Mulberry Housing Co-operative Limited (202230433)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230433

Mulberry Housing Co-operative Limited

3 February 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for an internal move to a larger property.
2. Concerns around the landlord’s management and governance.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Concerns around health and welfare.
The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The evidence indicates the resident is an assured tenant. Her current tenancy began in 2011. The property is a 1 bedroom ground-floor flat. The resident occupies the property with her son. The family have several medical conditions. The resident is reluctant to share details of their vulnerabilities with the landlord. To respect her preference, we have not described these vulnerabilities in our report. We did consider them during our investigation.
The landlord is a housing co-operative. It is run by volunteers through an elected management committee. The landlord employs a managing agent to provide a number of services on its behalf. It changed its appointed agent several times during the resident’s complaint. The landlord was also taken over by another co-operative. For readability, this report will refer to “the landlord” unless further clarification is needed to aid the reader’s understanding.
Around 6 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to request an internal move to a larger property. The landlord acknowledged her request around 10 days later. It said it would record the details and notify its management committee about the request. The resident subsequently applied to work for the landlord as a volunteer. She joined a “sub-committee” that was involved in allocating the landlord’s housing stock (its allocations team).
In October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. Her complaint was prompted by the landlord’s decision to remove her from her role in its allocations team. The resident raised a number of related concerns around discrimination. Her complaint did not refer to her previous request for an internal move or her current tenancy.
In December 2022 the resident reported there was damp and mould at the property. A surveyor completed a damp survey around a month later. They recommended a range of internal and external works.
The resident approached the Ombudsman around February 2023. She said she was being targeted by 2 of the landlord’s managers. It is understood she felt they had attempted to change the landlord’s internal policies and their underlying motivation was racist (the resident’s wording was not entirely clear). Her correspondence highlighted the family’s vulnerabilities. It also said she did not want to share the relevant details with the landlord. The resident wanted us to confirm that the landlord would not be able to allocate a 2 bedroom property to another applicant if one became available (on the basis she had priority due to her previous request for an internal move).
In early May 2023, the landlord told the resident it was unable to progress the surveyor’s remaining works without the resident’s approval. There was no indication the resident replied at this point.
We spoke to the resident about her complaint on 1 June 2023. Our call records did not reference any of her concerns around discrimination. We subsequently relayed details of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. Our correspondence did not reference the resident’s discrimination concerns either. There is no indication the resident had complained directly to the landlord (about her request to move or the reported damp and mould) before this point.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 August 2023. It addressed the complaint points the Ombudsman had relayed previously. The landlord partially upheld the resident’s rehousing complaint. This was on the basis it should have provided more information in response to the resident’s request to move.
On 24 August 2023 the resident told us the landlord had not responded to her escalation request and her concerns were ongoing. We asked the landlord to respond at stage 2 by 22 September 2022. Around the same time, the landlord replied that its stage 2 process involved a decision from the landlord’s “general membership” (its residents). It reported the resident did not want the landlord’s general membership to be involved (for privacy reasons). It said the landlord’s management team had already responded at stage 1 and it was unlikely to change its position. The landlord was unsure how to proceed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 October 2023. It said it was willing to make a “reasonable adjustment” to progress her complaint. It said it would engage an independent consultant to complete its stage 2 investigation. It offered to anonymise its documents before sending them to the consultant. On the next day, the landlord allocated the resident a single point of contact (SPOC) to handle her enquiries. The SPOC contacted the resident to arrange an inspection.
An inspection on 13 October 2023 identified some additional internal and external repairs. The evidence suggests the repairs were eventually completed around 20 December 2023. It also suggests the resident contacted the landlord the following day to report some issues were still ongoing. Subsequently, the resident told the landlord she was about to have an operation and she would be unable to facilitate any repairs for some time.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 February 2024. It addressed the same complaint points that the landlord had considered at stage 1. The landlord did not identify any failures, however, its response did not include a clear complaint outcome. The resident remained unhappy afterwards. She felt her complaint issues were ongoing and her concerns had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or damage to personal belongings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an internal move to a larger property

The resident emailed the landlord around 6 June 2022. She wanted to “register (her) interest in any two-bedroom property that (became) available with (the landlord)”. She reported her son was approaching adulthood and it was becoming less “appropriate” for the family to share a 1 bedroom flat. She said there were “significant household and severe medical issues” that made her overcrowding situation more urgent. She confirmed she was “on all housing swap schemes” and she had registered for rehousing with 2 local authorities.
The resident said the matter would be an internal transfer. She asked to be notified when one of the landlord’s 2 bedroom homes became available. Her email included images that showed relevant sections from the landlord’s housing and allocations policies. The resident felt these images supported her request. She raised a concern about the landlord’s historical approach to its 2 bedroom properties. The resident said the landlord had previously assumed these properties were “designated disabled units”. She felt the landlord’s housing policy confirmed this approach was an error on the landlord’s part.
Following a chaser from the resident, the landlord replied on 15 June 2022. It apologised for the delay and said the resident’s “interest (would) be kept on file”. It also said it would alert the landlord’s management committee to the request if a 2 bedroom property became available. In addition, it would make the management committee aware that a request had been received during the landlord’s next management meeting. The landlord has said it “presented (the request) anonymously” during a meeting in July 2022 (the landlord did not tell its management team who the request for an internal move had come from).
The evidence shows the resident had to chase the landlord to receive a reply to her request. This should not have been necessary. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was both avoidable and inconvenient for her. The landlord should have therefore redressed the resident accordingly. Given the extent of its failure, an apology would have been a reasonable and proportionate response. In relation to the substance of the landlord’s reply, the evidence shows the landlord did not engage with a number of key points from the resident’s email. This was unreasonable given the resident had raised specific concerns around eligibility and the landlord’s previous approach to the properties in question.
There were some interactions between the parties in September 2022. At this point, the landlord relayed some information it had received from the estate’s developer to the resident. The information said the landlord’s 2 bedroom properties “were designed for people with wheelchairs/disabilities”. The evidence suggests the resident subsequently disputed this information with the developer. The Ombudsman has not been provided a copy of the developer’s response.
During internal correspondence in July 2023, the landlord told its managing agent that it had kept a record of the resident’s request for an internal transfer but it did not have a dedicated waiting list for applicants. The landlord said requests for internal moves were comparatively rare. The agent felt the landlord should have a waiting list because its lettings policy allowed for internal transfers. The timing of the landlord’s correspondence suggests it was prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement around June 2023 (we asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint at this point).
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 7 August 2023. It said the landlord’s policy did allow for internal moves but the landlord had a “100% nominations agreement” with 2 local authorities (this suggests the landlord was obliged to make any unoccupied properties available to its associated local authorities). The landlord also said it was a small housing provider with a limited number of homes. In addition, it only had two properties with 2 bedrooms, they were “purposely designed” for wheelchair users, and the properties currently had tenants. On that basis, the landlord said it had no two bedroom homes available.
In its response, the landlord said it had completed the actions it had promised to fulfil in its email on 15 June 2022. It also said, when a 2 bedroom home became available it would have to keep the property’s intended purpose (as designated accommodation for wheelchair users) in mind when it was allocated. The landlord said it should have informed the resident about this information when she initially submitted her request. It apologised for any related distress. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint based on this delay.
In setting out its response to the resident it was appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with information about its 2 bedroom homes. This is because the information may have influenced the resident’s subsequent decision making. However, the evidence shows it took the landlord around 14 months to provide the information. This was based on the period between 15 June 2022 and 7 August 2023. Due to the significance of the information it provided (about the resident’s relative chances of success) and the duration of the delay, its apology was both disproportionate and unreasonable given the extent of its failure.
The landlord should have done more to put things right at this point. Given the circumstances, it should have compensated the resident for the distress and inconvenience she was caused. However, the evidence suggests the overall impact to the resident was limited. This is because her initial email to the landlord (from June 2022) shows she had already registered for rehousing through a number of other providers. There was no indication that one of the landlord’s 2 bedroom homes had become available during the above identified 14 month delay period, or that the resident’s application was overlooked at any stage.
In an email to the Ombudsman on 25 August 2023, the resident reiterated her assertion that the landlord’s 2 bedroom properties were not intended for residents with disabilities. She included images of some documents to support her argument. The images included some terms of reference (for the landlord’s allocations sub-committee) as well as extracts from a number of the landlord’s policies. The information was similar to the evidence that she had supplied to the landlord in June 2022. However, the resident included some additional information in her email to the Ombudsman.
In summary, the resident’s evidence appeared to show that the landlord must prioritise any internal transfers over nominations it received from its associated local authorities. It also showed that suitability considerations would apply to its applicants. A policy extract said “first priority…will be given to existing (landlord) tenants who wish to transfer within the co-op…Of course, the dwelling must be of a suitable size….”. It is reasonable to conclude the application of this policy would also apply to any specially adapted properties that were available. The resident’s information also showed the landlord was obliged to create and maintain a prioritised list of applicants for “housing, transfer and mutual exchange”.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord issued the resident an acknowledgement. It confirmed her complaint had been escalated to stage 2. Subsequently, there were no further developments for several months. This was due to a procedural dispute between the parties about how the landlord should conduct its stage 2 investigation. Subsequently, the landlord updated the resident by email on 23 January 2024. It said it had a limited supply of homes and it was unlikely to be able to fulfil the resident’s request for a larger property. It asked the resident to confirm if she had registered for rehousing with the local authority. The landlord also signposted the resident to various external support agencies at this point. It indicated she “may be able to make a homeless application” due to statutory overcrowding (to increase the resident’s priority with any local authorities).
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 February 2024. It reiterated its 2 bedroom properties were “specifically designed and adapted for wheelchair users”. It acknowledged the resident wanted to stay close to family members who also lived in one of the landlord’s properties. It said the landlord routinely updated its residents about other properties that became available on the estate (through some nearby co-operatives). Overall, the landlord said it considered the matter was closed because it did not have any 2 bedroom properties available which would “fit the resident’s housing need”.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 28 February 2024. She felt the landlord was “discriminating” against her application because the properties in question were not intended for disabled residents. She also highlighted her family’s vulnerabilities in relation to her eligibility. There was no indication the landlord was aware of these concerns. The evidence shows the resident continued to raise her main complaint with the landlord following her update to the Ombudsman.
On 18 July 2024 the landlord’s latest managing agent wrote to the resident. It said it had been working with the landlord and the developer to “define the original status” of the landlord’s 2 bedroom properties. It provided a supporting extract from a document. The landlord said the document was a local authority briefing paper from 1986. The extract included planning information about the composition of the estate (from before it was built). It shows the plan included “2 two bedroom single storey houses designed for people in wheelchairs”.
The agent said the landlord would use the above wording on all of its relevant documents going forward. This was to “prevent any further misunderstandings” (about the nature of its 2 bedroom properties). The agent also said the landlord considered the matter closed. It apologised for the amount of time it had taken to provide the information. It attributed this to the “considerable time and effort (needed) to find the archived documents”.
Both parties provided information to support their positions around the resident’s application for an internal move. Based on the policy wording the resident provided, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord should prioritise any internal applicants over external nominations. However, the policy wording also shows the landlord should consider the applicant’s suitability for the property that is available. In relation to the nature of the 2 bedroom properties, the landlord has provided the most compelling evidence about their intended purpose.
The landlord’s document shows that 2 wheelchair adapted properties were included in the developer’s original plan for the estate. This information was consistent with the information that the developer gave to the resident in September 2022. In contrast, the resident’s evidence largely showed the properties were not described as adapted homes in a number of the landlord’s documents. She felt there was an absence of evidence to support the landlord’s assertion that the properties were intended for wheelchair users.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not have a vacant 2 bedroom property that would fit the resident’s housing needs. It was noted there was no indication the resident had given the landlord full details of her family’s specific vulnerabilities before the response was issued. From the evidence provided, it was also unclear if these vulnerabilities would significantly affect the resident’s eligibility if a 2 bedroom property became available. However, these were moot points because the landlord did not have a 2 bedroom property available.
There was no evidence to show the resident had put her concerns around discrimination (in relation to her own application) directly to the landlord. However, using our inquisitorial remit, we checked the landlord’s evidence for any information to support the resident’s allegation. There was no evidence to suggest the landlord treated her unfairly based on any protected characteristics. Overall, the evidence shows the content of the landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable given the information that was available to it and its lack of vacant properties.
There were some issues with the landlord’s overall response to the resident’s request for an internal move. In September 2022 the landlord told its managing agent it did not have a waiting list. In contrast, the resident’s evidence confirms the landlord should have a prioritised list in place to record and monitor its housing allocations. Later, the landlord cast doubt over its ability to provide an internal move for the resident. It referenced a 100% nominations agreement with 2 local authorities. The evidence shows there is a conflict between the landlord’s policies and its nominations agreement. It also shows the situation was a source of confusion for both the resident and the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude this lack of clarity undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s policies and procedures.
In summary, the landlord did not fully engage with the resident’s initial request for an internal move. It failed to provide information (about its 2 bedroom properties and the resident’s relative changes of securing one) that could have influenced her subsequent decision making. Though the landlord recognised its failure at stage 1, its apology was disproportionate given what went wrong. The evidence also shows there is a conflict between the landlord’s policies and its nominations agreement. The situation was a source of confusion for both parties. It is reasonable to conclude the lack of clarity undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s policies and procedures. The evidence shows there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman will order a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right for the resident. It will be based on the evidence both parties provided. Our award will be consistent with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around its management and governance

On 6 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said she had engaged in abusive behaviour during a recent sub-committee meeting (while she was working for the landlord). The evidence shows there had been an altercation around whether the landlord was obliged to prioritise internal moves over any nominations that it received from local authorities. The letter confirmed the landlord’s management team had decided the resident would not be allowed to participate in the landlord’s allocations team going forwards. There was an error in the letter as the landlord did not use her correct surname.
The resident complained to the landlord on the following day. She said the address error was a “huge mistake” and the landlord’s letter was “a racist attack”. In summary, she claimed it would amount to “discrimination” if the landlord were to prevent an able bodied person from applying for one of its 2 bedroom properties (when they became available). In her email, the resident did not refer to her own (existing) request for an internal move to a 2 bedroom property. She wanted the landlord’s management team to investigate her complaint. She said 2 of the landlord’s managers should not be involved in its investigation due to a “conflict of interest”.
The evidence shows the resident’s complaint did not mention her application to move or her current tenancy. Instead, it related to the landlord’s operational decision making (around allocations), its decision to prevent the resident from participating in its management structure, and her related concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s managers. It also involved a theoretical aspect around what actions/omissions by the landlord could amount to “discrimination”.
Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are about “matters which relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures”. Given the above, the Scheme confirms the resident’s complaint from October 2022 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident is encouraged to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns through the courts.

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

On 22 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about damp and mould. She said there was an “unbearable smell” in the bedroom and the situation was affecting the family’s health. She wanted the landlord to arrange an inspection. The landlord replied the same day. It said a specialist would attend the property after the Christmas period. It provided some advice about how to manage the situation in the meantime. It also asked the resident for more information about the extent of the problem. The resident subsequently provided several images that appeared to show black mould on the property’s walls.
A surveyor inspected the property on 25 January 2023. Their findings were detailed in a survey report that was issued several days later. The report said there were high “relative humidity readings” in the property and moisture appeared to be pooling on the window sills. The report did not say that damp and mould were present. However, it recommended external works to lower the ground level, address a loose roof tile, and repair “defective” guttering. It also recommended internal works to install thermal boarding, apply thermal paint, upgrade some extractor fans, and improve the property’s ventilation.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows it should respond to routine repairs within 28 days. Based on the period between 22 December 2022 and 25 January 2023, the landlord’s response was broadly in line with this timescale. Its acknowledgement email detailed the next steps, provided useful advice, and sought to gather relevant information to help the landlord prioritise the situation. It also explained the landlord’s response would be delayed by the Christmas period. Overall, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report was reasonable.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It said a contractor would visit the property in due course to quote for the surveyor’s recommended works. The resident responded on 8 March 2023. She said the works the surveyor had recommended were “not feasible”. The resident did not provide a supporting rationale for her statement. The landlord replied in a detailed update the following day. It said it could decant the resident to facilitate the internal works if necessary. The update shows:
1. The landlord was progressing the external works.
2. The resident had told the landlord’s contractor that she could only facilitate appointments between 9 and 10am (for 1 hour at a time).
3. The landlord asked the resident to clarify why she felt the works were not feasible.
The parties were in regular contact over the next 2 months. Their email correspondence shows the recommended external works were completed around 24 March 2023. The email exchanges also show the landlord told the resident its preferred contractor had become fully booked. The landlord said the contractor needed more notice for appointments and “a bigger timeslot than one hour”. The evidence suggests the landlord approached other contractors to try and expedite the internal works. Subsequently, the landlord updated the resident on 24 April 2024. It said it had approved a quote for the internal works and it was awaiting information about how long the repairs were expected to take.
The resident replied the landlord’s update was “totally inadequate”. She felt the situation was a “serious health and safety breach” and the landlord was failing in its duty of care. In response, the landlord asked the resident to clarify her concerns so it could attempt to resolve them. It said the property’s fans were upgraded but the landlord had been unable to obtain alternative quotes for the other internal works. The landlord attributed the situation to the resident’s “limited availability”. It said it would proceed through its preferred contractor. The landlord also said it had asked the resident 3 times why she felt the works were not feasible. It reiterated it was willing to consider decanting the family.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 May 2023. It said its preferred contractor had confirmed the internal works would take more than 2 weeks to complete. The landlord also said it needed to schedule the works, arrange temporary accommodation for the family, and engage an additional contractor (to help facilitate the repairs). The landlord asked the resident to confirm she was “happy for the works to go ahead”. It also asked when she could facilitate them. There was no evidence to show the resident responded to the landlord’s request.
In relation to the period between February and May 2023, the evidence shows the landlord kept the resident updated, attempted to engage with her concerns, and made reasonable efforts to progress the works in line with her availability. It was noted the availability of its external contractors was also a factor at this point. Ultimately, there was no evidence to show any unreasonable delays occurred due to failures on the landlord’s part. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the situation during this period was reasonable in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 response on 7 August 2023, the landlord detailed the events that had occurred since the resident reported damp and mould in December 2022. The landlord felt these events showed it had acted reasonably. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it wanted to work with the resident to resolve the issues she had reported. It asked her to get in touch to arrange the works. Given its rationale, the evidence shows the landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonable in relation to the resident’s damp and mould complaint.
In late August 2023 the resident told a local councillor that the family had been sleeping in the property’s living room for 4 months (from around late April 2023) due to damp and mould. She said black mould “seeps through our beds, clothing and furniture”. She also said water penetrated through the flooring and the family needed to be rehoused urgently. Around a month later, the resident told the landlord’s (new) managing agent that her “possessions (were) damp and mould ridden”. Her email did not mention the family’s sleeping arrangements.
On 6 October 2023 the resident told the landlord’s new managing agent that nothing had been done to resolve the damp and mould. She also said the landlord had not offered to decant her. She felt the damp surveyor had recommended demolishing the property and rebuilding it “brick by brick”. She said the family’s hazardous living conditions were affecting their health and wellbeing. Subsequently, a contractor inspected the property on 13 October 2023. It found there was water ingress into the bedroom from blocked gutters (there was no indication this was a continuation of the previous issue with the guttering). It also found “an active leak” behind the toilet. It recommended various works including mould treatments in the bedroom and bathroom.
After obtaining a quote for the repairs, the landlord chased the resident on 9 November 2023. It said it was especially important to proceed with the works due to the seasonal weather conditions. In reply, the resident raised concerns around the scope of the works along with her availability and work commitments. This prompted the landlord to ask the resident if a friend or family member could facilitate appointments while she was out. The parties’ correspondence suggests the gutter was repaired in late November 2023.
In an email on 1 December 2023, the landlord told the resident it was not feasible to compress the repairs into multiple 2 hour visits. It also said the associated costs (from its contractors) were not “economically viable” and the resident had not explained whether she had any “extenuating circumstances”. The landlord encouraged the resident to review the parties’ obligations in the tenancy agreement. Subsequently, the resident raised concerns about a lack of communication. The landlord replied it had been unable to contact the resident by phone for several weeks and it had made her aware of the situation.
The evidence suggests the other repairs were completed on 20 December 2023. It also indicates the resident called the landlord the following day and reported there was still a leak (the evidence confirms she reported an ongoing repair issue but it is unclear whether the problem involved damp and mould). There is evidence the resident may have also reported she was not available to facilitate the necessary repairs at this point. On 23 January 2024 the landlord chased the resident by email. It enquired about a note on its systems that said she would be unavailable (for repair appointments) for the next month. The resident replied she was due to have an operation and she would contact the landlord at a later date to arrange the repairs.
In its stage 2 response on 21 February 2024, the landlord considered its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports from September 2023 onwards. It said it had been sensitive to the family’s situation and it had put the resident in direct contact with its contractors to ensure suitable appointments took place. The landlord said the works were completed on 20 December 2023 after a discussion between the resident and the landlord’s contractor (on the same date). It also said the resident had reported the leak was ongoing the following day. The landlord said it would continue to contact the resident about the leak until the repairs were complete.
The evidence shows the parties’ interactions followed a similar pattern when the resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould again (around September 2023). For example, in early 2023 the resident sought to limit the duration of repair appointments and she sought to apply similar restrictions from around November 2023 onwards. From the information both parties provided, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any unreasonable delays by the landlord during the second part of the timeline. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord did not identify any damp and mould related failures in its stage 2 response. Ultimately, the evidence shows the landlord made consistent efforts to progress the repairs. It also engaged with the resident’s concerns, and offered reasonable solutions to problems that arose.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 July 2024. Its correspondence said the landlord had contacted her about an outstanding repair in April 2024. It also said the resident had since reported that she was well enough to facilitate the related works. The parties’ subsequent correspondence shows the resident later reported she was unable to facilitate a specialist damp inspection on 26 July 2024. She said she would notify the landlord about her availability in due course.
The landlord’s correspondence shows it acted on its commitment to follow up with the resident about the outstanding repair. It also shows the landlord took steps to progress matters when the resident reported she was feeling better. These were reasonable actions by the landlord in the circumstances. It was noted the parties’ correspondence indicates the resident would prefer to proceed with the works at her own pace.
In summary, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any unreasonable delays or other damp and mould related failures by the landlord during the timeline. The evidence shows the landlord kept the resident updated, attempted to engage with her concerns, offered reasonable solutions to problems, and made consistent efforts to progress the required works. These were reasonable actions in the circumstances. Overall, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around health and welfare

During her complaint the resident raised a number of concerns that relate to this subject. Since these concerns were important, we used our inquisitorial remit to consider the landlord’s overall response to this topic.
When she asked the landlord for an internal move in June 2022, the resident referred to “significant household and severe medical issues” in her email. This wording suggests she was in a difficult situation and the matter was urgent. On that basis, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord should have engaged with her comments promptly with a view to helping the resident if possible. However, the landlord did not acknowledge her comments in its reply and there was no indication it attempted to clarify the family’s situation from a health and welfare perspective. This was an unreasonable approach in the circumstances.
The landlord’s subsequent actions provide a useful benchmark for comparison. During an email update in January 2024, the landlord signposted the resident to a number of external support agencies and indicated she might be able to make a homeless application to the local authority. At this point, the landlord shared its knowledge and experience with the resident to try and improve her situation. The update suggests the landlord wanted to maximise the resident’s chances of securing suitable accommodation as swiftly as possible. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
The landlord’s update was sent around 20 months after the resident’s initial request to move. There was no indication the landlord provided the resident any similar guidance or support during the interim period. Ultimately, the above shows the landlord missed an opportunity to improve the resident’s situation in June 2022. The resident was impacted because she was unable to benefit from the landlord’s knowledge and experience within a reasonable timeframe. The situation was both unfair and unreasonable. Going forwards, the landlord should apply the approach that it adopted in January 2024 to any health and welfare concerns.
Around September 2023 the resident told the landlord’s managing agent that her belongings were “damp and mould ridden”. She did not clearly say her items were damaged or that she held the landlord responsible. However, the matter was a potential welfare issue. Where a resident holds a landlord responsible for injury or damage to their personal items, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to signpost them to its insurance team or process. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable if the landlord (or its agent) had engaged with her information and attempted to clarify the situation.
It is important to recognise that the landlord took some positive steps around the resident’s health and welfare. In October 2023 it offered to make a “reasonable adjustment” to its complaints process. This was to alleviate the resident’s concerns around privacy and to remove a barrier that prevented the parties from progressing the complaint. Similarly, it offered to anonymise documents at the resident’s request. Around the same time, the landlord also allocated the resident a SPOC with a view to improving communication between the parties. These were reasonable steps in the circumstances.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord did not engage with the resident’s health and welfare related concerns in June 2022. As a result, it missed an opportunity to provide additional support and guidance to the resident. Although the landlord did provide some relevant guidance around 20 months later, the resident was unable to benefit from its knowledge and experience within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s approach in June 2022 was unreasonable and the overall situation was unfair to the resident. This amounted to a service failure by the landlord in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There was no indication the resident complained directly to the landlord about her own request to move or damp and mould. The evidence shows the Ombudsman notified the landlord about her concerns. We said it should issue a formal complaint response to address these matters. Our records show the landlord did not receive our request until 18 July 2023. The records also show, when it received our request, the landlord issued a stage 1 response in line with our deadline. Overall, we were unable to point to any procedural delays or failures at stage 1.
On 24 August 2023 the resident told us the landlord had not responded to her escalation request (we have not been provided a copy of her corresponding request). We subsequently told the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. Soon afterwards, the landlord replied the resident did not want to involve its general membership in her complaint. The resident has told us she does not want the landlord’s other residents to know sensitive information about her family. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy shows its final complaint stage involved calling “a special general meeting” (of its residents) at this point.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord issued a complaint acknowledgement to the resident. It said the landlord would issue a stage 2 response by 22 September 2022 in line with a deadline from the Ombudsman. The evidence shows this deadline was consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in March 2022. Section 5.13 said landlords must respond within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. The landlord’s acknowledgement did not refer to an ongoing procedural dispute between the parties. It took the landlord until 21 February 2024 to issue a stage 2 response.
The procedural dispute between the parties was noted along with the landlord’s efforts to resolve it (in October 2022). However, it was also noted the landlord’s complaints policy did not comply with the Code’s requirements (in terms of response timescales) at this point. Overall, the above information shows the landlord’s acknowledgement gave the resident incorrect information in the circumstances. The evidence also shows there was an inappropriate delay of around 5 months before the stage 2 response was issued. It is reasonable to conclude the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and it unreasonably delayed resolution of her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge the resident was previously given an incorrect timescale. The landlord failed to redress the resident accordingly as a result. The response was also issued by the same person that completed the landlord’s investigation at stage 1. This was contrary to section 5.12 of the Code which said complaints must not be considered by the same person at each stage. The landlord’s procedures should be fair so this was a significant failure. The response also failed to confirm whether the resident’s complaint points were upheld or rejected. Section 5.16 of the Code said landlords must include a clear decision on the complaint.
In summary, it is reasonable to conclude the issues that were present in the landlord’s stage 2 response undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaints process. It is also reasonable to conclude this was distressing for the resident. The evidence confirms the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, unreasonable, and inappropriate at various points. It also confirms the resident was impacted and the landlord failed to put things right. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns around the landlord’s management and governance are out jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Request for an internal move to a larger property.
  2. Concerns around health and welfare.
3. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an internal move.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s response to her concerns around health and welfare.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct an internal review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks the landlord should present its findings to its management committee and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include:
1. The steps the landlord will take to resolve the ambiguity around the priority given to internal transfers. Specifically the review should address the conflict between the landlord’s policies and its 100% nominations agreement with 2 local authorities.
2. How the landlord will ensure its staff are capable of responding swiftly to any health and welfare related concerns (by providing relevant support and guidance).
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the Code’s requirements are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord to contact the resident with a view to rescheduling the damp inspection that was due to take place in July 2024.
Contact the resident to discuss the vulnerabilities in the household and update its records accordingly. As part of this discussion, the landlord should provide the resident with assurances on how it records this information and how it handles her personal information.
Contact the resident to discuss adaptations she and her child need in her home. The landlord should consider the resident’s requests and confirm what action it will take (this could include making the adaptations, explaining why it does not consider the adaptations are reasonable and/or offering to support the resident to move to a more suitable property).
Consider implementing a named officer to lead on adaptation cases.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.