Sutton Housing Partnership (202223502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223502

Sutton Housing Partnership

30 September 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:
1. Handling of reports of leaks at the property.
2. Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
3. Response to reports of issues with internal doors, windows and kitchen.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom flat where the resident lives with her 3 children and 2 year old grandchild. The landlord is a housing association and has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy explains that it is responsible for, amongst other things, the structure and the outside of the property, the roof, walls, drains, gutters, window glass and frames. It explains that an emergency repairs service will be provided 24 hours a day and all non-emergency repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints and resolution policy and procedure says that “issues which are, or there is threat that they may become a legal matter” are not subject to its complaints resolution procedure. It explains that a stage 1 complaint will be responded to within 10 working days of acknowledgement and that it will ensure all parts of the complaint are responded to. It also explains that a stage 2 response will be responded to within 21 working days.

Summary of events

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 9 November 2022. She told the landlord that she had been waiting 2 years for it to contact her about a new kitchen and said it had not completed repair work following a leak. She said:
1. She had lost flooring and furniture due to damp and mould at the property.
2. She had 8 years of, on and off, leaks at the property.
3. The internal doors were getting stuck due to rising damp.
4. She could not use all her kitchen units due to mice and leaks.
5. Her windows had gaps, were leaking from underneath and paintwork was damaged.
6. It had used her to go to court against another family and then placed her in danger by letter the family move back into the estate.
7. She had asthma and felt the landlord was treating her unfavourably in not completing the repair works.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2022 and said it would provide a response within 10 working days. On 30 November 2022 it said it would respond by 2 December 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint about an ongoing leak and damp and mould. It told the resident that its repairs team would attend to look at the leak and it would then assess the damp issues. It apologised for the delay and said it understood the stress the situation would have caused her.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 December 2022. She said it had not started any works and that she was given 2 dehumidifiers, 1 had leaked and the other tripped her electrics.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 January 2023. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint as its stage 1 response did not address all her complaint points. It explained this was an oversight from which it must learn. It said:
1. The resident had told it she was pursuing legal action and as such her complaint about damp and mould would not go through its complaints process.
2. Leaks and damp. It said these were very serious points raised. It said its contractor had raised works and would arrange dates with her to start works. It would then arrange for a follow up survey to identify additional works to resolve the damp and mould issues. It asked the resident to let it know of any issues with leaking pipes when its surveyor attended. It said pipes normally need a repair rather than replacement as pipes can last as long as the property.
3. Kitchen replacement. It said the property was not on a kitchen replacement program. Its surveyor would visit and assess the kitchen for repairs. It said it would consider an adjustment to the kitchen to fit a large fridge freezer as part of an apology.
4. Mice and leaks in the kitchen. It was pleased to hear the rodent issue had reduced. Its advice was to continue with baiting and consider using plastic food containers to store food items and “anything that might be a food source for mice. This tried and tested option helps as mice generally only go to areas where they will find food.”
5. Internal doors. It said the doors did have some swelling but were the responsibility of the resident unless damage was caused by something the landlord was responsible for. It said it was unable to determine this but would ensure its surveyor looked at the doors. It explained that when it attended it would consider whether the doors could be eased and adjusted to ensure they open and close easily.
6. Window issues. It said the issue was caused by crumbling walls around the skirting board area. It said works had been approved and a date was needed. In relation to gaps in windows, it said the windows were not on a replacement programme because they were not old enough. But if they were deemed unrepairable it would consider replacement via its repairs team. It said its surveyor would assess the condition and provide advice.
7. Court proceedings. It said the resident would have received an update on antisocial behaviour (ASB) matters on 16 January 2023. This was in response to a freedom of information request.
8. Most of the outcomes for the complaint relied on its surveyor’s visit. It said it would contact the resident to agree a date for the visit during the course of the week commencing 16 January 2023. It said a full and extensive survey would be carried out in all areas.
The resident raised a further complaint on 28 March 2024. She told the landlord that there were wet patches on walls, leaks and mould growth, her items had been damaged and said that the property was making her ill. She repeated issues with the windows and that it was “patching” up work instead of repairing. The landlord responded on 5 April 2024 and said the complaint could not be taken forward as the resident had threatened to take legal action.
The resident has told this Service that her living situation remains the same. She said the property continues to suffer from leaks and her items are damaged by damp and mould. She has explained the financial burden of replacing items and about the impact of her living conditions on her health. She also mentioned her ongoing concerns for her children and grandchild living at the property, in particular her daughter who is vulnerable and pregnant.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that her living conditions have had a negative impact on her physical and mental health. She has said she was healthy before she moved into the property and now has a lung condition and asthma. While the Ombudsman sympathises with the resident, it is important to explain that it is outside this Service’s remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or inaction, and the resident’s health conditions. However, within this report the Ombudsman has given consideration to the general distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Within the resident’s initial complaint she refers to an ASB matter that went to court. The resident has told this Service that the ASB matter relates to events that took place between 2015 and 2017. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be withing 6 months of the matters arising”.
In such circumstances the Ombudsman would expect the resident to have raised the ASB matter as a complaint within a reasonable time, 6 months of the issue arising. As such issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been considered within this report.
Within the resident’s communication with this Service she has mentioned further issues with the property and has described an incident with the neighbour from the property below. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions, or inaction, prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint, if required.

Handling of reports of leaks at the property

The resident has said the issues with leaks at the property have been ongoing since she moved to the property. What the resident has said is not disputed, however, from the evidence it is unclear when a leak was first reported.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of leaks at the property by no later than 9 November 2022. It took the landlord until 5 December 2022 to raise repair works and a further 2 months to complete work to the roof. It is unclear if this was the source of the leaks. The landlord took too long to raise and complete the repair which meant the resident had to repeatedly contact it about the impact of leaks, which included claims that the leaks caused mould growth on furniture. The timeframe of 3 months to address the resident’s reports of a leak was not in line with the landlord’s repair timeframes and was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it would arrange a follow up survey to identify additional works to resolve the issues at the property. There is no evidence to show the landlord did this, this was not appropriate.
On 4 December 2023 the resident told the landlord about another leak at the property. The landlord’s internal notes said it had asked an inspector to attend “a while ago” and was not sure if it attended. It is reasonable to assume, that the request for an inspector to attend was following completion of works in February 2023. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord conducted an inspection following this further report, this was also not appropriate.
The resident reported further issues with a leak, “wet patches” on walls on 28 March 2024 and pleaded for help from the landlord, telling it she “could not take anymore”. The landlord failed to take any meaningful action and on 5 April 2024 it told the resident that it could not progress her complaint as it was part of a “threat” of legal action. The landlord’s response here was not appropriate and its approach would have understandably added to the resident’s upset.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks at the property was not appropriate. While it acknowledged the issues were “very serious”, it failed to act in a timely way and failed to inspect the property when it said it would. Despite the resident’s pleas for help and telling it that she could not afford to keep decorating the property and replace furniture following leaks, the landlord acted in an unsympathetic manner which left the resident feeling it was treating her less favourably. The landlord’s repeated failings in its handling of leaks for at least 2 years, when it was aware of the impact this was having on the resident’s enjoyment of her home, was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.

Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property

The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of the resident’s report of mould at the property by no later than January 2022. It said its visit a few months before January 2022, found no “obvious” signs of mould and it would conduct another inspection. While the landlord completed a mould wash at that time, which was reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence to show it conducted a further inspection. This was not appropriate.
In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould had affected her flooring, furniture and her health. She told it how she could not put items near external walls or flooring as it would grow mould. She described “white fluffy” mould on her items. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about mould at that time. This was not in line with its wider obligations and was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it would assess the damp issues at the property. On 8 December 2022 the landlord acted appropriately in providing the resident with temporary dehumidifiers, especially in light of the resident’s health concerns. However, when the resident told it the dehumidifiers stopped working on 16 December 2022, it took the landlord until 28 December 2022 to provide a working dehumidifier. It then failed to provide a further dehumidifier when this stopped working the same day. This was not appropriate.
It took the landlord around 12 months, 22 December 2022, to visit the property to assess the damp and mould issues. This timeframe was not appropriate and demonstrates a failure to act swiftly when handling damp and mould, especially as the resident repeatedly told it about the impact of her living conditions. It is unclear if an appropriately qualified specialist conducted this visit. Following its visit, the landlord found there was damp at the property, issues with external walls and poor window installation. However, despite what its inspection found, and what the resident told it, there is no evidence to show the landlord completed work to the property at that time. This was also not appropriate.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord said its contractor would contact the resident to arrange start dates for work. Some work was completed in February 2023 which involved the removal of tiles and mastic to block a corner of a window. However, at that time it said more work was required and there is no evidence to show it completed further work to alleviate the damp and mould issues. This was not appropriate.
When the resident reported damp and mould again in June 2023, the landlord appropriately visited the property. The landlord has not provided details of its visit and as such it is unclear what it agreed to do following its visit. Similarly, when it was told of mould growth on furniture on 26 October 2023, it appropriately visited the property on 1 November 2023. However, it is unclear what it found during this visit and what its agreed approach was. The landlord completed a mould wash on 6 December 2023, while it was reasonable for it to do this in light of the resident’s repeated concerns, this was almost 2 years after its previous mould wash. This was not appropriate and demonstrates its failure to monitor damp and mould at the property.
The landlord completed a joint inspection of the property on 12 March 2024, this was part of the initial stages of a disrepair claim. The inspection made a number of recommendations and found black mould at the property. While the inspection recommended no further action for the black mould, the Ombudsman would still expect the landlord to satisfy itself that it was taking all reasonable steps to meet its wider obligations. The landlord missed a further opportunity to assist a vulnerable resident. This was not appropriate.
Overall, there were a number of failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property. It took the landlord 12 months to visit the property to assess the damp and mould issues. This did not reflect the urgency of the issues and meant it took 12 months to provide the resident with dehumidifiers. The resident had working dehumidifiers for approximately 9 days and the landlord failed to provide working dehumidifiers after this or explain why it could not. It took the landlord 14 months to complete some work at the property and when the resident reported the same issues, it failed to adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. However, the landlord did complete 2 mould washes between January 2022 and December 2023 but failed to consider alternative options or identify the complex case at an early stage. It did this despite the resident repeatedly telling it of her health concerns and of those of her family, which included a young child living at the property.
It is also noted that the resident repeatedly told the landlord about her belongings being damaged with mould and about bedrooms that could not be used. Despite what its compensation policy said about insurance claims, the landlord failed assess whether the resident’s claims should have been referred to its insurer. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failings here amount to severe maladministration.
The landlord’s repeated failings over a significant period of time would have had an adverse effect on the resident’s enjoyment of her home and her family life. Its decision to not address the resident’s damp and mould concerns as part of its complaints process exacerbated an already difficult and upsetting time for the resident. It remains unclear whether the damp and mould issues have been resolved.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact they had on the resident’s enjoyment of her home for a significant period of time. It is noted that the landlord’s compensation policy refers to £10 compensation a week for loss of use of bedrooms and living rooms. The Ombudsman has gone further than the landlord’s compensation policy as £10 a week is not proportionate or reasonable when considering the scale of its failings. It is unclear how long rooms were unusable, as such rent based compensation is not appropriate in these circumstances. However, the Ombudsman has decided a higher compensation amount is appropriate in recognition of the scale of the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact this would have had on the resident.
As such the Ombudsman has made an order for compensation that falls within the severe maladministration banding of our remedies guidance.

Response to reports of issues with internal doors, windows and kitchen

Internal doors

On 9 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that internal doors were getting stuck at the property. It took the landlord until its stage 2 response, on 16 January 2023, to provide a response in relation to the internal doors. It told the resident that it was unsure if it or the resident would be responsible for the door and its surveyor would assess this. The landlord did not conduct a survey at that time and failed to complete work to the internal door or explain why it would not, it did this despite accepting the doors had some “swelling”. This was not appropriate.
1. Windows
The resident raised concerns about windows in November 2022. Following the landlord’s visited on 22 December 2022 it said there was poor window installation in a bedroom. It took the landlord until its stage 2 response, on 16 January 2023, to explain its surveyor would assess the condition of the windows and provide advice. There is no evidence to show the landlord did this. This was not appropriate.
The landlord completed some work to the windows on 7 February 2023 and said more work was required. However, it has not provided evidence to show it completed further work to the windows or that an appropriate specialist inspected them at that time. The landlord’s lack of action was not appropriate and meant the resident had to repeat the same concerns.
It took the landlord a further year, January 2024, to conduct an inspection of the property, this found work was required to a bedroom window. The landlord took too long to do this and has not provided evidence to show it completed works to the window following the joint inspection either. This was not appropriate.
1. Kitchen
In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had been waiting for 2 years for it to respond to her query about a new kitchen and how she could not use the bottom cupboards in her kitchen due to mice and leaks. It took the landlord until January 2023 to investigate the resident’s concerns. This timeframe was not appropriate.
It is noted that around that time the resident told it that the mice issue had been resolved. The resident has repeated this to this Service explaining that the landlord continues to add bait in the area. With the evidence available, the landlord’s actions in managing the reports of mice was reasonable in the circumstances.
Within the landlord stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to assess the kitchen for repairs and told the resident that the kitchen was not on its replacement programme. It made a goodwill gesture in completing additional kitchen work. It is understood that the landlord has completed works to the kitchen, it is unclear when it completed this work, but its decision to do this in light of the resident’s concerns was reasonable.
Overall, the landlord’s response to issues with windows and doors was not appropriate. It took over 14 months to inspect the property, despite the resident’s repeated concerns about its condition, her vulnerabilities and the impact the situation was having on her and her family. It conducted an inspection as part of legal proceedings and has not provided evidence to show it has resolved the issue with the windows or informed the resident of its position in relation to internal doors. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s handling of concerns about the kitchen were reasonable and it is effectively managing the mice issue. This has been taken into account. However, the landlord’s repeated failings, in relation to the windows and doors, over a prolonged time would have adversely affected the resident and amounts to maladministration.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, the Ombudsman has considered the cumulation of the landlord’s failings for this aspect of the resident’s complaint along with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and has decided an amount within the maladministration banding is appropriate to recognise the impact of its failings.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 9 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 18 November 2022 and said it would respond within 10 working days. On 30 November 2022 it provided a revised timeframe of 2 December 2022. However, it failed to meet these timeframes and issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2022. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy and was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address all of the resident’s complaint points, which meant she had to repeat her complaints to it twice following its stage 1 response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 January 2023 and acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not address all the resident’s points. While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise where its stage 1 fell short, it still failed to meet the timeframes set within its policy. This was not appropriate.
Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it told the resident that as she was pursuing the legal route, the damp and mould aspect of her complaint would not go through its complaints process. It later referred to this as a “threat” of legal action. Section 1 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2022, applicable at that time, said an acceptable exclusion of a complaint could include instances where “legal proceedings have started. This is defined as details of the claim, such as the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, having been filed at court.”
The landlord was aware that the resident’s legal claim was at the initial stages and had not been filed at court. Its approach of not considering the resident’s complaint in light of what it knew and what the Code said, was not fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This would have understandably left the resident feeling frustrated especially as she told it she wanted it to complete repairs rather than compensation. The resident raised a further complaint about similar issues in March 2024. The landlord failed to adjust its approach and did not demonstrate insight into its previous missed opportunity to put things right.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It did not always adhere to its policy or the requirements of the Code. It failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within a reasonable time and when it did eventually respond it did not address all the resident’s complaints. It then failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and while its stage 2 response identified what it missed in its previous response, it took an unreasonable approach in excluding the complaint about damp and mould. It lacked insight into its failings and failed to address the impact its complaint handling would have had on the resident who pleaded for its support. The landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of leaks at the property.
2. Handling of reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of issues with internal doors, windows and kitchen.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to arrange for its chief executive, or appropriate equivalent, to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and a copy of the apology should be provided to this Service.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,000 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £700 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of leaks at the property.
2. £1,500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould at the property
3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to issues with internal doors, windows and kitchen.
4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, to arrange an inspection of the property to assess its condition and any outstanding repairs. An appropriate specialist should conduct this inspection. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should provide a copy of its survey report to this Service and the resident. It should confirm in writing:
1. If further work is required to the property. If so, it should explain what work is required and provide a schedule of works, including timeframes for completion.
2. It should explain how it will monitor if the work it completes resolves issues of leaks, damp and mould at the property.
3. It should detail any further support it will provide the resident in managing the internal condition of her property.
4. The support it has provided the resident in making a claim under its insurance policy for damage caused to her belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager. This should be within 12 weeks of the date of this report. The review should include (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified within this report occurred, with consideration to the vulnerabilities of the resident and her family.
2. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
  1. The findings and learning from the review.
  2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  3. The training it has implemented for its staff on complaint handling where resident’s have said they might start legal action.
3. The landlord should provide a copy of its report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints for scrutiny, if appointed. It should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementations of any recommendation made following the review.
4. The landlord should provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.