Torus62 Limited (202330484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330484

Torus62 Limited

18 June 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, remedial works and the resident’s decant (temporary move).
2. The removal of the resident’s possessions from the property.
3. Reports of damage to the resident’s personal property as a result of the damp and mould.
4. The resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
5. The resident’s concerns about the presence of asbestos in the property.
6. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is disabled and has a number of health conditions including asthma, which the landlord is aware of. She lived in a flat with her son who was approximately 6 months old when a series of leaks occurred from an adjacent flat. Mould formed, which the landlord treated on 24 August 2023.
Mould issues began to recur on or around 13 September 2023. The landlord attended to inspect and repair faulty electrics caused by the leak throughout September 2023.
The resident continued to make calls to the landlord about the mould throughout September and October 2023.
On 30 October 2023, the resident complained about extensive mould in the property which required daily cleaning. The resident reported an extensive list of damaged items caused by the mould and described how she and her son were experiencing respiratory symptoms. She reminded the landlord that among other conditions, she suffered from asthma. She complained that the landlord raised works on 19 September 2023 which were due to start on 26 October 2023 but had been pushed back until 24 November 2023. She requested that the works be brought forward or that she be rehoused urgently.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord performed a mould treatment in the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen. The operative reported that “resident and baby are sleeping near wall covered in mould [which] is also appearing on the bed. [She] is struggling to cope and baby has a perpetual cough. I attended this property a few months ago; damp and mould has spread exponentially since”. On 10 November 2023 a surveyor attended and the resident was decanted (temporarily moved).
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It stated that there had been an error in logging the resident’s complaint, meaning that it was not seen until 9 November 2023. It apologised for this failure and offered the resident £300 compensation. It advised that works would begin when the resident’s belongings had been removed from the property, that it had forwarded the resident’s request for the landlord to arrange this to the appropriate department, and that all works would be completed by 7 December 2023. It had also forwarded the resident’s request for permanent rehousing to the relevant team internally.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 27 November 2023. She felt the compensation offered was not reflective of her experience, was unhappy about delays to the work starting and that the landlord had not addressed her concerns about damage to her belongings.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 November 2023. She said that she had not received any updates on the works or how long she would be decanted. She “did not want to spend her son’s first Christmas in a hotel”. She had also raised concerns about the size of the decant property and the limited cooking facilities. She requested to be decanted elsewhere. She chased the landlord on 20 December 2023, citing safety concerns over the fold-out bed, which would “fall down on its own” where her son was playing.
On 10 January 2024, the landlord inspected works done at the property and identified a number of additional works that were required. On 16 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It concluded that there had “been a number of service failures including delays in starting works and removing belongings”, for which it offered £500 compensation. It added a further £500 for the delays in repairs which followed. It acknowledged service failures in managing the hotel bookings and communication during the decant caused distress and inconvenience and offered a further £500. Finally, it offered £500 compensation for “the numerous extensions to your stay [at the hotel] and to cover parking costs. This took the total compensation offered at stage 2 to £2000. The resident remained unhappy and contacted the Ombudsman on the same day.
The repairs remained ongoing and the resident continued to express dissatisfaction following the stage 2 complaint. She continued to raise concerns about damaged items and about issues during the decant. The resident regularly raised complaints about the progress of the works, the workmanship and the continued damp present in the property.
The resident remained decanted when, on 1 May 2024, a damp survey was conducted at the property. Although the surveyor commented that “some residual damp remains”, the surveyor felt this would “dry out naturally over time”. Further works were booked for 21 May 2024, though the landlord has said these would not prevent the resident from moving back in.

Jurisdiction

The resident has more recently raised concerns with the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of asbestos at the property, which the Ombudsman is unable to investigate at this time. This is because paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of this matter, she can raise a new complaint about this through the landlord’s complaints process. If she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman at that stage.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of both damp and mould at the property and the decant resulted in adverse health effects to her and her child. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. It is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health, particularly to those with respiratory conditions, However the Ombudsman is not able to draw any conclusions about any specific impact on the resident’s health from the landlord’s action or inaction, because there is no evidence, for example a medico-legal report, showing a proven health impact. The Ombudsman has however considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health as well as its handling of the general risk from damp and mould. If the resident wishes to pursue her concerns about the specific effect on her family’s health further, it may be more appropriate to seek a remedy via the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), who are best placed to assess such a claim.
Generally, the Ombudsman investigates issues and events up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response. This is because events that occurred after the date of the final response will not have been addressed via the landlord’s complaint process. However, in cases such as this one, where actions promised via the complaint process remain outstanding following the final response, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider events past the date of the final complaint response which are directly relevant to the issues raised in the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The evidence available indicates that the landlord responded to the first report of damp and mould in August 2023 within 2 days, attending to perform a mould wash and to resolve the first of 3 leaks entering the property. It attended subsequent issues relating to the electrics throughout September 2023 and a surveyor raised further works on 19 September 2023.
The evidence suggests that the resident waited for the works to begin on 26 October 2023 when a contractor attended the job but the operative “ran out of time” to complete it. She called the landlord that day and, it appears the landlord confirmed that the remaining works were not due to begin until 24 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states that general repairs should be completed within 20 days. It is unclear therefore why there was due to be such a delay for the works to start. As the landlord has not given a clear reason for the delay, the Ombudsman can only conclude it was unreasonable.
Following the resident’s call on 26 October 2023, she complained on 30 October 2023 that the timescales were too long, citing her own health vulnerabilities and a respiratory illness in her then 7-month-old son. She asked for a decant or permanent move if works could not be moved forward. The landlord attended to conduct a mould wash on 1 November 2023, when the operative noted that “resident and baby are sleeping near wall covered in mould and appearing on bed. Resident is struggling to cope, baby has a perpetual cough. I attended this property a few months ago [and] damp and mould has spread exponentially since”. The landlord’s repairs policy states that an emergency repair should be carried out within 24 hours. It defines an emergency repair as any which is “potentially affecting the health of the household”. The landlord’s damp and mould policy highlights the potential health impacts damp and mould can have. As such, an inspection should have taken place within 24 hours of the resident’s call on 26 October 2023 and this should have been regarded as an emergency in view of the resident’s health concerns and the increase in the damp and mould.
On 9 November 2023, the landlord logged the resident’s complaint and the pictures she had included were seen by a senior staff member. The staff member organised an inspection for the following day, noting that “this is not a good picture” and that they were “not comfortable leaving a child in that condition”. A surveyor attended and reported that “as soon as you walk in the property there is a very strong smell of damp and we could feel the effects of this on our chest. The bedroom window was damp to touch. There was mould around the window, on the wall, bed, toilet, and the clothing in the draw had a strong damp smell… my opinion is that I don’t not think the property is habitable in its current condition.” The resident was decanted into a hotel the same day. It is unclear from the evidence how long the property was in an uninhabitable condition, however the operative’s comments of 1 November 2023 and the photographs taken by the resident between 26 October 2023 and 30 October 2023 indicate that the mould was growing rapidly. It is reasonable to conclude that the property was unlikely to have been habitable at the time of the 1 November 2023 inspection, though it is possible that this was the case earlier than this. In any event, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assessed whether the property was uninhabitable sooner, in response to the evidence from the resident and its own operatives.
The landlord’s response on 9 and 10 November 2023, when the case was brought to the attention of a senior staff member, were proactive, decisive and rapid. The landlord later explained that the delay in seeing this information was due to an administrative complaint handling error, which is assessed later in this report. However, there is no evidence that such action would have been taken at all had the resident not formally complained. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that “as part of the commitment to safeguard residents, [the landlord] and its contractors will use agreed procedures to record and refer any tenancy concerns to a specialist officer for follow-up.” It is unclear what these procedures are, however, there is no evidence that any concerns about the condition of the property were raised or acted upon further, for example by looking to bring works forward or consider a decant, at the time of the mould treatment on 1 November 2023.
It is of concern that “an exponential growth of mould” and the health concerns described by the operative on 1 November 2023 did not result in the landlord assessing the habitability of the property until the complaint was referred to a senior staff member. This calls into question the effectiveness of the landlord’s damp and mould policy, as although the landlord followed its policy by arranging for surveyors to attend, there is no evidence that the parameters of the surveyor’s inspection(s) included consideration of whether the property was habitable. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s decant policy requires it to first receive notice from the ‘Assets Team’ that a decant may be required. It is vital therefore that the Assets Team, which attended in this case, is effectively completing its role in proactively identifying where a decant may be appropriate.
Where the Ombudsman finds that a policy or practice may give rise to further complaints about the same matter, we may make orders under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme that the landlord review that policy or practice. The landlord has been ordered to review its policy on damp and mould to ensure health and safety risks are assessed proactively. As part of this review, the landlord is also ordered to review the policies and practices which guided its handling of both the decant, and the landlord’s record keeping, in this case.
In conclusion, the landlord organised works beyond the deadline required by its own policies following its initial inspection of the damp and mould at the property. Although the landlord’s damp and mould policy references its responsibility to consider if a home is fit for human habitation under The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 during the tenancy, the process by which the landlord should do this is not clear. This resulted in a failure to consider the habitability of the property which likely left the resident living in an unfit property for period of 2 weeks and possibly longer. The landlord was required to rely on complaint handling staff to raise the appropriate inspections, raising concerns about the landlord’s potential handling of similar cases where a resident may be overlooked because they have not complained.
During the period the resident remained at the property, the evidence shows that she was sleeping either on the sofa, or in a bed which had mould growing onto it. The delays in addressing the issues likely resulted in much of the resident’s furniture and clothing being ruined by mould, including the baby’s ‘moses basket’. The evidence shows that the resident suffered considerable distress, with an operative noting that she was “struggling to cope”. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience, an award of compensation is made below in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which states that over £600 compensation is due where a failure by the landlord has had a significant impact on the resident. In addition, the landlord should pay an amount equivalent to 2 weeks rent, in respect of the time in which the resident is likely to have lived in an ‘uninhabitable’ property.

The landlord’s handling of the removal of the resident’s possessions from the property

The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate an initial delay in starting the remedial works because the resident’s belongings required removal from the property. The landlord had agreed to make arrangements to do this and requested a quote from the removals contractor on 14 November 2023. However, the items were not removed until 19 December 2023. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s account that it was “still waiting for a quote” on 23 November 2023, because she had contacted the contractor and been present during the quoting process, where she had been told by the contractor that a quote had been provided to the landlord on 15 November 2023. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s account of what the contactor told her. However, the evidence shows that the landlord chased the contractor later in the afternoon of 23 November 2023, who replied that evening with the quote and an apology for the delay. This supports the landlord’s account that it was waiting for a quote.
There followed an unfortunate delay, as the staff member responsible went on annual leave shortly after this and arrangements to remove the items were not resumed until 5 December 2023. It is unclear if systems were in place to ensure a handover of these arrangements during staff leave, however the contractor was not made aware of the impending leave in the chasing email, which could have mitigated this delay somewhat by providing an alternative point of contact. At the time of the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in removing the resident’s belongings, which it noted delayed works from starting, and offered £500 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been a failing by the landlord which had an adverse but non-permanent impact on the resident, compensation of up to £600 may be considered. As such, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the removal of the resident’s possessions from the property. This is because although this caused significant distress and inconvenience for the resident, the landlord ultimately arranged for the items to be moved, so there was no permanent impact. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the amount the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer and therefore the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of leaks and remedial works

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that all works in relation to the leaks, damp and mould were due to be completed by 7 December 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response updated this timescale and indicated that works would be completed by 18 January 2024. However, a qualified surveyor did not confirm that the property was suitable to return to until 1 May 2024. In the weeks following this surveyor’s report, the resident has expressed concerns about the residual damp and reported a recurrence of mould after visiting the property, however further investigation of this is yet to take place. The Ombudsman can understand the resident’s concerns that the damp and mould has returned. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of the surveyor when assessing whether the property is now habitable. The presence of damp and mould does not automatically mean a property is uninhabitable, it depends on the severity of the damp and mould and the resident’s individual circumstances. If the resident continues to report damp and mould after returning to the property, the landlord should respond to this appropriately in line with its repair obligations.
There are several reasons for the delays in repairs seen in this case. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the landlord’s internal record keeping and communication issues were a contributing factor. For example, there were multiple appointments abandoned due to “no access” in November 2023, January 2024, February 2024, and March 2024. The landlord’s information submission to the Ombudsman also explained that it had been delayed by “no access” appointments. On at least 1 occasion, the landlord asked the resident to explain why she had not granted access to the landlord’s contractors. The evidence shows however that the resident was decanted at the time and that a key safe had been installed to allow contractors access. The resident was not required to provide access at this time and reported frustration at “frequently being called [by contractors] to provide access” and by feeling that she was being blamed for these delays. The evidence shows that each instance of a “no access” appointment resulted in further delays, usually of around 1 week, while the works were rescheduled. The landlord later began including specific access instructions for contractors as part of the job notes, which was appropriate in an effort to prevent similar issues from reoccurring. The delays would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord also made reference to a number of leaks at the property, which were “separate and distinct” from one another. The landlord explained to the Ombudsman that damage caused by these subsequent leaks were primarily to blame for the works which remained outstanding on 27 March 2024, including further mould washes and kitchen units being refitted. Information regarding these works are limited, however it appears that there was a delay of approximately 11 days in resolving the third leak due to the contractor not being given the keycode to access property (resulting in another “no access” appointment). The evidence indicates that this delay likely caused considerable damage at the property, based on the extensive remedial works which followed. The timescales applicable to emergency repairs under the landlord’s repairs policy includes “uncontrollable water leaks”, therefore any access issues should have been rectified within 24 hours. It appears that this failing contributed significantly to the further delays the resident experienced.
The resident reported that she was informed by the landlord at some point in March or April 2024 that she would return to the property on 16 April 2024. The resident attended frequently throughout the works and did so again on 11 April 2024. She emailed the Ombudsman on 14 April 2024 to express concern that a number of works specified in previous surveyor’s reports had not been done and that the quality of workmanship in some areas of the property was poor. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 April 2024 and explained that a surveyor had visited and found that “mould had formed” in the bedroom and kitchen, and that parts of the kitchen fittings would need replacing, alongside some further works. As a result, the resident was concerned about the effectiveness of work the landlord had done to address the causes of the damp and conducted her own damp tests on 18 April 2024, showing “92% damp” on the bedroom wall. She requested that this be hacked and replastered. The landlord completed a damp survey on 1 May 2024 which concluded that “residual damp remains [which should] dry out naturally over time.” It added that there were “no signs of further mould growth”. However, the resident inspected the property later in May 2024 and reported that mould had regrown (the landlord then arranged a further mould wash), leaving the resident unconvinced by the effectiveness of the works and reluctant to return to the property. The landlord also said it had arranged for dehumidifiers to be installed at the property, however it is unclear if this has since been done.
The resident also complained frequently about the landlord’s communication with her regarding the progress of the repairs. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident chased frequently for updates on these works, which were often not forthcoming. It appears that the landlord’s use of multiple contractors and subcontractors resulted in a decentralisation of oversight of the repairs. The evidence shows on multiple occasions, staff members having to go to considerable lengths in order to receive an update on the works, which was often vague and rarely contained useful timescales which could be relayed to the resident, causing distress and frustration. This often prevented the landlord from following its temporary decants procedure which states that it will “maintain regular contact with the tenant(s) to ensure that they are adequately supported and kept updated on the timescales for returning to their property.” The Ombudsman notes that this element did improve somewhat following the appointment of a senior staff member to the case on an unknown date around February 2024, however the resident continued to chase for updates after this time.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration by the landlord which has resulted in a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £600 and up to £1,000 may be considered. In recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of remedial works, an order to pay £800 compensation is made below. This amount is inclusive of the £500 the landlord already offered through its complaints process. The amount sits in the middle of the bracket outlined in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to account for the effect of the landlord’s errors on the resident alongside factors which were outside of the landlord’s control which contributed to the delays.
The resident also requested that the landlord conduct a damp survey “behind the tiles” in the bathroom, where the surveyor had been unable to access. The landlord later explained that if it were to remove the tiles, a damp test would likely indicate residual damp (in line with the most recent surveyor’s report) and create an unnecessary job to retile the bathroom. The landlord’s position is reasonable, and it does not need to remove the tiles as it already accepts there is residual damp in the property, but it should continue to monitor the damp and mould and carry out further works if required. The Ombudsman has ordered in this case that the landlord proactively monitors the condition of the property going forward.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent decant from the property and costs incurred

The landlord’s temporary decant procedure allows the landlord to place a resident in hotel accommodation if it is only required for a short period. As the repairs were due to be completed within 4 weeks of the initial decant, the landlord’s initial decision to place the resident in a hotel was reasonable. The landlord made an appropriate decision to move the resident to a serviced hotel/apartment which was considered to be better suited to a longer-term stay, 7 days into the decant. The resident raised concerns about the new accommodation. By 4 December 2023 she had “chased [the landlord] 5 times since 23 November 2023”, however the landlord did not respond.
On 15 December 2023 the resident complained that the decant accommodation was “was a studio apartment with a fold-out bed [with inadequate room] for my son to play”. She stated that she could not cook meals “as the kitchen isn’t equipped” and asked to be moved to more suitable accommodation within the same building. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 December 2023 to explain that it had sought to find an alternative property from its own stock as a temporary measure, though none were available. There is no evidence to support this. In the landlord’s information submission to this service, it gave a conflicting explanation, saying that “with the benefit of hindsight it would have been preferable to rehouse the resident in an alternative Torus property, [but] it was felt that the decant should be extended to minimise disruption and inconvenience.”
The resident continued to raise concerns until the landlord “put forward” the resident’s request for alternative accommodation on 8 January 2024. The landlord enquired about the larger apartments within the hotel, however reported that it was advised that “the larger rooms don’t really have more facilities, only more rings on the cooker hob, and worktop areas.” The resident later told this service that her apartment had only 2 hobs, which also served as the only worktop, so they were rarely used. The apartment had no oven and so the microwave and kettle became the only appliances the resident felt able to use. On 15 January 2024, the landlord raised a separate stage 1 complaint response in relation to these issues and explained that the resident “had raised this frequently and it is unfortunate it has not been resolved”. The landlord addressed the issues at stage 2 the following day, offering £500 in respect of the “numerous extensions” of the accommodation. The evidence shows that the resident continued to complain about the size and suitability of the decant property, but there is no evidence that the landlord took any further steps to investigate the resident’s concerns after this point. This was unreasonable.
The resident reported on 10 January 2024 that the fold-out bed at the decant had fallen and caused injury to her infant son. The resident raised this again with the landlord on 15 January 2024, as the hotel was “waiting for a part” to repair the bed. While it is understood that this is outside of the landlord’s control, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s report, raised concerns with the hotel or requested that the resident be moved to another room while the repair to the bed was outstanding. This was a serious shortcoming which may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
On 9 January 2024 the resident reported that hotel staff “had been knocking on the door” throughout the day, because the landlord had not extended her booking. Hotel staff returned 3 times that day until the resident gave the staff the contact details of the landlord. The landlord extended the booking for 2 more days, but failed to extend it further, so the same incident happened again on 11 January 2024. Hotel management informed the resident that if the booking was not extended on time again, they would “ask her to leave the premises”. The landlord noted internally at this time that it did not know when the works would be finished and that the resident was “seriously stressing” about its decision to extend the booking by only short periods following these incidents. On 16 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged its poor handling of the bookings of the apartment and offered £500 compensation. However, the same failing would reoccur on 21 January 2024 and 5 March 2024, with the resident reporting that the hotel management were “not happy” and had threatened again to evict her from the apartment, causing distress, anxiety and frustration. The landlord apologised again on 6 March 2024.
The landlord’s temporary decant procedure states that the “[specified senior staff members] will ensure that all arrangements in terms of payments and extensions are made with the hotel.” However, this was not done adequately. Throughout the decant, the resident raised concerns that the landlord would extend the stay for short periods, causing anxiety that there would be a further booking issue. The landlord should have either made longer-term bookings or managing the short-term bookings more effectively.
The resident also reported that she incurred costs as a result of the decant. The landlord’s temporary decant procedure states that it “may agree to pay reasonable expenses that are a natural and direct consequence of the displacement” including “travel expenses, practical items or a food allowance”. The resident reported that due to the lack of cooking facilities, she had no choice but to regularly eat out to avoid “living on microwaved food”. Although the landlord acknowledged this element of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its internal process, it did not provide a response, and there is no evidence that the landlord considered agreeing to a food allowance or made the resident aware that the allowance was available. Given the length of the decant and the reports of inadequate cooking facilities, it is reasonable that the landlord should have paid the resident the £22.50 per day food allowance that she and her son were eligible for. As a result, the resident reported having since incurred avoidable debts and experienced financial difficulty, adding that she feels remaining in the decant is not financially viable. An order is made below for the landlord to pay the food allowance it should have paid to the resident for the period when she was decanted from the property.
The landlord also accepted that there was a failing in its handling of a request to reimburse parking costs incurred by the resident at the hotel and offered £500 to compensate for these charges at stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident reports that she has continued to spend significant amounts on parking since. The landlord showed good practice by agreeing to a further £268 reimbursement on 8 April 2024, although the landlord had to be asked to do this on more than one occasion. An order is made below to ensure the resident’s parking charges are reimbursed for the remaining decant period.
As mentioned above, many of the shortcomings in this case can be attributed to the fact that repeatedly throughout the decant, staff administering the decant bookings were unaware of how long the repairs would take. Updates on timescales were frequently requested but were often not forthcoming. As a result, the landlord did not adequately plan ahead or respond effectively to the resident’s concerns. At the time of the landlord’s complaint responses of January 2024 it expected the remaining repairs to be completed “within a week”. It is understandable therefore that it was often unsure how to proceed, as its temporary decant procedure does not outline what actions it should take in the event that a decant is required longer than initially expected. As part of the order made below under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review to ensure effective learning from this case and prevent similar issues from reoccurring.
In conclusion, the landlord was right to decant the resident to a hotel initially, however further failings and shortcomings during the decant resulted in avoidable distress, anxiety and considerable time and trouble to the resident. Its offer of £500 for the booking issues provided reasonable redress at the time of the stage 2 response, however the landlord failed to ‘learn from outcomes’ as the failings occurred again. Although the landlord paid a further amount toward parking costs, it failed to consider other costs that it may be required to pay, in line with its policies and procedures.
As above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a significant impact on the resident (£600 to £1,000) applies. The landlord is ordered to pay £750 compensation in respect of the distress, anxiety and inconvenience caused by its handling of the decant. This is inclusive of the £500 already offered by the landlord through its complaints process. The landlord’s offer of £500 can be deducted from the total compensation if it has already been paid.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould, remedial works and the resident’s decant.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal property, as a result of the damp and mould

The evidence shows that the resident asked the landlord to consider reimbursing the cost of items which were damaged or destroyed by damp and mould repeatedly from as early as 30 October 2023 in her initial complaint. The operative who attended on 1 November 2023 also noted that personal items required disposing of due to the mould and that the resident’s furniture, including her bed, had also been affected (and were later disposed of).
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will “consider [paying] compensation for quantifiable financial loss e.g. cost of replacing damaged property”. Although there were delays and failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and the time it took to remove the resident’s personal belongings from the property, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the damage was caused by “actions or omissions” of the landlord, as set out in its compensation policy. This is because it is not possible for the ombudsman to assess how much damage would have been caused by the damp and mould if there were no avoidable delays to repairs. However, the evidence clearly indicates that in order to ‘be fair’, the landlord should have considered paying these costs. The landlord should have considered the resident’s claim itself and provided a written response or it should have referred her to make a claim under its liability insurance policy (if it has one). There is no evidence that it took either of these actions, which was unreasonable.
In the evidence submission to this service, the landlord stated that “consideration was not given [to the cost of the damaged items], but we are of course prepared to consider this element of her claim further.” While this is a positive statement from the landlord, it should not have required intervention by the Ombudsman for the landlord to respond appropriately. The landlord should now consider the resident’s claim and respond to her in writing confirming the reasons for its decision.
The resident has frequently raised concerns about these costs primarily because she no longer owns many clothes or items of furniture as a result of the damage. She has repeatedly raised concerns with the landlord that she will be unable to move back into the property without a place for her and her son to sleep, including in the run up to the most recent proposed return date in April 2024. Despite this, there is no record that the landlord responded, or sought to reassure the resident that she would be given adequate time to refurnish the property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to organisations which may be able to provide grants of money and/or furniture to assist her with moving back to the property. This has caused additional distress and resulted in the resident going to significant time and trouble to chase a response from the landlord on this point. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for compensation of damaged items.
An order is made below for the landlord to formally consider the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged items, in line with its policies and procedures. A further order to pay £350 compensation is made in respect of the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble as a result of the landlord’s handling of her requests. This is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which advises consideration of an amount of over £100 where there has been maladministration with little or no attempt to put things right by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing

The resident requested either a decant or permanent move as a potential outcome of her initial complaint. Following delays with the works and concerns about the decant property, the resident began requesting a permanent move as a primary outcome. The resident became dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of this request following a call with the landlord in November or December 2023, in which the resident said she was led to believe the staff member was actively looking to secure her a permanent move. The resident felt that she had been given assurances that this would happen quickly. Although it is clear from the evidence that multiple calls regarding both permanent and temporary moves did occur, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine exactly what was said to the resident. The staff member in question no longer works at the landlord, and so further investigation of this point has been inconclusive.
This raised questions about the landlord’s record keeping. A number of pieces of evidence, particularly relating to correspondence and events prior to October 2023, but also some correspondence from after this time, were missing from the evidence submitted to this service. The landlord also submitted spreadsheets supposed to include “all correspondence and telephone notes”, however large numbers of both inbound and outbound calls were missing from these notes. In this case, the adverse effect to the resident was limited, because the resident had kept good records and was able to submit her own copies of records of correspondence for the Ombudsman to use in our investigation. Nevertheless, as part of the order made below under paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to review of its record keeping practices to prevent similar issues from reoccurring.
The evidence shows that the landlord did provide accurate information, including clear instructions, about the resident’s request for a permanent move at the time of the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord repeated this advice at various appropriate intervals. The evidence shows that the resident has been applying for permanent properties via this route but has been so far unsuccessful. It is possible that the reason for this is due to the ‘banding’ (relative priority) given to the resident in her request for a permanent move. The evidence shows that the resident’s priority was assessed based on overcrowding in her original property. It is unclear therefore if the resident’s current situation had been considered in determining the priority with which she should have been considered for a permanent move. Although it is not in the landlord’s power to change the banding given to the resident (this is the responsibility of the local authority) the landlord should have given advice to the resident about how to be considered for a higher priority banding, based on her change in circumstances. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to take a more active role in doing this, such as to contact the local authority on her behalf. There is no evidence it did either of these things, which may have led to the resident feeling unsupported in her efforts to move permanently.
Whilst the landlord could have done more to help the resident with her request for a permanent move, there is no guarantee that had the landlord taken the steps outlined above, that it would have resulted in the resident being able to permanently move from the property. Therefore, an award of £100 compensation is made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in instances where a service failure “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.” An order is also made for the landlord to provide relevant information to the resident about applying to the local authority to change her banding.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlord’s complaint handling, states that a landlord must respond to all elements of a complaint in its response. The Code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. As referenced above, the resident complained, both formally and through informal expressions of dissatisfaction, repeatedly about compensation for damaged items. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it acknowledged that the resident “had to throw away a large number of items”, however it failed to provide a response to this element. The resident also raised concerns about a number of additional costs she was incurring during the decant. Although the landlord addressed the parking charges, it failed to address the resident’s dissatisfaction about the other costs incurred.
The landlord also remarked internally that it did not respond to “anything relating to damp and mould”, in its complaint responses because the resident had threatened to instruct a solicitor. This was inappropriate, as although the landlord’s complaints policy allows it not to log a complaint where legal proceedings have started (which it states is generally when either party has been ‘issued’ with a formal ‘letter of claim’), this had not happened in this case. Therefore, it should have logged a complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy also states that in some complaints “there may be concerns about legal liability… If so, the landlord should still offer a resolution where possible, as that may remove the need for the resident to pursue legal remedies.” It adds that in some circumstances “legal advice should be sought as to the wording of any offer of resolution.” The landlord did not do this either. The landlord also acknowledged a complaint handling failure which occurred at stage 1, resulting in a delayed acknowledgement of the initial complaint. The £300 offered provided reasonable redress for that failing at the time, as well as for the further failings outlined in this report. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. As the landlord has made a reasonable offer it does not need to do anything further regarding this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks, damp and mould, remedial works and the resident’s decant.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the removal of the resident’s possessions from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the residents personal property, as a result of the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concern about asbestos in her property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £2,600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould at the property.
  2. £800 for the impact the avoidable delays to repairs at the property had on the resident. The £500 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  3. £750 in respect of the distress, anxiety and inconvenience caused by its handling of the decant. The £500 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  4. £350 in respect of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of requests for compensation for damaged items.
  5. £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her request for a permanent move.
2. Establish the parking costs incurred by the resident from 9 April 2024 to date and reimburse the resident accordingly. The landlord should also pay the £768 already offered to the resident in relation to her parking costs from 17 November 2023 – 8 April 2024, if it has not done so already.
3. Pay an additional amount equivalent to the rent, which was paid, for the period 27 October 2023 to 10 November 2023, in which the property was unlikely to have been habitable.
4. Pay the resident the £22.50 per day food allowance that she has been entitled to during the decant, until she is able to return to her property. The landlord should include evidence of its calculation to the Ombudsman and the resident.
5. Provide the resident with information about how to apply to the local authority for a higher banding in support of her request for a permanent move.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that is has instructed an independent surveyor to survey the damp at the resident’s property. If significant improvement is not demonstrated in regard to the residual damp, the landlord must create an urgent action plan to tackle any outstanding issues and repeat the survey within no more than 4 weeks.
2. Treat any subsequent report of mould at the property as an emergency repair. The Ombudsman will monitor this until the date of the final post-works inspection, as ordered above.
3. Provide a formal written response to the resident, copying in the Ombudsman, to the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, explaining the reasons for its decision.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must, in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Scheme, supply the Ombudsman with the terms of reference for a review of its policies and practices relating to its handling of reports of damp and mould, decants, and record keeping. The timeframe for the review will be agreed between the Ombudsman and landlord and form part of the terms of reference. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by the investigation occurred.
2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure, within the last 6 months.
3. How it will ensure there is a clear process to identify and assess where damp and mould may be prejudicial to health, or where a decant may be required. It should ensure the policy is compliant with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.
4. How it can better support residents in temporary decants which go on longer than initially intended.
5. How it can ensure all phone calls between the landlord and resident are accurately recorded.
6. A review of its staff’s training needs in relation to the above.
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 number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration of compensation commensurate to the level of detriment a particular resident has experienced if caused by a failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.

Recommendations

Pay the £500 offered in relation to its handling of the removal of the resident’s possessions from the property, as a finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this would be paid.
Pay the £300 offered in relation to its complaint handling, as a finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this would be paid.
The landlord should continue to reimburse the resident’s parking costs and pay her a food allowance until she is able to return to the property.
The landlord should signpost the resident to organisations which may be able to assist her with grants of money and/or furniture to assist her with being able to move back to the property.