Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

bpha Limited (202215672)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215672

bpha Limited

30 January 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:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which began in 2008. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced house which the resident lived in with her daughter. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a liver condition.
  2. On 19 January 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that there was damp and mould inside the property. She was given advice about how to manage condensation and was told that if she saw no improvement after one month, she should get back in contact.
  3. On 6 June 2022 the resident made a report of damp in the property. The landlord sent a surveyor to visit the property on 4 July 2022. They noted that “a full damp inspection was not required, as not enough to warrant this”. Jobs for a mould wash and an overhaul of the extractor fan were raised 6 working days later. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 July 2022, informing her it had logged a complaint and she could expect contact within 3 working days.
  4. On 20 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she would like compensation for her mould damaged furniture. She was advised to email in her concerns and provide pictures.
  5. On 30 July 2022 the resident emailed in about compensation and was advised a surveyor attended and reported minimal mould growth and has arranged for this to be treated in the lounge and bathroom. The landlord explained that any damaged personal possessions are to be claimed for against her home contents insurance as it was not responsible for replacing her personal possessions.
  6. In November 2022 the resident told the landlord the situation had worsened, and she could no longer live at the property. She asked for someone to contact her for support. This was logged by the landlord as a complaint on 3 November 2022.
  7. The landlord experienced difficulties gaining access to the property between September and December 2022. A surveyor then visited on 4 January 2023. They noted that there were small amounts of mould and condensation in the property, which had worsened as the resident had not been living there and the heating had not been used. Jobs were raised to replace the extractor fan, overhaul the toilet cistern and complete a mould wash.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 January 2023. It said that:
    1. due to a transition between contractors, the mould wash raised on 11 July 2022 was not completed in a timely manner, and for this it was sorry.
    2. it had made 3 attempts between October 2022 and January 2023 to gain access to the property, without success.
    3. it would complete all the repairs identified within the surveyor’s report of 4 January 2023 within 56 days.
    4. it was sorry for any distress and inconvenience it had caused. It wanted to compensate her with 20% of the rent from 6 June 2022 until 5 January 2023, a total of £628.50.
  9. The resident responded to the landlord and said the property was “not fit for living in” and was unwilling to accept the compensation it had offered. She felt the least it could do was replace her furniture and submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurers to the value of over £21,000. The claim was later rejected by the insurers.
  10. The landlord issued a stage 2 final response on 23 February 2023. It said that it had agreed with her that as she was moving, it would postpone the repairs until the property was empty. It was sorry if she felt unsupported, and would feed back to its relevant teams to reflect on its approach.
  11. The resident moved to alternative accommodation in March 2023. She advised the Ombudsman that due to the condition of the property, she had to “sofa surf” for a period of 9 months and felt the landlord’s offer of compensation was not reflective of her experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is recognised that the situation has caused the resident distress as she reports she has experienced mould in her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of her living conditions on her and her daughter’s health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has been diagnosed with a condition related to her liver, and does not dispute the resident’s claims that the situation impacted her daughter’s mental health. However unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
  2. The decision by the insurer not to pay the resident her claim for damages is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. It is our finding that the landlord referred the resident to its insurers at the point she said her personal possessions had been damaged, which was appropriate.

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

  1. The landlord’s policy states that on receipt of a report of damp and mould, it will provide initial advice and guidance. If the mould still occurs after 2 weeks, then it will raise for a surveyor inspection. Contrary to its policy, the landlord advised the resident on 19 January 2022 to monitor the situation for a month which was unreasonable and prolonged a solution for the resident.
  2. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. When the resident raised her concerns on 6 June 2022, a surveyor was arranged however it took 21 working days for the visit to take place. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
  3. During the visit, the surveyor concluded that there were minor signs of mould. As a result, repairs were raised to overhaul the extractor fan and to complete a mould wash. Evidence demonstrates that a repair to the extractor fan was carried out within a timely manner in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy. However, the landlord failed to complete the mould wash until 7 December 2022, 5 months later, which was inappropriate.
  4. In November 2022, the resident reported that the situation had worsened and she would no longer be living in the property due to concerns about the impact on her health. She stated she was sleeping in her car and sofa surfing. The surveyor attended to inspect the property on 4 July 2022. The landlord referred the resident to appropriate support and discussed her living arrangements as part of a safeguarding referral in November 2022.
  5. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord attributed the delay to a changeover in contractors. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a stress test on its systems in advance of the change in repair provider. This could have assisted the landlord in being confident that the systems ‘spoke’ to each other to ensure that key information relating to unresolved repairs was not lost.
  6. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified surveyors to establish the condition of the property. In this case, it is clear from the surveyor notes and the property report dated 4 January 2023, that there were small amounts of mould and condensation throughout the property. These required minor repairs and there is no evidence to suggest that the property was in major disrepair or uninhabitable.
  7. On the contrary, the landlord noted that there were improvements the resident could make to improve the situation. For example, it noted that trickle vents were not being kept open, there was an excess of personal items stored in the bedroom and the heating was not being used. Whilst the landlord apportioned no blame on the resident for the presence of mould, there is no evidence that it discussed what steps she could take to better ventilate her home while it completed the repairs. This was a missed opportunity for it to have managed the resident’s expectations and given her reassurance that she could return to the property for the repairs to be carried out with her in situ.
  8. In accordance with the terms of her tenancy agreement, the resident had an obligation to allow the landlord access to inspect the property and carry out the necessary repairs. It is recognised that the landlord had difficulty gaining access on a number of occasions, particularly between September and December 2022. This hindered its ability to monitor the condition of the property and carry out the repairs in a timely manner.
  9. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord recognised that it had failed to complete a mould wash at the property in a timely manner and made an appropriate apology.
  10. The compensation the landlord offered the resident, at 20% of her rent to the value of £628.50 from June 2022 to January 2023 and the Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable.
  11. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord had the opportunity to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. Although the landlord apologised and went some way to putting matters right by compensating her in part for her experience, it failed to recognise the full detriment caused to the resident, where she reported she had been sofa surfing for a period of approximately 9 months. It also failed to take sufficient learning from her complaint, offering no reassurance of what it would do differently in the future.
  12. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although the compensation offered is considered reasonable, other than stating it would “reflect on its approach”, the landlord did not set out what specific steps it had taken to ensure it improved its future service delivery and address comments regarding her living difficulties.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual, resident or group of residents”. This definition is in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. In this case, it was clear the resident was dissatisfied with the service she had received, which she expressed in her correspondence dated 2 November 2022 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. The landlord advised the resident she would be responded to within three working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 November 2022 and the resident was contacted on 10 November 2022 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s records show that the target complaint response date was amended from 21 November 2022 to 5 December 2022 on 18 November 2022 however, there has been no evidence provided to show that this change was communicated to the resident.
  3. The landlord emailed her on 20 December 2022 to explain that it was having difficulties with access to inspect the property. It advised that it would need the inspection done before it was able to issue a response to the complaint. It advised the resident that a further inspection was arranged for 4 January 2023 and asked her to confirm a suitable date and time. It confirmed it would extend the complaint until it had inspected the property in order to agree an action plan. The stage one response was subsequently sent to the resident on 6 January 2023. Based on this information, there were delays in issuing the complaint response by the landlord, particularly between 10 November 2022 and 20 December 2022 without evidence of clear communication to the resident regarding the delay.
  4. The resident requested an escalation to her complaint on 30 January 2023. In doing so, she refused the landlord’s offer of compensation. In response, the landlord said that she had 3 options, to:
    1. accept the compensation and not put in an insurance claim.
    2. refuse the compensation and put in an insurance claim.
    3. refuse the compensation, not put in an insurance claim and escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  5. The Code explains that if a resident is dissatisfied with the initial complaint response, stage 1 must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s process unless an exclusion ground applies. In this case, the 3 options offered to the resident were inappropriate. The landlord had made it clear in its correspondence of 2 February 2023 that its offer of £628.50 in compensation was for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was separate to her claim for damage to personal belongings and should not have impeded her access to its complaints process. It is noted however that the landlord did later respond to the resident at stage 2 whilst the claim was ongoing.
  6. The landlord’s final response on 23 February 2023 was an opportunity for it to reflect on the resident’s experience and take sufficient learning from her complaint. Whilst the landlord addressed how it had handled her reports of damp and mould, it failed to recognise that there had been failings in the way it had handled her complaint. As a result, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident:
    1. £628.50 it offered the resident in its stage 1 response dated 5 January 2023, if not already paid.
    2. £100 for the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
  3. These amounts are to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks.
  4. Within 4 weeks, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a review to include:
    1. an explanation of what it has understood its failures to be in relation to the its handling of damp and mould, what it has learnt from her experience and how it will improve services in the future to ensure residents feel supported.
    2. what steps it has taken to ensure its staff are trained on the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which became a statutory requirement on 1 April 2024.
  5. The landlord is ordered to confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation made below and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its safeguarding procedure, within 4 weeks.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre of Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance to its workshop on attitudes, respects and rights.