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

The Havebury Housing Partnership (202300791)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300791

The Havebury Housing Partnership

9 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 3-bedroom house. She lives in the property with her 4 children.
  2. The repair records show the resident reported mould in the living room and bathroom on 8 April 2022. The landlord completed a survey and identified several required remedial works. The resident then reported a bath leak on 20 September 2022 and a roof leak on 30 September 2022.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2022 due to the length of time taken to complete the bathroom repairs and mould due to issues with previous work. She also said a burst pipe had damaged her belongings and flooring. In its stage 1 response, the landlord recognised failings in its handling of the bathroom repairs. It referred the resident to its insurance and her contents insurance to claim compensation for damaged items. It also said a contractor visited on 16 November 2022 and agreed to complete the following works relating to damp and mould:
    1. A mould wash in the bathroom and by the front door.
    2. Ensure there was a 10mm gap under each internal door to assist with airflow.
    3. Arrange a Hygrometer to assess whether a fan was required in the lounge to help with ongoing condensation on the rear door and window.
  4. On 3 January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her son’s bedroom and living room. The landlord said it would convert the ground floor storage space to a warm space, which should improve heat retention and it would check the cavity wall insulation. It had resolved all other fundamental issues, including the windows and doors. It completed a damp and mould inspection on 17 January 2023. 
  5. The resident raised a second complaint on 6 February 2023. She said the property was in poor condition, there was ongoing damp and mould in several rooms, and the landlord had not repaired the roof leak that she reported in 2020 and November 2022. The landlord had not provided sufficient updates on the progress of the works. The property was cold, even with heating on, causing her high energy costs. She said her belongings were damaged and she had wasted money on decorating due to the recurring mould. She also said her son was experiencing breathing issues. She wanted the landlord to rehouse her.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 January 2023, it said:
    1. The resident had reported a new area of mould on 29 November 2022, and it agreed to reinspect the roof. It was considering other options as the resident was reluctant to have a fan fitted as recommended.
    2. It had raised 3 work orders for outstanding repairs, detailed in the stage 1 response on 23 November 2022. It advised the resident on 16 December 2022 that the works were outstanding as it was waiting for materials.
    3. It confirmed on 3 January 2023 that all works to the doors and windows were completed and it would convert the ground floor storage space to a warm space.
    4. It escalated the case to stage 2 of its damp and mould process on 10 January 2023, which was earlier than usual, and it booked a survey for 17 January 2023.
    5. It outlined the works required on 9 February 2023 to remove and replace the cavity wall insulation, replace the back door, complete repointing works, and renewal/provision of appropriate mastic seals around all windows and doors. It had approved the works and instructed the contractor to complete them as soon as possible.
    6. The resident did not meet the threshold to move out of the property.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 March 2023. She said the repointing was poor quality and she was told a French drainage system was required to resolve the damp. She declined the extractor fan.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 6 April 2023. It said a specialist damp contractor made several recommendations that it would complete to resolve the damp and mould issues. It had postponed the wall cavity works to allow it to dry out before it refilled the waterproof insulation, which should be completed within 2-3 weeks, weather dependant. It had completed repointing works to prevent moisture getting through the external brickwork. It did not have record that a French drain had been recommended, but a damp specialist confirmed it was not required. The resident did not meet the threshold to be permanently moved due to the extent of the issues and the steps it was taking to resolve them. It had provided advice on alternative move options.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she wanted compensation for her damaged belongings and to move from the property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her family’s health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, 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 deterioration of a condition. 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. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
  3. The resident reported a leak in 2020. Due to the length of time that elapsed, however, this investigation has only focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports 12 months prior to the complaint. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This is in line with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”.
  4. The resident’s complaint relating to the bathroom repair issues has been included to provide contextual information relating to damp and mould and the works that were included in the landlord’s response. It is important to note that the resident has not indicated to the resident she remains dissatisfied with this element of the complaint, so the handling of the bathroom repairs has not been assessed. Furthermore, the issue has not completed the landlord’s complaints process. In line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, so the matter will not be assessed within the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and her request for compensation for damaged belongings

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when residents initially report damp and mould it will complete a mould wash and identify any necessary repairs and offer relevant advice. It will remain in regular contact throughout the case. Its repairs and maintenance policy states it will attend large repairs that require further investigation, including damp problems, within 15 days and a further appointment will be made within 80 days.
  2. In this case, it is clear that the damp and mould was ongoing for a prolonged period of time. The Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (available on our website) recognises that “There will always be some damp and mould cases that are more difficult to diagnose and/or repair and, therefore, longer to rectify. It is important that these types of cases are handled with particular care to ensure they are resolved effectively”. In cases when it takes numerous repairs to resolve the damp and mould issues, the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe, arranging temporary fixes in the interim, if possible (such as mould washes), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations.
  3. The resident initially reported mould in the living room on 8 April 2022. The landlord completed a survey and recommended works to repoint the brickwork, complete a damp proof course, and insulate the loft space. There are no further records relating to reports of damp and mould until the resident raised a complaint on 9 November 2022 regarding issues with bathroom repairs, in which she said mould had begun to spread.
  4. The landlord set out a schedule of works on 16 November 2022, including works to overhaul the front and back door, inspect the extractor fans, ensure the cavity wall insulation was clear and dry, check the first-floor rooms and loft hatch to ensure no apertures were allowing hot air or vapour to condensate in the loft, retrofit trickle vents into the windows, and rectify issues with the coals store next to the front door. It also completed a mould wash on 1 December 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports and set out comprehensive works to resolve the damp and mould. It is unclear from the records provided when it completed the works, but the landlord told the resident on 3 January 2023 that the only outstanding work was “to widen the check to other parts of the cavities” and clear any debris found.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 29 November 2022 that it found the property was 10-12 degrees, which was not a suitable temperature to prevent damp and mould. It asked the resident how she used the heating and whether contractors could attend to assess the system. It approved works on 3 January 2023 to convert the cupboard to a warm space to improve the heating issues. It was reasonable that the landlord did not automatically apportion blame to the resident when it identified the heating issues and sought to find an appropriate solution to improve the property temperature.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to replace all the windows and doors to prevent condensation and mould, as she thought it was the underlying cause of the issues. The landlord said once it completed the planned works, if the issue remained unresolved it would escalate the case to stage 2 of its damp and mould process. It would then assess whether the doors and windows required replacement to resolve the damp and mould. A full replacement of the windows and doors in the property would be expensive and social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents. Given that the inspection had not recommended such works, it was reasonable for the landlord to determine whether the recommended repairs were successful, before assessing the need for the windows and doors replacement.
  7. The landlord escalated the case to stage 2 of its damp and mould process on 10 January 2023, which it said was earlier than it usually would, demonstrating it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It completed an inspection on 17 January 2023 which recommended works to replace the cavity wall insulation, repointing works, and renewal of the mastic seals around the windows and doors. It also raised a work order on 10 January 2023 to re-inspect the roof for leaks. It was reasonable that the landlord took steps to progress the repairs and resolve the issues in full.
  8. In an internal email on 27 March 2023 the landlord said the contractor confirmed it had completed the repointing and mastic works. The resident said in her complaint escalation that the repointing was poor quality. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the “repointing works have been completed to prevent any moisture getting through the external brickwork”. However, it did not address her concerns regarding the quality of the work. While landlords are typically entitled to rely on the feedback from its contractors regarding the progress of repairs, given the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable to complete a post-inspection. There may have been a missed opportunity to ensure the works were a suitable standard.
  9. The landlord told the resident on 9 February 2023 that it was waiting for a price for the backdoor replacement as it needed to be designed and manufactured. The contractor told the landlord on 6 March 2023 that the lead time for the windows was 6-8 weeks. However, it is unclear whether the landlord informed the resident, so although the delay was unavoidable, it may have missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the expected timeframe. Its repair records show it completed the works on 5 June 2023.
  10. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023 that there was a delay in completing repairs to the cavity wall insulations as it had to dry out before refilling with waterproof insulation. It said it should complete the works within 2-3 weeks, depending on the weather conditions. The resident told the Service the same day that the landlord removed the cavity wall insulation 6 weeks prior, and the heating had been ineffective while she was waiting for it to be re-installed.
  11. There can be reasons beyond the landlord’s control for delays in completing repairs. In this case, it was appropriate to delay the reinsulating works to prevent a recurrence of the issue and further repairs being necessary. It was reasonable that the landlord informed the resident of the reason for the delay and the expected timeframe, to manage her expectations. However, there is no evidence that it updated the resident on the progress of the works prior to or following the complaint response, so it failed to manage her expectations. The landlord completed the works on 5 June 2023, but it failed to account for the full length of the delays.
  12. The landlord raised a work order on 6 June 2023 to complete the necessary decoration works. It told the Service it had completed all works other than painting 1 internal wall, due to the resident being unwell and issues contacting her to rearrange. If this remains outstanding, it should contact the resident to rearrange the appointment.
  13. The resident said the contractor told her it would install a French drainage system to resolve the damp. There is no record to confirm whether a contractor recommended such works and in its stage 2 response the landlord said the damp specialist confirmed it was not necessary to resolve the issue. Landlords are entitled to rely on the opinions of their appropriately qualified contractors to determine what works to complete to resolve the damp and mould. The Service has not seen any evidence to confirm a French drainage system was required.
  14. The resident wanted to be rehoused due to the damp and mould issues. The landlord provided information on applying for rehousing on 23 January 2023. It therefore managed her expectations for the actions required to progress her applications. The landlord subsequently told the resident in its stage 2 response that she did not meet the criteria for a permanent move as it was taking steps to resolve the damp and mould. Furthermore, while there was a clear impact on the resident living in the property, there was no evidence the landlord found it to be uninhabitable. It was also reasonable that the landlord provided advice on alternative options to pursue her move.
  15. In her complaint to the Service, the resident said she wanted compensation for items damaged by damp and mould, including her sofa and carpet. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will refer claims for damage to belongings to its insurers. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for having contents insurance for personal belongings. On 16 December 2022 the landlord asked the resident whether it had provided its insurance details to discuss her claim for damaged property. It is unclear whether the resident confirmed if she had the insurance details, but even if she did not, she was aware of how to pursue the claim and it is noted the landlord had provided the details in a previous complaint response relating to the bathroom leak.
  16. Overall, it took 7 months for the landlord to resolve the damp and mould following the resident’s report that it had recurred in November 2022, which had a significant impact on her family and enjoyment of the property. Although it is recognised the issues were ongoing for a prolonged period of time, the landlord acted reasonably as it completed multiple inspections and extensive repairs to resolve the issue in full. 
  17. However, the landlord did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations on the progress of the works. This is particularly important in cases where damp and mould issues are ongoing for a prolonged period of time. The landlord should continually demonstrate to the resident it is taking her concerns seriously and progressing the matter, to maintain a positive landlord-tenant relationship. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of the repointing works. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, £150 compensation would be proportionate as the landlord has not acknowledged its failings or taken steps to redress the issues. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and her request for compensation for damaged belongings. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The landlord should complete a post inspection of the repointing works, discuss any outstanding issues with the resident, and complete further works if required.
  3. The landlord should conduct a full inspection of the property, addressing any damp and mould concerns the resident has, and provide a schedule of works should any be identified.
  4. The landlord should provide proof to the Service that it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the failings identified in this report and its handling of correspondence in damp and mould cases to consider how it can prevent a recurrence of similar issues.