repairs and maintenance. The reasons that the resident declined access are understood. However, based on the evidence provided, the landlord tried to support the resident on multiple occasions to complete the necessary repairs.
  10. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out the required works in a timely manner. Therefore, this Service cannot find the landlord at fault for all the delays that occurred in completing the repairs.
  11. Following a further inspection where a mutual agreement was reached about repairs, the landlord obliged with the resident’s request to be informed of future appointments. This was appropriate. However, the resident refused access. The landlord is limited in action it can take to complete repairs when it is unable to gain access to the property, and its failure to undertake repairs on that occasion is not a failing of the landlord.
  12. This Service is aware that the resident was unhappy that the landlord was not taking on board his suggestions regarding what repairs and work was needed to resolve the damp and mould. However, the landlord appropriately explained its reasons as to why it did not need to complete the suggested work. The explanation was thorough and reasonably managed the resident’s expectations. While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s decisions, it is entitled to rely on the qualified opinion of its staff and contractors.
  13. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord could not guarantee that damp and mould would not return. Given the environmental factors that can contribute to damp and mould, and are outside the landlord’s control, it was reasonable and managed the resident’s expectations that it was unable to provide that guarantee. Repairs that cannot be reasonably foreseen may also arise that can cause or contribute to damp and mould. However, the landlord committed to investigating all reported issues and working with the resident to resolve any problems. This was appropriate and promoted a positive landlord/tenant relationship.
  14. Overall, the landlord took positive steps to resolve the resident’s reports of damp and mould and complete the associated repairs. It consistently tried to gain access to the resident’s property and engaged with him meaningfully when met with dissatisfaction at the course of action it intended to take. While the initial delay in raising repairs was due to a shortcoming of the landlord, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the delays in undertaking repairs were not due to a failing of the landlord.
  15. Subsequently, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
  3. The landlord has not supplied a copy of the resident’s initial complaint. It is not known how the resident raised his complaint. The landlord should have ensured that a clear and accurate record of the resident’s complaint was kept – irrespective of how it was made. That the landlord did not keep such a record is a shortcoming and highlights a flaw in how the landlord records complaints. Nevertheless, the resident did not dispute the content of his stage 1 response and there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s interpretation of the resident’s complaint was incorrect or inaccurately reflected in its response. As such, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord’s record keeping omission was the cause of detriment to the resident. While not a failure on this occasion, the landlord should reflect on this and ensure its recording system for complaints is thorough. All stages of a complaint should be recorded, accessible and readily available to landlord staff and the Ombudsman when required.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023; 11 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate. While we have not had sight of contemporaneous evidence relating to the complaint, the landlord’s response was detailed and thorough. This was positive.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 November 2023. In accordance with its complaint policy, the landlord should have issued its stage two response by 30 November 2023. The Code states that any delays in providing a complaint response must not exceed an additional 10 working days without good reason.
  6. This Service intervened on 1 March 2024 and instructed the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. It is not expected that this Service should need to intervene to ensure a landlord’s compliance with the Code, and its own complaint policy. The resident needed to take the time and trouble to bring his complaint to this Service for intervention, which was unreasonable and caused him inconvenience.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2024; 89 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day timescale expected and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delayed response. This is not proportionate redress given the delay the resident experienced.
  8. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on him. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, this Service has reached a finding of service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the associated complaint handling.

Order

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, consisting of:
    1. £100 offered to the resident previously, if this has not already been paid.
    2. An additional £50 in recognition of the distress, frustration, time and trouble endured by the resident in pursing his complaint.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above order.