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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202228852)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228852

Yorkshire Housing Limited

27 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of damp and mould, and remedial and damp proofing works.
    2. The installation of replacement windows.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a semi-detached house, where he has been an assured tenant of the landlord since July 2021. On 22 February 2022 he sent pictures of “possible damp” to the landlord, who reviewed the photos and raised an inspection on 17 March 2022.
  2. On 13 April 2022 the landlord reraised the job with an external contractor. The contractor advised on 12 May 2022 that they had been “trying to contact the resident for several weeks” but had been unable to arrange a visit.
  3. The resident chased the landlord on 25 August 2022. On 22 September 2022, the landlord completed a damp survey at the property.
  4. On 29 November 2022 the resident chased the landlord regarding works which had been identified during the survey. It attended on 20 December 2022 to complete an initial round of works and raised further works.
  5. On 14 February 2023 the resident complained that delays in dealing with the damp issues had resulted in mould forming in the property. On 20 February 2023 he contacted the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 February 2023. It apologised for a delay in dealing with the damp issues. It appointed a point of contact for the resident and arranged for a surveyor to attend on 1 March 2023 and book further works.
  7. The landlord attended and completed some works in March and April 2023. On 22 April 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord, informing it that the resident wished to escalate his complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023. It apologised, describing the delays as “unacceptable”. It offered £50 compensation for the delays and a further £50 for the “ongoing problems with mould spots”. It explained the current progress of the damp works. It responded to particular concerns which had been raised, including issues with rendering and the windows at the property:
    1. It explained that the property was due to be re-rendered in 2026, but it had brought this forward to 2024.
    2. It added that it would replace the windows in the property “later this year.”
  8. On 9 August 2023 the resident complained that he had been told the windows would be replaced in August, but the works remained outstanding. On 13 September 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of the case.
  9. All damp proofing works were completed by 21 September 2023. The windows in the property were replaced by 20 November 2023. The re-rendering of the property is due to take place at some point in 2024.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided the resident with an update that the windows in his property were due to be replaced “later this year”. However, the resident did not raise delays in installing these windows as a formal complaint, either in his initial complaint or in his escalation request. The Ombudsman has considered the surveyors reports undertaken as part of the damp and mould works at the property and concluded that replacing the windows did not form part of the damp proofing works done at the property. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the replacement of the windows at the property did not form part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that we “may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.” The landlord’s handling of the installation of replacement windows therefore falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

 

Handling of damp and mould, and remedial and damp proofing works

  1. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to ‘be fair’, to ‘put things right’, and to ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. It appears that the staff member responsible for responding to the resident’s first report of damp in February 2022 was due to leave the landlord’s employment, and so re-raised the inspection with an external contractor on 13 April 2022. However, the landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 days of being reported. The landlord had already exceeded the timescale set out in its policy at this time. Following this, the contractor tried to contact the resident to arrange access, however the evidence shows it did not have accurate contact details for the resident. Unfortunately, the contractor appeared to relay this information to the staff member who was no longer employed by the landlord, meaning that the landlord was unaware of the issue and unable to resolve the problem. This was a failing, as acknowledged by the landlord during the complaints process.
  3. The landlord was right to “put processes in place” to learn from its mistake, as described in its stage 1 complaint response, to ensure that is adequately handed over at the end of a staff member’s employment in the future. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this learning. An order is made below to ensure the landlord now completes this or provides evidence that it has already done so.
  4. The survey carried out on 22 September 2022, in response to the resident’s chaser on 25 August 2022, resulted in a number of recommendations being made, including to rectify specific areas of defective external rendering and to install fans (or a “PIV system’) to tackle poor ventilation. However, the landlord failed to take action until the resident chased the landlord on 29 November 2022. Works were then carried out on 20 December 2022 to repair loose (window and door) handles and repair a rear door which was contributing to water ingress. However, although these works were necessary to address some causes of damp at the property, they did not appear to be the same works identified in the earlier survey, which did not begin until 1 March 2023.
  5. The reason for the delays in starting the survey-recommended works were multifaceted, and included the landlord being reliant on long waiting times for appointments by contractors. Any instance of a cancellation, such as on 22 February 2023 (due to staff sickness), often resulted in a delay of around 4 weeks to be rescheduled. The landlord is responsible for the performance of its contractors and therefore, for any unreasonable delays in completing repairs. The evidence also shows that it did not chase the contractor during this period until 9 February 2023, demonstrating that it could have done more to mitigate these delays. This led to the resident’s complaint on 14 February 2023, where he stated that he was now “washing off black mould daily”, had paint peeling from the walls and was unable to redecorate until the damp problem was resolved. The landlord was right therefore to describe these delays as “unacceptable” during its complaint responses. The majority of these works were completed in March 2023, however some works were not finished until 21 September 2023.
  6. The evidence reflects a significant shift in the landlord’s approach and handling of this case from 1 March 2023 onwards. This shift also coincided with the resident’s complaint in February 2023, which appears to be one of the reasons the landlord’s performance improved (chiefly because a senior staff member took an active role in the management of the repairs after this point). The evidence shows that although the repairs were complex, required the engagement of multiple contractors in a particular order, and were often affected by factors outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord often did well to mitigate delays from this point onward.
  7. For example, after initial delays were caused or exacerbated by the landlord’s contractor, the landlord made the prudent decision on 27 February 2023 to work around the contractor, reattending with its own surveyor on 1 March 2023. There followed a large programme of works which required the meticulous management of multiple contractors, working alongside in-house teams, to rectify multiple issues. The landlord was able to complete a large volume of works in a short period in March 2023. Despite these efforts, further challenges arose, such as on 10 August 2023 when a contractor advised the landlord that due to supply issues, it would be unable to complete the installation of a ‘PIV system’ until October 2023. Not appearing to have the capacity to complete this itself, the landlord cancelled the job following the completion next round of works on 25 August 2023 and instead was able to complete the installation by engaging a third contractor, supported by its own in-house electricians, in September 2023. This was an example of good practice in mitigating delays by the landlord and reflective of the close oversight it held over the project.
  8. There is also evidence that the landlord’s decision to take a thorough approach to works contributed to delays at some stages times. For example, the landlord arranged new surveys at appropriate intervals in order to both assess the works it had done and inform its next steps. This likely reduced the risk of completing ineffective repairs. The landlord’s own surveyor also appeared to attend the property within a day of completing each round of works, enabling the landlord to quickly identify and organise the next round of works required, mitigating further delays. Due to the complexity of issues and number of contractors involved, it is reasonable that the landlord did not book further works until it had inspected the works completed so far. However as above, the landlord was beholden to long waiting times by multiple contractors. At times when the landlord was unable to mitigate the delays caused by its contractors, the landlord was not satisfied with doing nothing, for example by instructing a surveyor on 3 May 2023 to “investigate how we can make the property as watertight as possible in the meantime.”
  9. Despite these mitigating factors and several positive steps being taken by the landlord, many of the delays were ultimately unreasonable. For example, although the landlord could not install the ‘PIV system’ (which it opted to install in lieu of generic fans for better ventilation) until the completion of earlier rounds of works, there was still a significant failing because a better ventilation system had been recommended in September 2022 and was not installed until around 1 year later.
  10. The repair logs show that select spots of rendering were done as part of damp proofing works throughout March, April and June 2023, in line with surveyor’s report of September 2022. There is some further evidence of delays outside the landlord’s control, for example that one of the walls of the property could not be inspected alongside the others in March 2023 because of a dog being in the garden at the time. However, the landlord did not appear to recognise this oversight until the resident raised it on 27 June 2023. The landlord quickly put right this right, reraising the works on 30 June 2023 and completing this wall on 26 July 2023. The rendering identified in September 2022 was not completed in full until September 2023. As above, despite a marked improvement in the landlord’s performance from March 2023 onward, this delay was unreasonable and was a failing.
  11. External rendering to the remainder of the property, which was due to be redone in 2026, was moved forward to 2024 in light of some rendering issues arising earlier than anticipated. However, this does not appear to form part of the resident’s complaint about the damp proofing works done. This is because there is no indication in the surveyors’ reports considered by this investigation that the outstanding rendering works were contributing to the damp and mould issues, once the initial works identified were completed. The cyclical rendering works were therefore not raised through the internal complaints procedure, and the resident did not raise this element of the complaint with the Ombudsman when asking us to investigate this case. As such, this element of the resident’s complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This approach is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), which states that we “may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.”
  12. Despite the improvement in dealing with the causes of damp at the property, the evidence shows that the landlord’s response to reports of mould remained inadequate. The evidence shows that it did attend to inspect mould within 2 weeks of it first being reported on 14 February 2023, but it was a further 4 weeks until it completed the first mould wash on 31 March 2023. It was important the landlord inspected the mould quickly, because mould can often be prejudicial to health. However, mould was noted to have recurred in the survey on 24 May 2023 on the window frames of both bedrooms, the hallway/landing and in the bathroom, as well as on the bathroom wall. This may not have been dealt with until 18 August 2023 at the earliest, when many of the affected areas/units were removed and replaced/replastered. The extent of the mould growth in these areas is unclear, and the landlord’s decision not to complete a mould wash was possibly influenced by the upcoming works to the affected areas. However the delay in dealing with the recurrence of mould of around 12 weeks nevertheless represents a failing. Text messages from the resident show that mould continued to be an issue at the property in September 2023. It is unclear if this was a further recurrence, or if the works on 18 August 2023 had not adequately removed all of the mould, if it did remove any at all.
  13. The landlord did demonstrate good practice however by later proactively contacting the resident and asking if any damage had been caused by the mould, and accepting that the mould was caused by its own delays in dealing with damp. This demonstrated the landlord’s ability to ‘be fair’.
  14. The reason that such extensive works were required was primarily that a number of cyclical/planned works were soon due, and perhaps some installations at the property had reached the end of their lifespan earlier than expected. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s Active Asset Management Strategy, introduced in 2022, in which the landlord sets out its aim to survey the entirety of its current stock by 2025 and make significant investment in improving the quality of its properties, as well as to change the model by which it approaches repairs. If the landlord is able to implement this strategy as described, it is unlikely that many of the issues seen in this case would reoccur. However, orders are made below for the landlord to review its handling of the repairs in this case, and to ensure learning is undertaken to prevent future instances of similar service failures.
  15. In conclusion, although there were mitigating factors in the landlord’s failings in this case, the resident was subject to unnecessary delays, significant disruption, and had to live with damp and mould for an unacceptable period of time. The £100 offered by the landlord does not adequately ‘put things right’. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that where there has been maladministration which has had a significant impact on the resident, compensation of over £600 should be considered. Orders are made below to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Mitigating factors outlined in this report have also been considered.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould, and remedial and damp proofing works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the installation of replacement windows is outside of the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction to consider.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £850 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing remedial and damp-proofing works at the property. The £100 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
    2. Review its handling of the repairs in this case and implement any necessary measures to ensure the failings highlighted in this case do not reoccur. This should include consideration of whether adequate action has been taken to ensure staff turnover does not contribute to delays in repairs being completed. The landlord should share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman.