Yorkshire Housing Limited (202311148)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311148

Yorkshire Housing Limited

29 January 2025

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 level of compensation awarded by the landlord relating to its handling of damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has a secure tenancy that started on 16 July 2016. The property is a ground floor flat with 2 bedrooms. The landlord said it did not have any records of vulnerability for the resident at the time of the complaint. The resident did not disclose any vulnerabilities during the complaint or to the Ombudsman.
4. On 17 November 2022, the resident reported rising damp affecting her property. The landlord conducted a damp survey on 16 January 2023 which found high levels of condensation. The survey recommended an upgraded extraction fan be fitted in the bathroom as well as constant heating and ventilation throughout the property. It also found the windows were not fitted correctly which created cold spots. It recommended that cavity closers be fitted to resolve this.
5. The resident made a complaint on 17 February 2023. She said:
   1. she had not heard anything after the damp survey was completed despite chasing the landlord.
   2. she had asked for a copy of the damp report, but the landlord was unclear about whether she could have this.
   3. the surveyor had promised her a callback, but she did not receive one.
   4. the landlord had not responded to the photographs she had sent of damage to her property.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023. It said:
   1. it had spoken with the surveyor who apologised “sincerely” for the lack of updates following the damp survey.
   2. it had raised all the recommended works from the survey.
   3. it requested its claims team to contact the resident directly regarding a claim for property damage.
   4. it apologised for the frustration of the situation and offered £50 for this.
7. The landlord upgraded the extractor fan on 9 March 2023 and resealed all the windows at the property on 29 March 2023. The resident continued to report that her property was damp, and she had concerns that it was coming through the brickwork. The landlord surveyed the property again on 5 April 2023 and completed works on 20 April 2023 to lower the ground level. This was to ensure it was below the damp proof course.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 April 2023. She said:
   1. she had received advice from the operative who fitted the extractor fan that it was not needed due to the size of the bathroom.
   2. she had received advice from the operatives who resealed the windows that the work would not solve the damp because the windows were intact.
   3. she was told the ground level outside was under the damp proof line when a surveyor attended on 5 April 2023, but he would raise a job for it anyway.
   4. she had taken time off work to allow these “seemingly unnecessary” works to be completed.
   5. she had marked the area where there was damp penetration, and it continued to spread. She said this had damaged her carpet.
   6. she had called the landlord on several occasions to discuss her concerns about the repairs and the damp but had not had a response.
   7. she did not feel the landlord was taking her concerns seriously even though the issues were impacting her mental and physical health. As such, she did not feel the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation was “substantial” enough.
   8. she had completed the insurance claim forms but did not want her carpet replaced until the landlord had resolved the damp.
9. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 5 June 2023. It said:
   1. it understood why its operatives’ comments may have caused the resident some concern. But it had spoken with “experts” who provided assurances the works ordered would solve the damp problems.
   2. it would contact its insurers to speed up the claims process.
10. The resident continued to chase the landlord because the damp was an ongoing issue, and she had not received its stage 2 response. She raised a formal complaint about this on 1 August 2023. The landlord conducted a CCTV drain survey on 7 August 2023. The survey recommended the landlord replace the damp proof course under the lounge floor. It also recommended that it install a French drain to direct water into the drain and prevent it from being soaked up by the lounge floor.
11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2023 because it had conducted a review of its stage 2 outcome. It said:
    1. it would commence the internal work on 14 September 2023.
    2. it hoped that after having regular contact with the resident it had helped to restore her faith in the landlord.
    3. it would replace the resident’s carpet after it had completed the work.
    4. it had let her down and it wanted to put things right by offering £2,080 in compensation. This included the distress and inconvenience of its delays as well as replacing the resident’s sofa, sofa chair, rug, curtains, DVDs, and small miscellaneous items.
12. The landlord completed the internal work and replaced the resident’s carpet on 29 September 2023.
13. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she felt the landlord’s offer of compensation did not consider:
    1. the length of time she had waited for the landlord to resolve her reports of damp at the property.
    2. the landlord did not take ownership of the works which delayed their completion.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation awarded

14. The landlord does not dispute it was responsible for the following failures:
    1. it delayed conducting the necessary damp survey between November 2022 and January 2023.
    2. it failed to provide updates to the resident between January 2023 and March 2023 about which works it intended to complete to resolve the damp.
    3. its operatives, during appointments in March and April 2023, caused the resident to lose faith that the repairs it had carried out to the windows, damp proof level and extractor fan would resolve the damp.
    4. it delayed carrying out a further survey of the property between April 2023 and August 2023 after the resident continued to report damp at the property.
    5. it delayed carrying out the recommended work from its drainage survey between 7 August 2023 and 29 September 2023.
    6. it took 10 months overall to resolve the damp at the resident’s property.
15. During the complaints procedure the landlord offered the resident £2,080 compensation. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £1,000 for the replacement of the sofa, sofa chair and rug.
    2. £30 for the replacement of the curtains.
    3. £50 for the replacement of DVDs and a box of miscellaneous items.
    4. £1,000 for the “length of time taken, stress and inconvenience”.

It also agreed to replace and fit the resident’s lounge carpet.

16. The resident accepts the compensatory offers made by the landlord for her damaged belongings. However, she does not believe that the landlord’s offer of £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience of its delays was proportionate. She said that this was not sufficient to address the delays in resolving the damp or the lack of communication from the landlord’s surveyor throughout the process of completing the repairs.
17. The resident explained that she lost faith in the landlord’s ability to carry out the repairs over a prolonged period. The evidence also shows she spent time and trouble pursuing the repairs and trying to find out what the landlord intended to do at various points during the repair journey.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. compensation should be fair, appropriate, and proportionate to consider the impact of the failure on the customer.
    2. it categorises “major impact” as a serious failure in service standards that could be “the severity of the event of a persistent failure over a protracted length of time”.
19. The landlord also operates a compensation matrix. This states it may award £250 up to a discretionary amount for severe inconvenience or service failure. This is to address “major impacts including severe distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved”.
20. The Ombudsman’s approach to remedies is set out in this Service’s Remedies Guidance. This can include situations where there has been avoidable inconvenience, distress, or detriment to a resident. A landlord may be required to make a payment in recognition of that impact and to acknowledge how the resident was affected.
21. This Service’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ states that where there has been a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right are substantial, this can be reflected in a finding of maladministration. The corresponding compensatory award for this finding is usually between £600 to £1,000. The guidance explains the amount of compensation is a recognition of the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the particular circumstances of the complaint. We consider the following when assessing the impact of distress:
    1. the severity of the situation.
    2. the length of time involved.
    3. any disabilities or particular vulnerabilities of the resident.
    4. any other relevant factors.
22. Overall, there is a level of maladministration because the landlord unreasonably delayed in resolving the damp, failed to communicate reasonably with the resident, and caused her to lose faith in the repair process. The landlord identified and acknowledged this before the Ombudsman’s formal investigation. On its own initiative, it has taken steps to apologise, remedy its communications with the resident, complete the repairs, and make an offer of compensation. The offer of compensation was fair to address a series of failures in service standards over a protracted period. This shows the landlord was resolution focused and tried to put things right.
23. Taking this into account, the landlord’s offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This is because aligns with the level of compensation we would award for the level of failure. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of £1,000 was proportionate to address the impact on the resident for its failures. As such, we consider the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Complaint handling

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days.
25. The resident raised a complaint on 17 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 March 2023 which was 10 working days later. This was appropriate because it was in line with the timeframes prescribed in the Code.
26. The resident escalated her complaint on 27 April 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 June 2023 which was 27 days later. Although this was not in line with the timeframes set out in the Code, there is no evidence this was the cause of detriment to the resident.
27. As part of the resident’s escalation request, she explained:
    1. 3 separate operatives attending the property had told her the works raised to resolve the damp would not be effective.
    2. she felt the ongoing damp issues had impacted her mental and physical health.
    3. she was dissatisfied with the “consistently poor communication” of the landlord around the repairs and the findings of its surveys.
    4. she felt the compensation awarded was not reasonable given the length of the landlord’s delays.
    5. she had not heard back from the landlord’s insurers regarding her carpet replacement.
    6. the damp continued to be an issue and was spreading.
28. Under the Code the landlord is obligated to address all the complaint points raised by a resident. The landlord’s stage 2 response only addressed the resident’s concerns about the advice of the operatives and her insurance claim. This was not compliant with the Code and caused frustration to the resident because she said she felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. Although is noted the landlord went on to address the remaining issues after the complaint’s procedure had been exhausted, this was a failure. This is because the landlord’s stage 2 response ought to have answered all the points the resident made in her escalation request.
29. The resident told the landlord she did not receive its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023. There is evidence the resident chased the response on 5 further occasions, but the landlord did not respond. As a result, she made a further complaint about the way her complaint had been handled on 1 August 2023. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 9 August 2023 and explained that the stage 2 response (dated 5 June 2023) was posted to the resident. It acknowledged it should have sent the response again when it was first notified that she had not received the response. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the inconvenience this caused.
30. The Ombudsman considers the resident’s complaint made on 1 August 2023 as a continuation of the resident’s initial complaint. This is because the landlord was first advised the resident had not received its stage 2 response in July 2023. The landlord did not provide the resident with its stage 2 response between July 2023 and August 2023. This was a complaint handling failure. This was avoidable and could have been resolved at an earlier stage, but the landlord’s inaction caused the resident to make a second complaint. This caused time and trouble for the resident.
31. The Ombudsman notes the landlord identified the failure in its stage 1 response dated 9 August 2023, apologised, and offered compensation to the resident for the inconvenience. The landlord also conducted a home visit before issuing its response to understand the outstanding repair issues. The landlord then provided a further written update on 25 August 2023, responding to all of the resident’s complaint points made during her escalation request in April 2023. As such the Ombudsman recognises the landlord reasonably tried to put things right and the level of compensation awarded adequately addressed the impact of its failure on the resident.
32. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to “Be fair, Put things right [and] Learn from outcomes”. We have considered the events, the landlord’s obligations in the Code, and our dispute resolution principles. Ultimately, the resident should not have had to raise a separate complaint to have her initial complaint answered. This was maladministration because the purpose of the complaint procedure is to try to resolve complaints at the earliest stage. The landlord did not show it learnt from the outcome of the complaint. This is because it did not demonstrate how it intended to prevent its failures from happening again.
33. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out complaint handling training for relevant staff. This is to ensure they are supported to identify and answer all elements of a complaint. This is to align the landlord’s working practices with the Code and our dispute resolution principles and to prevent further complaints.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the level of awarded by the landlord relating to its handling of damp and mould, made prior to this investigation, was reasonable redress.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Order

36. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must arrange for complaint handling training for relevant staff members. This must include reference to identifying and answering all elements of a resident’s complaint.