ForHousing Limited (202435463)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. She has COPD and mental health conditions.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of damp and mould

4. The landlord made reasonable attempts to resolve the problem within its policy timelines but was delayed by factors both within and outside its control. It apologised when it was responsible for the cancellation of an appointment. It should have done more to support the resident when she raised concerns about the impact on her health and damage to her belongings. It should have communicated with her regularly in line with its policies.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord did not meet the timelines for response set out in its policies and procedures. It did not keep the resident informed when it faced delays at stage 1. It communicated better at stage 2 but was still significantly delayed.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
 

What we have not looked at

6. The resident told us that the damp and mould affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord took steps to try and resolve the damp and mould issues within the timeframes set out in its policy, which allows 40 working days for damp repairs. It identified issues in its survey and scheduled works to address them all by 26 January 2024 (22 working days.) However, it faced delays due to issues with its communication as well as factors that were outside its control. It apologised when its own failings resulted in a rescheduled appointment being cancelled and compensated the resident appropriately. When it did gain access, works were completed as scheduled.
8. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says residents will receive automated messages when works are raised and appointed, along with reminders when appointments are near. There is no evidence the resident received these messages. She raised concerns about not being told in advance of appointments in her complaint. She said this was the reason it had been delayed, not that she had refused access. The landlord failed to respond to these concerns, missing an opportunity to understand her communication needs. It agreed to speak to her advocate following the complaint but it is unclear if this included appointment information. While we recognise this was not the only reason for delays, its poor communication contributed to delays overall.
9. The landlord did not respond clearly to the concerns the resident raised about her health being impacted by damp and mould. Its damp and mould policy says it will conduct a health and vulnerability assessment to identify the support needs of its residents. Given that it knew she had a respiratory health condition, it should have completed this assessment and explored support options for her. There was no evidence it did this. It agreed to communicate through her advocate as requested, which showed it was considering her mental health needs. However, it failed to show it had considered additional risks as a result of the resident’s health conditions. It did not respond when she said she had moved her bed into her lounge because the damp and mould in her bedroom was impacting her health. This was a further missed opportunity.
10. The landlord did not respond clearly to the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings. We are not able to make judgments on liability for damages. However, it would have been fair for it to explain how to make a claim through its liability insurance. This would have shown that it acknowledged her frustration at the damage and was offering her a way to progress the issue. It missed an opportunity to address her concerns early in the process.
11. The landlord was proactive after it had completed the works as it tried to arrange a further damp inspection. It was unable to conduct the inspection due to cancellations outside its control. It continued to reschedule appointments to try and complete the process which showed it wanted a positive outcome for the resident.
12. An additional payment of £250 compensation is appropriate. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s concerns about health and damage to her belongings, along with inconsistency in its communication. This amount is in line with its compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

13. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”).
14. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 17 working days (29 April 2024 to 23 May 2024) which was not compliant with the Code, which says it must be provided within 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 47 working days (29 August 2024 to 4 November 2024) which was not compliant with the Code, which says it must be provided within 20 working days
15. There is no evidence that the landlord asked for an extension to its response deadline during the stage 1 investigation. It did not contact the resident at regular intervals with updates on the complaint as its policy says it will.
16. The landlord was also delayed during its stage 2 response. Its records do not show that it made formal requests for extending the deadline. The response gave a timeline of attempted calls and letters it made to discuss the complaint with the resident and her advocate. It said this was the reason its response was delayed. While this showed it was trying to give a full response to the issue, it was not in line with the Code. It should have provided its response when its answer was known, that it wanted to complete a survey to confirm its works were effective. It did not need to delay its response once it knew it was unable to meet with the resident in a reasonable timeframe.
17. A compensation payment of £50 is appropriate for the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This amount considers the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

Learning

18. The follow up survey remains uncomplete due to factors outside its control. It continued to attempt to arrange this with the resident.
19. The landlord’s response to the resident’s health condition did not align with its policy. It should reflect on its approach in these circumstances. It should consider if there is a need for additional training for its staff around this.
20. It should ensure it responds to any concerns raised about damage to personal belongings. Providing information about making a claim through the relevant insurance is helpful.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was generally good.

Communication

22. The landlord should ensure it takes a consistent approach to communication that aligns with its policies and considers the needs of individual residents.