Town and Country Housing (202333930)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333930

Town and Country Housing

29 October 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:
1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives at the property with 2 young twin children and an older son. The resident and her younger son have asthma. Her eldest son has a diagnosis of autism.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2024. She said that the property had damp and mould issues. This impacted the health of the household. While the landlord had previously completed a mould wash, it had returned. The landlord had told her it could not do further works until it knew the results of an asbestos survey. However, she was still awaiting the outcome. She felt that their health and wellbeing did not matter to the landlord. She noted her children touched the mouldy walls and she feared for their safety. She asked it to move her to another property. She described the home as “living in a nightmare.” She included a GP letter which noted the impact of the mould on her asthma.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 March 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for failing to appropriately manage the repairs and delays caused. It also apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the household.
2. The resident first reported damp and mould on 24 October 2023. On 1 November 2023, it could not complete a mould wash as arranged as it needed to assess whether asbestos was present. It apologised for the delay, and distress and inconvenience caused, in arranging this test. On 31 January 2024, it received the test results.
3. It arranged a further inspection on 17 February 2024. However, it apologised for an error which meant it had to rearrange this to 22 April 2024. It would complete a mould wash and further assess the cause of the mould on this date.
4. It would review how it monitored repairs to prevent delays going forward.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 29 March 2024. She said it had got the dates wrong within its complaint response. She had reported issues prior to October 2023. She said it planned to complete the same works (mould wash) which had not previously helped. She was unhappy that it did not respond to all her concerns. This included why it left her to suffer, the impact on her health, and the lack of comments on the GP letter provided. She noted she had incurred costs buying dehumidifiers.
On 20 May 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. It apologised for its delayed initial response.
2. It noted the resident refused entry for the mould wash on 22 April 2024. It understood that she was upset that it planned to repeat steps previously taken.
3. The resident first reported damp and mould concerns in November 2022. It had previously completed repairs which had not resolved the issues. This included a new door, new flooring, window repairs, and clearing gutters. It had also completed 3 mould washes.
4. It had not investigated the root cause of the damp and mould. This meant it had not improved her home or the quality of life while living in it. It also apologised for not resolving the issues sooner, and for being slow to listen and respond.
5. It apologised for the “emotional toll on the household” and damaged belongings. It acknowledged the reported impact on their health.
6. A surveyor inspected the property on 10 May 2024. It identified multiple works required to identify and resolve the damp and mould. It would consider the works for approval at an internal meeting on 11 June 2024. It would then provide an update to her afterwards. It acknowledged this would cause further delays but explained this was its process.
7. The resident had rehousing options due to the overcrowding. It advised her about mutual exchanges and applying to the local authority’s housing register. It said it could help if needed.
8. It offered £2,000 compensation. This was for the delays in service delivery, its complaint response, and the distress and inconvenience caused. It also reflected the loss of personal items and the GP’s comments about the impact on their health.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response because it had not yet resolved the damp and mould. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 3 September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident had asked the Ombudsman to order the landlord to rehouse her. The reasons that the resident wishes to move are acknowledged. However, making such an order is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman. We cannot order the landlord to offer immediate rehousing to the resident. Nor can we ask it to prioritise her over others that need rehousing and who may be in a similar or greater need. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.
Where we find that the landlord has failed to act appropriately, we can order a range of remedies aimed at putting things right. The purpose of our remedies is to try to restore the resident’s position. We aim to put the resident back in the position they would have been – or so far as reasonably possible – had the failing not occurred.
The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould affected the health of the household. This Service empathises with the resident’s situation, and we do not doubt her comments about their health. However, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue a claim for personal injury.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property

Within the landlord’s final complaint response, it acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It was appropriate for it to do so, given the length of time the resident had experienced issues for.
The landlord said it had previously completed multiple repairs to resolve the damp and mould. These included 3 mould washes, and repairs to the guttering, windows and a door. However, it acknowledged that it had failed to appropriately investigate the cause of the damp and mould.
During works to the resident’s property in December 2022, the landlord identified a potential asbestos containing material (ACM). This meant it could not complete further works until it had assessed the ACM to ensure it was safe. On 5 January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She mentioned it had taken ACM samples on that date.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord completed a mould wash at the property. It noted that it needed to assess whether the flaking bedroom ceiling contained asbestos. The resident reported the flaking paint again on 18 August 2023.
Despite not knowing the results of the ACM test results, the landlord continued to inspect the property. It did so on 1 September 2023 and 1 November 2023. Both inspections noted works needed to the windows and to investigate the damp in the loft space. It is unclear why it continued to inspect the property instead of chasing the test results. It could not complete any works without the results. It confirmed this within an internal email on 24 April 2023. The repeated inspections would have added further distress and inconvenience to the resident. It would have understandably raised her hopes that it would act on the findings of the inspections, when it could not.
It is unclear why the landlord left the resident in the property with a potentially hazardous material exposed and deteriorating. This is a significant concern. At the point of the resident’s complaint, it had taken a year to confirm whether the property had any ACM. This is a failing.
The landlord chased the results in April 2023 and November 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges specialist contractors may complete such testing, and as such, some delays may occur. However, the resident continued to experience damp and mould during this time. The delays therefore impacted its response to the damp and mould itself. It was not appropriate for it to have such little oversight and management of this process. This would have understandably added distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould encourages landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance attitude towards such matters. It also encourages landlords to take prompt action when dealing with such reports. The landlord cannot demonstrate that it did so in this case.
The landlord completed a further ACM test on 18 January 2024. It had a copy of the report on the following day which found no ACM present in the property. Between 14 February 2022 and 22 January 2024, the resident asked on 3 occasions for an update on the test results. She was understandably concerned with the risk posed to her household. In addition, the landlord’s own records note that the resident had concerns with its lack of attention to the issues. Despite this, it only updated her within its initial complaint response. It is unclear why it did not update her sooner with the outcome.
The landlord’s complaint responses said that it was aware of the ACM test results on 31 January 2024. Its records show that it received the report on 19 January 2024. It is a failing that it did not reflect upon its records to provide an accurate response.
As part of the landlord’s initial complaint response, it arranged a further mould wash for 22 April 2024. The resident refused this as it had previously completed such works which had not resolved the cause of the issues. The landlord agreed with this statement in its final complaint response. However, it should reasonably have listened to her concerns with its plan sooner. If it had, it could have avoided a delay in arranging its next steps. Instead, it took over a month from the resident’s first comment opposing these works, on 29 March 2024, to complete a surveyor inspection on 10 May 2024.
The surveyor inspection report, produced on 15 May 2024, identified 110 issues at the property. It found damp and mould affected most rooms, with the upstairs worst affected. It listed multiple works required externally and internally. This included works to the gutters, pipework, windows, and ventilation.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it told the resident that it would consider the works during an internal meeting on 11 June 2024. It said it appreciated this would cause a further wait but was necessary in line with its processes. While it was reasonable for it to manage her expectations and provide a timeline, the delay caused was not appropriate.
The resident had experienced significant delays with resolving the damp and mould already. At the time of the inspection on 10 May 2024, she had already waited for repairs for approximately 14 months, from March 2023. It was therefore not appropriate for the landlord to hold off planning the works for a further month. Further delays would have later understandably occurred given it could only begin planning such works after approval.
The landlord should have prioritised the resident’s repairs and escalated this sooner to prevent further delays. This would have been appropriate in the spirit of dispute resolution, to learn from its mistakes and put things right for her. Especially given it had acknowledged failings with its previous handling of repairs. That it did not do so is a failing.
The landlord’s compensation, damp, and mould policy details how it should respond to such reports. Its policy states that it would take initial action on any recommendations from a surveyor within 10 working days. It is evident that it did not do so. The policy also states that it would complete these repairs within 20 working days, which it did not do. It therefore did not act in line with its policy, which is a failing.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that the damp and mould impacted the household. She provided GP letters and photos to show the extent of the mould within the home, and the impact it had on their health. She explained that on one occasion her youngest child had touched a mouldy wall. Her son had gone to hospital following waking up with black on his hands and mouth.
It is a failing that despite being aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord did not appropriately manage the repairs. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord apologised for the impact on their health within its complaint responses. However, it remains of significant concern that it did not consider the risks of remaining in the property. Especially given the risk to both the potential ACM and the damp and mould. It is evident the landlord should have considered the impact to their health much sooner.
Additionally, the resident told the landlord that the property condition impacted her family life. She wanted to be able to reside in a home free from mould, but instead she spent time cleaning mould daily. She explained that the mould damaged her furniture and personal items, including her son’s mattress. She had two young children and an older son with autism. On 19 February 2024, she told the landlord that all 5 household members had started sleeping in the living room due to the conditions. It is a failing that it did not address her concerns sooner to assess whether the property was safe to live in.
Throughout the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and her complaint, the landlord had poor communication. The resident resorted to making multiple contacts to the landlord to try and obtain updates. This would have caused her significant distress and inconvenience at an already challenging time.
The landlord acknowledged failures in its handling of the matters in its initial complaint response. However, it continued to not provide timely updates about the works to the resident. This caused her to continue to chase repairs. This shows the landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. Additionally, this understandably would have resulted in further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her due to the impact of the property condition on the family. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining the rehousing options available to her. It advised her to apply to the local authority’s housing register. It also advised her to consider the option of a mutual exchange. It also offered her assistance with doing so if needed.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was not the outcome the resident hoped for. However, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to provide her with the options available to her. The landlord should provide the resident with a letter of support for her rehousing application. This should detail the overcrowding and any other known issues which may help her application.
After the landlord’s final complaint response, it temporarily moved the resident out of the property to complete repairs. The resident has told this Service that she remains concerned as to whether this has resolved the damp and mould issues. Additionally, the resident has told the Ombudsman that she bought a dehumidifier to help with the damp and mould. She said that she has incurred costs for running the dehumidifier. Appropriate orders have been made regarding these points.
The landlord offered the resident £2,000 compensation. This was in recognition of the delays in service delivery, delays in its complaint response, and the distress and inconvenience caused. It also reflected the loss of personal items and the GP’s comments about the impact on their health.
Considering the failures up to the point of the landlord’s final complaint response, this amount was proportionate to the substantive issue only. The £2,000 compensation is an award in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for serious failings which impacted the resident. The amount, however, was not proportionate for the ongoing failures which occurred after the final complaint response.
There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property. It is noted that the landlord acknowledged some failings and took steps to try to put things right during the course of the complaint. However, we have identified further failings and have therefore made a finding of maladministration.
Ongoing failures occurred with the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property. Its handling of the approval of works with needing to wait a month for a meeting to consider its next steps was a further failing. It is evident that the landlord did not learn from its mistakes. It understandably caused further distress and inconvenience to her by not advancing the repairs sooner. The landlord should therefore pay a further £450 compensation for its response to reports of damp and mould in the property. This is reflective of the continued distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The associated complaint handling

The resident told the landlord that the property experienced damp and mould issues since November 2022. The landlord’s records reflect this. Despite this, it said within its initial complaint response that the first report was in October 2023. It is unclear why the landlord made this error within its correspondence. However, it is a failing that it did not reflect upon its records to provide an accurate response.
The resident disputed the accuracy of the dates within her complaint escalation. The landlord later confirmed within its final complaint response that the first report was in fact in November 2022. It was appropriate for it to acknowledge and rectify its error. This may have offered reassurance that it listened to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines the timescales to respond to complaints. It states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would then provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of logging the complaint. When a resident escalates their complaint, it would acknowledge this within 4 working days. It would then provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the escalation request. At both stages, it said it could agree an extension of this timescale by 10 working days if needed.
The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 14 January 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 23 January 2024, which was not in line with its policy. It said it would provide its response within 10 working days, but it did not do so until 28 March 2024. This was 47 working days after acknowledging the complaint.
On 8 February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident regarding the complaint delays. It said it would provide an update as soon as possible as it was still investigating her complaint. However, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and the landlord’s policy, such extensions should be no longer than a further 10 working days. It is a failing that the landlord did not follow the Code and its own policy. It missed an opportunity to provide suitable reassurance to the resident of when it would be able to respond to her concerns.
The landlord’s delayed complaint response caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Its lack of response caused her to contact the landlord on 7 occasions after making the complaint. It was right for the landlord to apologise for the delay within its initial complaint response. However, it did not offer any compensation to offer redress for the inconvenience until its final complaint response. This was not appropriate.
Within the resident’s complaint escalation, she said the landlord’s initial complaint response did not cover all the issues raised. She said it had not responded to her points of why it had left the household to suffer. It also had not responded to the GP letters stating the impact on their health. The Code states that landlords must address all points raised within the complaint definition. It is a failing that it did not do so.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 March 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint within 4 working days, as outlined in its policy. This caused the resident further time and trouble as she had to repeat her escalation request on 17 April 2024. It then took a further 8 working days for it to acknowledge her complaint, on 29 April 2024. This was not appropriate. This understandably would have caused the resident further distress as she would have believed it was not taking her complaint seriously.
The landlord provided its final complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2024. This was 34 working days after the complaint escalation. This was not appropriate. It did not acknowledge any failures with its complaint handling at stage 2 of its complaint process. This is a failing.
Considering the above, the landlord should pay a further £200 compensation to the resident. This is an appropriate order to reflect the time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience, caused by its complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has acknowledged failings but where its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation. It should include specific examples in reference to each complaint point.
2. Pay the £2,000 compensation offered in its final complaint response if it has not already done so.
3. Pay a further £450 compensation to the resident. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of damp and mould in the property. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
4. Pay a further £200 compensation to the resident. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused by its associated complaint handling. It should pay this directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
5. Complete a post-inspection of the works completed. If it has already completed this, it should complete a new inspection. A surveyor or other senior member of its repairs team should complete the inspection.
6. Confirm its position regarding reimbursing the resident for the dehumidifier purchase cost and running costs from when she purchased this. Any decision should be in line with its compensation policy.
7. Provide the resident with a letter of support for her rehousing application. This should detail the overcrowding and any other known issues which may help her application.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.