The Guinness Partnership Limited (202410678)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410678

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

31 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. The temporary alternative accommodation.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bed basement flat with an external stair lift, owned by the landlord. The resident is vulnerable, she has an extensive list of health and wellbeing issues. These include, mobility problems following spinal surgery, chronic pain, asthma, reoccurring respiratory infections and mental health issues. She lives with her adult son who she says has Asperger’s Syndrome.
The resident is represented by her daughter in bringing the complaint to the landlord and this Service. For convenience, the daughter and the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
The resident’s property has had an ongoing problem with the drainage and damp and mould. In August 2023, the landlord inspected the property and determined that extensive works were needed.
On 15 May 2024, the resident made a formal complaint. She said she had been advised that she would need temporary accommodation for an unknown period while the works to her property were completed. She said this was not appropriate with her physical disabilities and her diminishing health. She said she had previously discussed the difficulties of moving to temporary accommodation on her condition with housing staff and that she wanted a permanent move. As a result, her medical housing priority had been reassessed. This had recently come back at band C, which she wanted to appeal.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 June 2024. It acknowledged that there had been delays in progressing the remedial work, for which it apologised. It had arranged a meeting with her for 12 June 2024. This was to agree a the temporary accommodation process that would cause minimal disturbance to the resident. It explained the medical assessment was completed by an independent organisation and apologised if the assessment had not included all the relevant information. It identified a single point of contact for her and offered her £150 compensation for delays in the work being carried out and £150 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated her complaint. She did not think the landlord had acknowledged the extent of the neglect and amount of time she had lived with damp and mould and the sewers flooding her property. She said it had ignored the implications of the damp on her physical and mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 July 2024. It said it was not possible to fully address the damp and mould with the property occupied. The meeting with her had reached no resolution as the damp and mould were linked. It noted she was no longer prepared to take a 2-bed property; she wanted a 3 bed. It proposed a further face-to-face meeting to discuss options and the next steps. It acknowledged a delay in re-submitting the information for the medical assessment, but this had been done and it was awaiting the outcome. It would monitor her case to resolution.
Since the final stage response, the landlord has offered the resident 2 temporary accommodation properties and hotel accommodation. She did not consider any of them suitable for a variety of reasons. The medical assessment on the type of accommodation suitable for the resident was re-assessed October 2024.
The resident approached this Service because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she was living in a property with damp and mould and felt the landlord should promptly offer her a permanent move.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint was that living with the damp and mould in her property and the landlord’s delays in resolving it had contributed to a negative impact on both her physical and mental health.
The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the cause of damage to health and wellbeing. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), personal injury claims are better dealt with by a court. This is because the courts can consider medical evidence from an independent medical expert and listen to oral testimony. As such, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not form part of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman will consider any general distress and inconvenience the situation caused the resident.
On her request for a permanent move, the landlord referred the resident to her Local Authority (LA) to make a transfer application on the housing needs register (HNR). Part of the resident’s complaint was that she was unhappy with this outcome, which was that the LA had determined she was a housing priority band C.
The local authority’s decision was not made by the landlord; therefore, we cannot consider it as part of this investigation. The resident would need to make a complaint about the LA’s decision directly to it about its banding decision.
The resident has advised this Service that the damp and mould issues have been ongoing since she moved into the property in 2000. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident’s made her formal complaint to the landlord on this issue on 16 May 2024. While her complaint referenced experiencing problems as far back as the start of her tenancy, the primary issue in her complaint related to the landlord’s lack of action following a damp survey completed in August 2023. This investigation will therefore consider matters from this date, which is within 12 months of the complaint, and not as far back as 2000.

Damp and mould

The landlord has repairing obligations for its rented properties, under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property (including drains, gutters and external pipes).
In accordance with section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords should ensure the properties they rent out are fit for human habitation. A property could be considered unfit because of damp and mould or water and sanitation problems.
All repairs should be carried out within a reasonable time. The landlord has set out in its repairs policy, target timescales for responding to the various category of repairs. For non-emergency repairs it has set a target of 20 working days. It also states where the problem is not easy to identify, it will carry out a full survey of the property.
The repair records show that, the resident reported damp and mould in the property on 25 August 2023. In accordance with its statutory repairing obligations and its repair policy commitments, the landlord raised an order for a damp inspection. Its contractor attended on 31 August 2023. A copy of the damp inspection report was not provided. However, in a summary of the works needed it stated that it would install a damp proof course (DPC), clear the chimney breast, remove plaster, and apply waterproof render and areas of dry lining. This was an extensive list, indicating a significant damp problem.
The resident is extremely vulnerable. She has extensive medical problems that affect her mobility and a very complex set of needs. She is reliant on a large mobility scooter for external use and an electric wheelchair internally or the limited use of crutches. She also has significant mental health problems, with a history of self-harming and attempts at taking her own life. She has asthma and has been experiencing reoccurring chest infections. Earlier in the year, she ended up hospitalised and in the intensive care unit. More recently she has been referred for tests for bowel cancer and currently relies on stoma bag.
While damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly, it is particularly important that damp and mould is addressed with urgency for the groups more vulnerable to significant health impacts. These include people with a pre-existing health condition (for example asthma, COPD, other lung diseases and cardiovascular disease) who are at risk of their condition worsening and have a higher risk of developing fungal infections and/or additional allergies. People who are living with a mental health condition, mobility problems or are housebound and have more difficulties getting out of a home with damp and mould and into fresh air.
Government guidance on the health impacts of damp and mould advises that people who fall into more than one of the above categories are likely to be particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of damp and mould. Landlords should not delay action to await medical evidence or opinion.
Despite the landlord identifying the necessary works in August 2023 and drafting a full schedule of works for damp-proofing on 22 December 2023, there is no evidence of any work beginning between then and May 2024, when the resident made her complaint. No explanation was given to the resident for the delay. Considering that she was at a higher risk of the impact of damp and mould and its policy response time to non-emergency repair was 20 working days, this was not reasonable.
The resident said in her formal complaint that she had been advised that she would need to be temporarily rehoused for the landlord to address the damp and fix a drainage problem in her home. She advised she was too ill and frail to move temporarily and had requested that she be moved permanently to an appropriate property. When she previously raised this with the landlord, she said she was advised to get her medical and housing need re-assessed as she had a low priority to move. She wanted to appeal the new band C reassessment. She said this was not a high enough priority to move and that it had not considered all the medical evidence she had provided.
There was no indication in the landlord’s records prior to the complaint that it had discussed the need for the resident to be temporarily moved. There is an expectation that it would have correspondence and file notes depicting the terms of the temporary accommodation, how long for, what the offer would be, and what help it might provide her with. There was none, which was not appropriate and indicative of poor record keeping and poor communication.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 June 2024 acknowledged the delay in the work outstanding, which it put down to the need to “clarify internal processes” and the re-arrangement of appointments. This did not adequately explain a 9-month delay for such a high-risk case.
Neither was there any evidence given by the landlord of interim measures being taken to alleviate the risk to the resident. These could include regular mould washes, a review of the extraction systems, or provision of dehumidifiers, until the major works could begin. There is evidence of only 1 mould wash since the problem was identified, completed recently on 28 October 2024. It should have considered doing this much sooner.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did, however, show that it now understood the urgency and complexity of the situation. It proposed a multi-service meeting with its internal teams, from housing, damp and mould and complex works, to plan the next steps with the resident. The aim was to ensure a successful move into temporary accommodation with the minimum disturbance and upset to her. This was arranged for 12 June 2024, which could have been done at the time when the issues became apparent.
The landlord had taken lessons from the resident’s complaint. It advised that it had since clarified its internal process for work approvals. It now ensured that any quotes related to damp and mould cases are first reviewed by its damp and mould surveyor to ensure timely approval. This was appropriate, a key aim of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is to learn from complaints and make service improvements.
The stage 1 response also explained to the resident that an impartial, independent body carried out the medical assessment with clinical knowledge and reasoning. As such, it could not appeal the decision. It suggested she re-submits her application to ensure all the appropriate medical information was considered.
In acknowledgement of its service failings, the landlord offered the resident £300, comprising £150 for delays in the work being carried out and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The multi-service meeting with the resident was moved by 1 day to 13 June 2024. The meeting was pivotal in the landlord putting things right and agreeing a way forward. As such, there was an expectation that it would fully minute discussions. Key issues like possible actions in relation to the decant, duration of the works and whether a permanent or temporary move had been agreed, should have been decided and recorded. An action plan of next steps, timescales and responsibility for actions and communication should also have accompanied this.
It was not clear from the records what the meeting outcomes were. The only notes available related to what the resident had disclosed. This included wanting a permanent move and that it was not feasible in her current state of health to move more than once. It recorded that she would downsize to a 2 bed from the 3 bed she currently occupied. She had recently been hospitalised and was very stressed and fragile. Having no minutes of key issues, decisions or actions was a failing. It was also a missed opportunity for managing resident expectation.
With her stage 2 escalation to the landlord, the resident submitted a medical letter of 17 June 2023 which outlined her deteriorating health. It stated that the damp, mouldy living conditions were exacerbating her re-occurring chest infections, and she was now so frail she could not get in or out of the bath. The landlord arranged a meeting with the resident to discuss her complaint. It provided no file notes from this meeting, so what it discussed is unknown.
The landlord’s stage 2 response 19 July 2023 highlighted that it was not possible to fully address the damp and mould issues while the property was occupied. A temporary move was necessary to undertake the work, which was discussed at the recent meeting. It said that they “seem to have reached an impasse as the decant and damp and mould issues are linked”. The landlord had identified that major works were needed. It could not commence work until the resident was offered temporary accommodation and at that time, the resident considered the properties offered unsuitable.
The landlord proposed a face-to-face meeting with the repairs surveying manager, who was leading on the damp and mould work, and the senior housing service manager, whose team was leading on alternative housing options and the support it could provide. This was a reasonable proposal, but no evidence has been provided to show that the meeting took place, or any outcomes, if it was held.
There is no evidence of any actual mould removal action from February 2022 until October 2024, which was after the stage 2 decision. In light of this, although the landlord’s actions after the complaint went some way to remedy its failings, there remained significant shortcomings in its handling of the damp and mould in the property of this vulnerable resident.

Temporary alternative accommodation

The landlord’s decant policy states that where there are health and safety concerns for the resident and works cannot be completed with them in occupation, alternative accommodation will be arranged. Its aim is to rehome the resident for the minimum amount of time necessary to complete the works. It also states that where it requires a resident to move temporarily, they are entitled to an offer of suitable accommodation within 60 minutes of travel from their substantive home.
On 27 June 2024, the landlord offered the resident a 2-bed purpose–built flat. It was not on the ground floor but was serviced by a lift. The resident refused the offer because there was nowhere to leave her mobility scooter. She would be trapped in the event of a fire if the lift broke down and the location was too far from her G.P.
Contrary to an offer of permanent accommodation, a landlord does not have to meet a resident’s full housing requirements when making an offer of temporary accommodation. Compromises can be made in order to respond to the urgency of need and expected short-term use. It was within its right to make this offer and consider it reasonable.
The landlord withdrew the offer when the revised independent medical assessment came back on 17 July 2024. This stated that “if current medical issues confirmed, band B would apply. Ground floor, level access, wheelchair accessible premises, wet room and own room for applicant.”
There is currently a chronic shortage of affordable housing in London, which is the area where the resident lives, because the high demand for housing is outweighing supply. This applies to both temporary and permanent housing. As a result, the landlord along with most other social landlords and local authorities in the area have had to review their allocations and decant policies and restrict who they can help.
The landlord no longer holds a transfer list and expects residents to present themselves to the local authority, who have a statutory duty to rehouse or apply for a mutual exchange to meet any changing housing needs. It states it will only consider offering available homes to those:
1. With an immediate and urgent need to move.
2. With a significant medical need or disability, which means they are unable to remain in their current home.
3. Who are downsizing to release a larger home.
4. Who need a temporary or permanent new home.
The resident met at least 3 out of the 4 criteria, which qualified her for assistance to move.
The extensive requirements set out in the medical assessment, for the type of property the resident needs, are in great demand and in even shorter supply than the average general needs property. It is noted, however, that the medical assessment has recently changed (10 October 2024). The medical housing requirements are now “ground floor maximum unlifted or any floor lifted. Accommodation with wide, level access throughout”.
Although the landlord advised the resident to get her medical reassessed and apply to the local authority for a permanent move, it knew this could take an extensive amount of time, especially as the resident was in band B. This meant she was always at risk of being superseded by someone with a greater need in band A on the rare occasion a suitable property might become available. It is possible for this route to take years rather than months.
The landlord should have fully explained this to the resident. Had it done so, her expectations would have been better managed, she would have understood the challenges it faced and that it was not being deliberately obstructive. Apart from an email stating that it had told her that 75% of its nominations went to the council there was no evidence that it took time to discuss and set out the challenges and the reality of the situation.
On 29 August 2024, the landlord offered the resident a ground floor, self-contained property. A family member went to view it from the outside and declined it. She said her mobility scooter would not fit through the door; the rooms were too small (the resident was claustrophobic) and there was not a spare bedroom for a family member to stay when they needed to look after her.
It is noted that the resident is the secure tenant of a 3-bed property, as such, she is entitled to a like for like property if she moves. Her housing need, however, is for a 2-bed property, which she had previously agreed to consider. Under usual circumstances, a landlord would not be expected to provide 3–bed accommodation for a carer staying over, to someone with a 2-bed need. Larger properties are harder to come by. Accepting a 2-bed offer would likely increase the options available and enable the resident to move more quickly than if she waited for a 3-bed.
The landlord’s allocations policy gives its management discretion to allocate a suitable property directly, in certain circumstances. On the surface, this appears to have been an option that it could have considered and offered to the resident. It was not clear why it had not, which was a shortcoming.
However, if it had agreed a direct offer, it was entirely unlikely that a suitable property that met all the resident’s needs would become available in a reasonable timescale. This is because it only has 25% of its housing stock that it is not contracted to give nomination rights to the local council.
In the background, there was evidence of the landlord proactively approaching the council between August and October 2024 in relation to a permanent offer. It sent emails to determine where the resident was on the HNR and whether the conditions at the property and its urgency could have any bearing on the priority they gave her to move. It even offered a reciprocal arrangement whereby it would house someone from the local authority waiting list if the council could provide suitable accommodation for the resident. This was extremely reasonable.
The landlord did advise the resident in an email of 23 August 2024 that it had enquired with the council’s allocations team to better understand her banding and housing need. This communication was not really reflective of the efforts it was putting in to instigate a move for her and it is also clear now, that she did not understand what this meant. Following receipt there was evidence of her emailing it and requesting an urgent call on 28 August and 5 September 2024, which went completely unanswered. She also tried to submit a formal complaint on 29 September 2024 about the stage 2 outcomes not being progressed and it not answering her correspondence, which it refused to take. She said she felt ignored and forgotten about, which could have been avoided if it had properly communicated with her.
The landlord’s views and information about the condition of the property had no bearing on the local authority assessment of the resident’s housing need. It did not take up the landlord’s offer of a reciprocal housing agreement.
On 22 October 2024, the landlord enquired about hotel accommodation within the location the resident needed. The resident agreed to consider a hotel within the vicinity if she could take her cat, and laundry facilities were available. She said with a stoma bag, clothes needed to be washed daily.
The landlord offered to pay for the resident’s cat to go to a cattery for the duration. The resident declined the offer, because her cat was very elderly. She said it would not cope in a cattery and would not stay with anyone else.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s understandable concern for her cat, the landlord’s priority was the resident. It has no obligation to house her pets. As such, it provided a reasonable offer and solution, and it would have been within its rights not to consider her cat as an acceptable reason to refuse the offer of accommodation. The hotel, however, had no laundry facilities, so the offer was disregarded.
The landlord has since decided it could pay for laundry services which is reasonable and offered her another hotel, however the resident said she was very upset and depressed by the location.
What had not helped in this case was the lack of communication with the resident about what works were needed and how long they would take. Even though a full specification had been drafted, it was not evident in the landlord’s records how long she would be displaced for.
The resident constantly refers to an “unspecified time period”, which, for someone with such complex needs, was not reasonable. In response to a request for further information, the landlord has advised this Service that it anticipated the work taking 3 weeks. Had the resident known this timescale, she might have felt more able to compromise. Imagining this situation could go on for months would understandably increase her anxieties about all her needs being met.
The landlord has, however, stressed that a different contractor will now complete the works, which may impact the time allowed. This is not unreasonable, but the timeframe needs to be nailed down and shared with the resident, to give her perspective on how she might manage in any temporary property offered to her.
The landlord has been flexible in implementing its decant policy, which allows it to allocate 1 property within a 60-minute travelling distance from the resident’s original home. It has made several offers of alternative accommodation and accepted refusals on suitability for size, location and floor height. This flexibility demonstrates that it has listened to the resident and taken her vulnerabilities into consideration. The specific requirements and the shortage of available suitable accommodation have made the decant process challenging for all involved.
What the landlord had failed to do, however, is demonstrate that it had communicated appropriately with the resident. The spotlight report on damp and mould highlighted in its findings that the distress and inconvenience experienced by residents living with damp and mould was the most profound the Ombudsman had seen. For this reason, the report is very clear on the importance of communicating with residents and keeping them informed regarding actions taken or otherwise.
There was a notable lack of information about what the decant process was, what support it will offer and what timescales were involved for works. There were no minutes from key meetings, no explanation of the challenges this situation presented and no evidence that it had managed the resident’s expectations. The resident instigated most of the contact, and after the final complaint response several of her requests for a conversation went unanswered. This left her feeling frustrated, isolated and forgotten about.
It is clear that the resident is living in unsuitable conditions and urgently needs to move. Damp problems increase during the winter months when the air is colder. The resident’s family are extremely concerned about the impact living through another winter in the property in its current condition, will have on her. All housing options need to be considered concurrently to ensure the resident is temporarily rehoused with minimum disruption in the fastest amount of time possible.
It is understandable that the resident prefers to move only once but a temporary move is likely to be the timeliest. She has an open application on the HNR and if a suitable permanent property becomes available, she will be able to bid on it.
In the meantime, the landlord should be continuing to consider all temporary accommodation options available. The accommodation that would most likely meet the resident’s needs is sheltered housing. Purpose-built accommodation designed to meet the needs of people with mobility issues can be wheelchair accessible, often takes pets and has guest rooms. It may involve separating the household, as sheltered housing cannot accommodate the resident’s son. If a sheltered vacancy arose, there is no reason why her son could not be placed separately in hotel accommodation for a few weeks.
The resident will also need to make compromises about what she can manage with in the short-term. Her housing needs are vast and complex. With the limited housing stock, any landlord or strategic housing authority may struggle to meet them. The priority is ensuring she has a warm, dry and safe home to live in as quickly as possible. Her longer-term housing needs can still be considered but can be met with less urgency.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified with communication.
2. Arranges a visit with the resident to:
  1. Discuss the works proposed and the timescales for completion.
  2. Set out all the housing options that the landlord will consider to ensure a timely and successful offer of temporary accommodation.
  3. Advise the resident on any support it can offer her with the decant and moving process.
  4. Identify any short-term remedies that might reduce the level of damp and mould until the resident was in temporary alternative accommodation..
3. Pays the resident £450 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for the failings identified in its communication with the resident in relation to the decant.
  2. £100 for the delay in treating the mould.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.