Vivid Housing Limited (202318464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318464

Vivid Housing Limited

19 July 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 damp and mould in a main bedroom and dining room.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a four-bedroom property. The property comprised of a living room, dining room and kitchen area downstairs. The upstairs comprised of two bedrooms at the front, one to the side above a public alleyway and the main bedroom at the rear.
The resident’s tenancy began on 2 August 2021. The resident lived at the property with her four children and visiting adult son. The property could accommodate up to eight.
The resident experienced damp and mould at the property since January 2022. The landlord was aware that the resident experienced mental health issues and that one child is asthmatic.
The resident brought a previous complaint to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of reports of air tightness around windows, damp and mould and related remedial work. This was following a complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint handling procedure on 9 December 2022, although the Ombudsman considered events up to 3 March 2023.
The Ombudsman investigated this complaint and issued a determination on 31 January 2024. The previous complaint assessed the landlord’s overall handling of damp and mould in the property, and specifically referred to two different bedrooms and the living room.
The landlord fitted a positive input ventilation system (PIV) at the resident’s property on 28 June 2022. This was to improve the ventilation in the property and to help to reduce the moisture levels.
The resident instructed a solicitor that sent a letter of claim to the landlord on 7 November 2022. This included a claim for defects to windows in the bedroom and a broken back door in the dining room.
Between 28 October 2022 to 3 March 2023, the landlord:
1. renewed the resident’s felt roof, this included resealing a small area of felt
2. inspected the resident’s property on 2 December 2022 and logged a job to remove 10mm from five internal doors to improve ventilation
3. logged a job to conduct a camera inspection of the shared wall between the resident’s property and her neighbour
4. said it removed the plaster and tanked the front of the property
5. stripped the ply timber insulation and replaced the cladding at the front
6. tested the wall for damp and inspected the property for mould on 23 February 2023
7. conducted an independent damp and mould survey on 3 March 2023, this recommended the fitting of a kitchen extractor fan and trickle vents in the windows.
Between September 2022 to March 2023, the landlord identified that the main cause of damp and mould was a leaking toilet in a neighbour’s property. This leak was repaired. The landlord acknowledged that the windows needed replacement throughout the property but gave no period for this to happen.
On 17 March 2023 the resident’s surveyor inspected the property and found no mould in the main bedroom but water staining to the external brickwork of other bedrooms. This report also identified that the back door of the dining room was rotten and that the UPVC veneer had come off the door.
On 24 April 2023 the landlord replaced 10 windows and one door at the resident’s property.
On the 27 June 2023 the landlord did a further inspection that recommended it service the resident’s PIV system and do a mould wash of the property. The landlord concluded that the damp and mould was caused by condensation.
On 3 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she had to sleep on the wet carpet in the main bedroom next to a wet and mouldy wall. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 July 2023 and said:
1. there were no service failures as it acted on expert advice and arranged appointments
2. on 19 July 2023 the resident refused its offer to strip the walls and apply a mould treatment
3. it agreed to service the PIV on 26 July 2023
4. it agreed to cut out a section of the wall in the main bedroom to look behind it to see if there was any dampness.
The landlord fitted an extractor fan in the kitchen and serviced the PIV on 26 July 2023. The landlord recommended that the front of the property be repointed.
The landlord booked two jobs to inspect the roof in August 2023. It said it cleared the gutter box, which formed a gulley on the roof to drain water, of dead leaves in early August 2023.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 August 2023, the resident told the landlord that the damp and mould had affected her mental health and her children’s health. On the 10 August 2023 the resident complained about the electrical sockets affected by damp.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023 and said:
1. it arranged a visit with the landlord of the property next door on 12 or 20 October 2023 to investigate a potential leak from the neighbour’s bathroom affecting the main bedroom
2. it would follow up the roof inspection on 19 September 2023 and report back if it found anything
3. it agreed to provide the resident with mould spray and mould wash the kitchen cupboards on 20 September 2023
4. it agreed that communications about the property would go through the repairs supervisor while its neighbourhood officer would deal with housing related matters
5. it acknowledged that the resident’s child had visited hospital, but it said that it could not conclude that this was caused by mould based on the available evidence
6. it offered the resident £250 for time and trouble.
On 19 September 2023 the landlord completed the following works in the main bedroom and in the dining room when it:
1. hacked the plaster back to brick
2. applied toward proof into the walls known as tanking slurry
3. replastered and renewed the skirting.
The landlord moved the resident to another property on 26 February 2024 as part of a management move and to help resolve the complaint.
The resident accepted an offer of compensation from the landlord of £1500 less any rent arrears on 20 May 2024. This was a ‘global’ figure intended to compensate for:
1. drafty and leaking windows
2. flooring in the bathroom that was lifting away
3. rotten roof cladding
4. mould affecting furniture
5. the damaged back door in the kitchen.
Both the resident and landlord have provided evidence that the offer was accepted before any legal proceedings.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42.l of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where a resident seeks to raise matters which an Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had an ongoing dispute with the landlord about its handling of damp and mould. This was the subject of a previous determination dated 31 January 2024. The Ombudsman cannot consider issues that it has already determined under paragraph 42.l of the Scheme.
The resident has asked the Ombudsman to consider specifically the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the main bedroom and dining room. Therefore, this investigation will concentrate on this. The investigation will also assess the landlord’s overall approach to damp and mould. This is for the sake of completeness and fairness. This was because the landlord took some steps in relation to the internal doors and roof to help deal with the damp and mould in the main bedroom and dining room.

The landlord’s obligations

As the resident reported continuing issues with damp and mould following the previous determination the landlord needed to continue to deal with this. There was an implied term in the resident’s tenancy that the property remained fit for human habitation. This included it being free from hazards caused by damp or mould. The Ombudsman expects landlords to act on reports of damp and mould with urgency and to take a zero-tolerance approach.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to urgently inspect properties with reported damp and mould and to investigate the causes. Landlords should consider if the issues are being caused by disrepair that are the landlord’s responsibility and how it can help.

Damp and mould in the main bedroom and dining room

On 3 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about sleeping on a wet carpet in her main bedroom and that the main bedroom walls were wet and mouldy.
The first mention that the walls of the main bedroom were wet and had mould was contained in an inspection report from 27 June 2023. This report recommended a mould wash, the installation of a kitchen extractor fan and that the landlord service the resident’s PIV.
On 6 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about her dining room wall being damp. She told the landlord that she thought a leak in the neighbour’s property had caused this.
The landlord had already inspected the resident’s property, including main bedroom and dining room, on 27 June 2023 and made recommendations. The Ombudsman considers that it was not necessary for it to re-inspect again so soon after the resident’s complaint.
As part of the landlord’s aim to deal with the damp and mould in the property the landlord:
1. replaced the windows and dining room back door on 24 April 2023
2. installed an extractor fan in the kitchen on 26 July 2023
3. serviced the resident’s PIV on 26 July 2023.
The Ombudsman considers that these were reasonable steps to take as they were in line with the recommendations made in the reports from 3 March 2023 and 27 June 2023.
It took the landlord over four months to install the extractor fan from when an independent survey first recommended (3 March 2023). In the absence of evidence to explain the delay the Ombudsman considers that this was an unreasonable length of time.
The damp survey of 3 March 2023 noted that there was mould present on the external walls of the main bedroom at the back. The landlord ought to have taken steps to explore the cause of the mould on the external walls.
The evidence is that the landlord suggested the mortar at the front should be repointed and it renewed the cladding to the front of the property in early February 2023. However, there is no evidence that it did any work to the cladding or external walls at the rear of the resident’s property where the main bedroom was located.
Following an inspection on 19 July 2023 the council told the landlord that the main bedroom wall had rising damp and there was water staining to the skirting boards. The council noted that the main bedroom was “adjacent to the neighbour’s bathroom.” The council also confirmed that the dining room had damp “at both low level and by the ceiling.” This report identified that the neighbour’s kitchen was adjacent to the resident’s dining room and the neighbour’s bathroom was above their kitchen.
On 20 July 2023 the landlord agreed to cut out a section of plaster in the main bedroom wall to test for dampness behind it and to establish evidence of a leak. The landlord said that it did this on 31 July 2023 although we have seen no evidence to verify this, and the resident disputed this was done. The Ombudsman has also not seen evidence of the outcome of the camera cavity wall inspection the landlord marked as completed on 14 February 2023. Therefore, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to make a finding on this due to poor record keeping.
As the landlord was on notice that there may be a leak in the neighbour’s property it ought to have:
1. made reasonable efforts to contact the resident’s neighbour to ask them to investigate and complete any necessary repairs
2. offered to report the issue to the local council so it could consider gaining access to and assessing the neighbour’s property for hazards
3. considered whether it would have been appropriate to decant the resident.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of what steps the landlord took to contact the resident’s neighbour or the council.
Local councils have a legal obligation to assess housing stock in their areas for hazards and can issue notices to non-council landlords to take remedial action. This is where the housing conditions are hazardous or harmful to human health. There was no evidence that the landlord made any referral to the local council, which would have been a reasonable step to take in the circumstances.
The landlord also has not provided evidence to show that it did any risk assessment on the impact of the housing conditions on the resident or considered a decant. This was not in line with its damp and mould procedures.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedures required it to assess the risk of mould at the property. This required consideration of the health and ages of the resident’s household. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any risk assessment. This is therefore a significant failure.
Landlords must also take active steps to reduce the risks of damp and mould, whatever the cause. This can include offering mould washes and dehumidifiers.
The evidence is that the landlord was unable to do mould washes initially. This was because on 16 June 2023 and 11 July 2023 the resident told the landlord she had already done mould washes to her property. The resident also declined a mould wash on 19 July 2023. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for not doing a mould wash while the resident did not want them done.
The landlord said it mould washed the resident’s property on 31 July 2023 and then on 20 September 2023 when it washed the kitchen cupboards. This was after the resident allowed it to. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence that the landlord completed a mould wash on these two dates or that it took other steps to help.
For example, we have not seen evidence that the landlord offered any advice on reducing humidity levels or that it provided dehumidifiers to the resident during the complaint process. The landlord provided these eventually, but the Ombudsman considers that they should have provided them at an earlier point.
The landlord completed work to the main bedroom and dining room on 19 September 2023 outlined in the background. This was appropriate because the landlord was responsible for major plasterwork and skirting boards under the resident’s tenancy agreement. It took the landlord just over seven weeks to do this. This was reasonable because the landlord wanted to make sure it fixed the roof beforehand to avoid the work being compromised by a leak.
The landlord’s evidence is that it arranged to inspect the neighbour’s property on 20 September 2023 and either 12 or 20 October 2023. The landlord logged a job to inspect the neighbouring property for a leak on 28 July 2023. It took the landlord nearly two months to arrange this which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was an unreasonable length of time given the urgency. The evidence shows that work was done to the neighbour’s property on or around 28 December 2023 but there is scant evidence to show these were followed up.
The Ombudsman notes that the back door in the dining room was defective. The landlord was aware of this as far back as 30 August 2022. The resident raised this again on 7 November 2022 and the broken door was referred to in the reports of 3 March 2023 and 17 March 2023. It took the landlord until 24 April 2023 to replace the door.
The Ombudsman considers that the eight months it took the landlord to fit a new back door was unreasonable. This is because the landlord was responsible for repairing the door within a reasonable time. This was under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11, and the resident’s tenancy agreement. The failure to complete this repair within a reasonable time is likely to have contributed to the damp and mould in the property. This is because this defect was referred to in the damp survey of 3 March 2023 as causing “outbreaks of mould”.
The Ombudsman has also found there to be an unreasonable delay in dealing with the resident’s safety concerns about electrical sockets. The landlord was responsible for electrical sockets and wiring under the resident’s tenancy and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11. The landlord was required to inspect the sockets and undertake any necessary repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repair offer and standards required it to deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours and to complete urgent repairs within seven calendar days. The resident reported to the landlord that her sockets were unsafe on 10 August 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s safety concerns on 14 September 2023 and clarified the sockets were in the dining room. Despite this the landlord failed to inspect the resident’s electrical sockets until 20 September 2023. The Ombudsman considers that this was unreasonable as it was not in line with the landlord’s repair offer and standards.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep accurate records of repairs to provide an audit trail and to help them to identify and resolve problems when they arise.
The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord has not kept accurate records and due to this it is not possible to verify:
1. when the landlord completed a 10mm undercut of five internal doors, this is because the landlord’s records suggest that it completed this on 22 February 2023 but on 24 February 2023 it noted the resident refused this work
2. when the landlord cut out the plaster in the main bedroom to check for dampness behind the main bedroom wall
3. what the outcome of the cavity wall camera inspection was
4. what the outcome of the roof inspection on 15 August 2023 and 19 September 2023 referred to in the background was
5. what happened at the inspection of the neighbouring property on 20 September 2023 and 12 or 20 October 2023.
Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the work referred to above to deal with the damp and mould was effective.

Summary

The landlord was unable to show overall it adopted a reasonable approach to mitigating the risks to the resident from damp and mould. The Ombudsman concludes, based on the available evidence, that the landlord unreasonably delayed:
1. installing the extractor fan in the resident’s kitchen
2. replacing the back door in the dining room
3. investigating a leak in a neighbouring property
4. inspecting the electrical sockets in the dining room.
The resident told the landlord that the living conditions were impacting her mental health and were making her children unwell. She told the landlord that her children were on antibiotics and that one of her sons had to be hospitalised. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord made a referral for the resident to its wellbeing service which was good practice.
Where claims are made that a person has been injured or that their health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inactions, the Ombudsman must consider the available documentary evidence. When this type of dispute arises, a medico–legal report is needed to decide the cause of any health conditions or issues. The Ombudsman has not been provided with this evidence. Without that evidence the Ombudsman is unable to draw any conclusions on the cause of the health problems of the resident’s children or the level of responsibility the landlord had for these.
However, the Ombudsman can see that the resident had been sleeping on a wet carpet in her main bedroom with her children on her bed. The resident also experienced significant distress, on one occasion suggesting she may arrange for social services to accommodate her children. This showed the desperation and level of distress the resident felt.
While there were serious failures identified in this report which impacted on the resident significantly the Ombudsman must determine complaints by what is fair in all the circumstances.
The Ombudsman is mindful that within a month of the previous determination the landlord moved the resident permanently to another property. The resident told the landlord and this service this was the outcome she was seeking.
The landlord made a compensation payment to the resident of £1,500 less any arrears. This was part of a settlement the resident accepted on 20 May 2024. The resident had access to competent legal advice, and we can fairly assume understood the consequences of accepting the offer. The settlement resolved several issues as outlined in the background including the delay in repairing the kitchen back door and windows. The Ombudsman considers that these issues are fairly resolved.
However, the settlement did not cover the delay:
1. in investigating a leak in a neighbouring property
2. in inspecting the electrical sockets in the dining room between 10 August 2023 to 20 September 2023.
The landlord offered the resident £250 for the time and trouble. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer did not adequately address the level of distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in resolving the issues not addressed by the settlement. We have therefore made an order to reflect this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the main bedroom and dining room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

The landlord must pay the resident £650 to include the £250 it offered the resident during the complaint process. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in inspecting the neighbouring property and electrical sockets.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has paid the compensation within 28 days of the date of this determination.