Worthing Homes Limited (202234998)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234998

Worthing Homes Limited

03 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 the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 11 October 2021 until 23 April 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property was a new build and is a ground floor 2 bedroom flat. The resident has several recorded vulnerabilities, including COPD and asthma. The resident’s husband is a wheelchair user and has several recorded vulnerabilities, including Reynaud’s syndrome.
The resident reported to the landlord on 4 January 2023 that she had found mould on the walls in her property. In her report she asked the landlord what she should do as she was clinically vulnerable with a lung condition and therefore could not breathe in the spores. She said they had been leaving the heating on to help dry the walls out.
The landlord raised a repair request, and an inspection took place on 9 January 2023. The inspection found there was unexplained water on the flooring, the skirting board was discoloured and holding a 25% moisture content, the wall above the skirting had a 38% moisture content, and the corner of the wall had a 20% moisture content. The developer undertook its own inspection and did not dispute that the issue was a latent defect.
The resident said she made a formal complaint on 6 February 2023. It is not disputed that this was not logged by the landlord. The resident made a further formal complaint on 2 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. Despite inspections taking place at the property, the resident had not received an update from the landlord.
2. She had puddles in the flat due to water ingress through the brickwork and the flat smelt of damp.
3. The resident said she had a lung condition which was being affected by the damp and her husband’s stomach condition was being made worse.
4. The resident said the situation was causing her stress.
5. The resident requested information about what works would take place and when.
6. Due to her health conditions, the resident said she could not be in the property much longer due to the condition it was in.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 and 16 March 2023 to chase a response. On 17 March 2023, the landlord discussed treating the property with a mould wash and offered to get the resident a dehumidifier.
On 15 March 2023, the developer confirmed it had begun investigating the external cause of the damp. They began works on 27 March 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 30 March 2023. It summarised a timeline of events. The key points were as follows:
1. The landlord could see that action had been taken to resolve the defect, but that was not communicated to the resident. It accepted that when the resident called for an update, she was never called back. It confirmed her record had also not been updated so no update could have been given over the phone to her.
2. It confirmed it had a new housing management system and training had been given to all staff. It assured the resident it would discuss the errors found with the relevant teams.
3. As the issue had to be passed to the developer to resolve, there was a delay. The developer acted promptly on the report but as the landlord had to investigate the issue prior to it being passed to the developer, there was a delay. It apologised that the delay was not communicated to the resident.
4. It could see it had offered a mould wash on 17 March 2023. It had sent the resident a list of the chemicals used in the wash due to her lung condition, but the resident did not confirm with the landlord if it was safe for use.
5. It said in cases where there was water ingress, it would offer a dehumidifier, but it could see that one was not offered to the resident.
6. It said it had looked at the gas usage provided by the resident and confirmed it would offer £30 per month for the extra usage. This amounted to £90.
7. It said that the resident had said she had stayed in hotels on 4 different occasions due to the impact of the mould. It could see the resident had provided a doctor’s note showing that mould could worsen her medical condition. However, as she had not confirmed the hotel stays with the landlord, it was not able to offer redress for the cost of the stays.
8. It agreed that its communication was poor and offered £75. It also offered £100 for the overall distress and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 31 March 2023 as she did not find the compensation to be acceptable. The landlord acknowledged her request on 11 April 2024.
The resident ended her tenancy on 23 April 2024. She moved to a property with a different landlord. The outstanding works needed to the internal areas of the property were delayed and completed after the resident had vacated the property.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 17 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed it could see the resident had contacted the landlord once or twice a week for an update or to report the issue getting worse. It could see that it had not replied promptly, and the resident’s file was not updated regularly.
2. It said it had progressed investigations from 9 January 2023 and the issue was escalated to the developer who confirmed it was a latent defect. However, this was not communicated to the resident which led to her making a formal complaint on 6 February 2023.
3. It said it should have taken into consideration the medical concerns when the resident advised of mould in the bedroom on 24 January 2023. It confirmed it should have discussed a temporary decant with the resident or considered what other steps it could have taken to minimise the potential impact.
4. It confirmed it did not offer a dehumidifier until17 March 2023, by which stage the resident was already looking to move into another property.
5. It confirmed it had discussed the hotel stays with the resident, who had explained she had booked them without advising the landlord as she felt no one was communicating with her. It reiterated its position that it would not reimburse for these as they would have needed to agree a temporary decant. It said the resident had spoken to the landlord after each stay away from the property but had never raised that she had stayed in a hotel.
6. It apologised for the lack of clear and consistent communication the resident had received. It apologised that it had not proactively considered the resident’s health concerns despite her raising this on several occasions. The landlord said it had concentrated on the physical issues and therefore did not listen and consider the potential health implications for the resident.
7. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration at having to move home.
8. It offered the resident £70 per month from October 2022 until March 2023 for the extra gas usage, totalling £420.
9. It offered the resident compensation of £730 in recognition of the service failures experienced from poor communication and lack of consideration for the resident’s health.
10. In concluding its response, it confirmed the lessons it had learned.
In referring her complaint to this Service, the resident said she was satisfied with the compensation given for the gas usage but was unhappy with the overall compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair priorities policy states that urgent repairs will be done within 5 working days and routine repairs within 1 month. Its inspections policy states that where there are reports of damp, its surveyor will carry out an inspection within 5 working days and a ticket for repair should be raised by the end of the next working day to rectify the issue.
The landlords damp, mould, and condensation policy states that it will investigate and diagnose the cause of any damp and deliver effective solutions. It says it will remain in regular and effective communication with the throughout. It says it will put other measures in place to support vulnerable customers.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Where it cannot meet this timeline, the response deadline may be extended by 10 working days.

Damp and mould.

On 4 January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her property. In line with its damp, mould, and condensation policy, the landlord appropriately conducted an inspection within 5 working days, on 9 January 2023. However, given the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it could have discussed the urgency of the situation, with regards to the impact on her health, at the outset. No evidence has been provided to show this occurred.
Following the inspection, the landlord raised an urgent job for its contractor to attend to investigate the damp patches that had appeared. This took place, in line with the landlord’s policy, within 5 working days on 14 January 2023. This highlighted a commitment from the landlord to resolve the issue.
The issue was a latent defect. The landlord received the inspection report on 23 January 2023 from its contactor; however, the evidence provided shows this was not communicated to the developer until 10 February 2023, who did not then attend until 24 February 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the developer at the earliest opportunity of a defect and therefore be proactive in achieving a swift resolution. Not doing so caused a delay and caused the resident to live with damp and mould without knowing a solution.
Further to this, the evidence shows the resident chased the landlord for an update weekly but did not receive a response or an update. This was not appropriate. Landlords need to ensure they have effective systems in place to ensure residents are kept up to date with outstanding repairs, particularly in cases of damp and mould. This would have been particularly important in this case given the resident’s medical concerns and vulnerability.
However, the landlord admitted its communication failures with the resident and its failure to update case notes and therefore it acknowledged its shortcomings. It said it had since implemented a new case management system and committed to ensuring staff follow correct processes moving forwards. While the landlord should have communicated effectively with the resident at the time, it is appropriate that it has since accepted its shortcomings. Further to this, it has implemented changes to rectify the issue which is a mitigating factor when considering a determination in this case.
On 9 January 2023, after the first inspection, it was discovered that the resident’s property had high moisture content in the walls and water on the floors. On 23 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and reported further damp in her bedroom and water on the floor. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take mitigating steps in cases of damp and mould to support a resident. Despite the resident’s persistent communication, the landlord did not offer the use of a dehumidifier until 17 March 2023, almost two months after her first report. Given the resident’s medical condition and the worsening damp and mould issues, this delay was inappropriate.
Further to this, given the resident’s report that the issues were worsening and the discovery that the mould was present in the resident’s bedroom as well as the living room, it would have been appropriate at this point for the landlord to have considered or discussed a temporary decant with the resident. This is especially important given the resident’s persistent reports to the landlord about the impact on her medical condition. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord ever considered moving the resident. This was inappropriate and highlighted a disregard of the resident’s situation.
In her first report about damp and mould, the resident expressed concern about mould spores due to her clinical vulnerability. She reiterated this concern on 6 February 2023, 2 March 2023, and during a telephone call with the landlord on 13 March 2023. Despite the landlord informing its contractor on 10 January 2023, to be cautious about dust and mould spores due to the resident’s condition, no other evidence has been provided to show that the landlord ever considered the impact of the mould on the resident. The landlord missed many opportunities to discuss a temporary decant or other temporary measures with the resident. Its failure to do so, was a missed opportunity to show the resident she was at the heart of its endeavour to resolve the issue.
Further to this, the landlord did not acknowledge its lack of action in relation to the resident’s health condition in its stage 1 response. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 that it had not sufficiently taken into account the residents known health problems, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this at the earliest opportunity. Not doing so, showed an initial lack of regard to the resident’s condition and the distress the situation would have caused.
The resident informed the landlord that she had stayed in a hotel on four separate occasions due to her health concerns. She requested the landlord cover these costs. In its stage 1 response, the landlord declined due to lack of awareness of the stays. The landlord reiterated its stance in the stage 2 response. It said that if the resident had mentioned the stays at the earliest opportunity, it could have discussed a potential temporary relocation. While the landlord should have initiated discussions about a decant, it was reasonable for the landlord not to agree to cover the hotel costs without prior agreement.
On 17 March 2023, the resident sent evidence to the landlord, which showed the financial loss incurred by keeping the heating on to aid in drying out the house. Considering the increased utility usage, the landlord offered the resident £30 per month as compensation for the added cost. However, the resident contested this amount, calculating it to be only £1 per day. In response, the landlord reevaluated the situation during its stage 2 investigations and adjusted the compensation to £70 per month, covering the period from October 2022 to April 2023, totalling £420. This fair resolution would have improved the relationship between the landlord and resident and gone some way to resolve her complaint.
The resident informed the landlord in March 2023 that she had secured another property via the local authority. While the external works were completed by the developer in March 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged, at the resident’s request, for the internal works to be completed after the resident had left. Doing so showed a commitment from the landlord to minimise the disruption to the resident prior to her move.
Throughout the duration of the issue, the evidence shows that the landlord kept in regular contact with the developer to ensure a prompt resolution of the issue. This was appropriate; however, the landlord has failed to show that it had the same level of communication with the resident. The landlord’s damp, mould, and condensation policy states it would remain in regular and effective communication with its residents. This did not happen. Not keeping the resident updated left her chasing the landlord for a response and was not in line with its policy or the dispute resolution principles.
Overall, the landlord’s communication fell short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. While it endeavoured to resolve the issue promptly and liaised regularly with the developer to ensure the matter was resolved for the landlord, it did not keep the resident updated. The resident was left spending time chasing a response from the landlord. Further to this, the landlord did not consider the resident’s health conditions and vulnerabilities. The resident raised on many occasions that she was concerned about the impact the mould would have on her health, but this was ignored by the landlord. It did not consider a temporary decant and did not provide timely solutions to help resolve the issue. This led to the resident increasing her gas usage and having to find her own temporary accommodation on occasions. The landlord’s failings eventually led to the resident ending her tenancy.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings found in this investigation. The landlord confirmed the lessons it had learned and informed the resident about changes it was going to implement due to the failings it had found. This acknowledgment from the landlord, along with its commitment to bring about change following this complaint, highlighted its willingness to learn and understand its shortcomings. While this does not amount to reasonable redress, it was a mitigating factor when considering the determination in this investigation.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in her property.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £420 for her gas usage and £730 for the distress and inconvenience caused. While this offer goes someway to reflect the failings in this case, it is not entirely proportionate to the impact caused to the resident. A compensation order has therefore been made for £1,570. This is made up of the following:
1. £420 for the resident’s increased gas usage in line with the landlord’s original offer.
2. £250 for not considering a temporary decant.
3. £100 for initially not providing a dehumidifier.
4. £300 for not initially considering the resident’s health condition.
5. £500 for the overall distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

Complaint Handling

It is not disputed that the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2023 and that the landlord did not log this and provide a timely response in line with its complaints policy. Landlords need to ensure they have robust and efficient systems in place to log and monitor complaints made to ensure they are responded to within their published timescales. Not doing so in this case led to the resident having to spend time and trouble raising a further complaint on 2 March 2023.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 30 March 2023, 10 working days after the response was due. Further to this, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord, in line with its policy, communicated this delay to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that a resident must be at the heart of complaint handling. Not communicating the delay is not in line with this principle and caused the resident to spend time chasing a response.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 30 March 2023. However, evidence provided by the landlord shows that this request was not escalated to the relevant team until 11 April 2023 and the resident again had to chase the landlord for a response. This is not acceptable and caused a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was due by 30 April 2023. However, in line with the Code and the landlord’s policy it agreed with the resident to extend the deadline to respond until the 17 May 2023. Further to this, it spoke to the resident on 5 occasions during this time to discuss her complaint and understand the issue. This showed a commitment by the landlord to understand the resident’s complaint and to conduct a thorough investigation into the issues raised.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It did not log the resident’s first complaint and then delayed in responding at stage 1. It then did not log her escalation request properly causing a further delay to its response. However, while its stage 2 response was delayed, this was communicated properly to the resident to manage her expectations.
Therefore, taking into account all the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £175, made up of the following:
1. £75 for not logging the resident’s first complaint.
2. £50 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response.
3. £50 for not escalating the stage 2 request promptly.

Determination

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,745. This amount replaces the landlords earlier offer of £1,150 and should be paid less any amount already paid. It is made up of the following:
1. £1,570 for its handling of the report of damp and mould.
2. £175 for its complaint handling.
A senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide to this Service, evidence of how the lessons it learnt as part of this complaint have been embedded in its service.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.