Torus62 Limited (202344614)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom inner terrace property with her son. She has disclosed that she has anxiety and depression. The resident has complained that poorly managed roof and guttering works have caused significant damp and mould in her property. She has asked us to investigate due to ongoing issues, unfinished works and poor communication with the landlord. She was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the damp and mould in the property and the associated remedial repairs.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord made an offer of redress in recognition of its handling of the damp, mould and repairs which, in our opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
4. The landlord made an offer of redress in recognition of its handling of the complaint which, in our opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Summary of reasons

5. In summary, we found that:
   1. The landlord should have acted with more urgency to resolve the damp and mould issues, given the health concerns of the resident and her family.
   2. It did not take appropriate steps to address the resident’s damaged furniture.
   3. It did not provide its stage 2 complaint response within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
   4. Following its internal complaints process, the landlord has admitted its failings and acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident, its delays in completing works, its handling of the complaint and its poor communication. It offered £1050 for these issues.
   5. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve the situation, with an offer of redress which resolves the complaint and is in line with our remedies guidance for the failings identified.

Putting things right

We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

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 has caused her family health issues. 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 damp and mould reports

7. Under its damp and mould policy, the landlord was required to arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property, identify the root cause of the issue and provide appropriate remedies. It recognises under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) that damp and mould can be a threat to health, particularly for people with breathing difficulties and asthma. It aims to complete a mould wash within 2-5 days and carry out a survey within 10 days.
8. The landlord was proactive when the resident first reported the mould in the property and carried out a mould wash to the affected areas within its specified timeframe. The resident asked for the hallway and one bedroom to be left, and the landlord acted reasonably in complying with this request. It cleaned and flushed the guttering at the front and back of the property, completed the damp and condensation survey and scheduled outstanding works. The survey was done on 27 September 2023, which exceeded the timeframe by 10 days. This was unreasonable given the risks associated with damp and mould.
9. The landlord raised various works following the survey, including to fix the leak to the pipework and gutters, service the extractor fan on the landing and flashing to the roof. It attended to complete works on the roof and gutters on 16 October 2023 but had no access. It is unclear if the landlord told the resident about the appointment or why it did not have access. It re-attended to repair the gutters on 20 November 2023 but found that it needed scaffolding to complete the works. This was 3 months after the resident reported the damp and mould issue, and it should have identified the need for scaffolding sooner.
10. Under its repairs policy, the landlord states that it will aim to complete routine repairs within 20 calendar days. It attended and fixed the leak to the pipework on 20 October 2023 and serviced the extractor fan on 25 October 2023. Both jobs exceeded the timeframe set out in the policy, which is unreasonable as they were required to address the damp and mould issue in the resident’s property.
11. On 22 November 2023, the resident disclosed the distress the situation was having on her. The landlord ensured this was recorded, due to its duty of care, which was appropriate. It offered home visits, to assist with applications and referrals to support agencies, which was a positive action. The resident reported having to dispose of furniture due to mould damage. The landlord reasonably applied for a charity grant for this, but it was rejected as the damage was caused by a leak at the landlord’s property. We have seen no evidence that the landlord followed this up with the resident, which would have been reasonable. Over a year later, in December 2024, it acknowledged that it should have directed the resident to claim on home contents insurance.
12. Following reports of ongoing leaks, the landlord attended on 15 December, 18 December and 22 December 2023, to complete roofing works and mould washes. The resident was frustrated with the repeated visits without a lasting solution. While the Service recognises the inconvenience of the situation, the landlord was taking reasonable steps to try to address the leak at the root, as well as manage the internal impact. Its various visits showed the landlord showed that it was taking the situation seriously and trying to resolve the issue.
13. On 3 January 2024, the landlord visited the resident’s property and discussed the outstanding issues with the resident’s partner, as the resident was in hospital. It was reasonable that it carried out a home visit and it also tried to provide practical support, by emailing photos of the recurring damp and mould to its complaints team. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord had tried to arrange a home visit sooner, but the resident had wanted to wait until January.
14. On 15 January 2024, the resident reported a significant return of mould and as previous treatment had not worked, she did not want further mould washes. She had to chase for a response on 23 January 2024 which was unreasonable, given the impact the situation was having and the risk of the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) said that it is important landlords clearly communicate its diagnosis with the resident and share relevant information, to ensure the resident has confidence in it and understands the next steps. The resident’s concern about receiving no update on the remedial works likely contributed to a loss of confidence.
15. The landlord replaced the ventilation fan in the resident’s loft, following a report on 29 December 2023 that it was faulty, on 26 January 2024. It was reasonable that it replaced the faulty unit.
16. It carried out a further visit with the neighbourhood officer on 7 February 2024 and noted that it needed to complete the roof repairs, as these were likely causing the damp and mould. On 9 February 2024, the landlord scheduled a mould wash, but the resident declined, as she wanted the roof repairs to be done first. While the Service understands that she wanted the root cause to be addressed, it was reasonable that the landlord pushed to remove the surface mould in the interim, to reduce harm to the resident, her family and the property.
17. The resident raised damp and mould issues in the bathroom on 14 February 2024, and the landlord was proactive in carrying out mould treatments on the same day. It also removed damaged plaster from the living room wall, removed wallpaper and replastered the hallway and applied mould treatment. It was positive that the landlord was taking steps to repair issues in the resident’s home, which were caused by the damp and mould.
18. On 15 February 2024, the landlord thermal boarded the back bedroom ceiling to address a cold spot and help prevent the mould returning. This was a reasonable step to improve insulation and reduce future risk. The resident was unhappy, stating she was told all walls would be thermal boarded, which was not done. There is no evidence the landlord made this promise, but it is essential that landlords clearly communicate planned works and accurately record repair commitments.
19. As the mould had returned quickly after previous roofing works, it carried out an inspection on 22 March 2024. This was reasonable to establish why the issue continued despite addressing the roof.
20. From the inspection, it found an issue with the felting on the roof, which required further works. However, the scaffolding had been removed, and works were incomplete. It is important that landlords communicate effectively with contractors, to ensure all parties understand the required works. Nevertheless, on 18 April 2024, an operative finalised the guttering repairs and completed a final mould wash. Following this, the landlord made further attempts to contact the resident but received no response. It was reasonable that it was trying to offer further support, due to the impact the situation was having on the resident.
21. Subsequently, the resident informed the landlord that she had treated the mould herself. Based on the evidence available, the resident was unhappy with the ongoing inconvenience of the situation and took steps to resolve the issue herself. This demonstrates a loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of the situation. Nevertheless, it acted reasonably by visiting the property again in November 2024, where it tested the walls throughout the property and found that there was no mould present. It is noted that there had not been any further water ingress, and any further issues were unrelated to the roof and guttering.
22. As the resident took steps to treat the mould and carry out remedial works herself, this shows that she went to significant effort to resolve the issues in her home. This was because the landlord took a long time to rectify the problems.
23. While we recognise that it took a number of actions to address the damp and mould, it should have prioritised a permanent fix sooner.
24. The evidence also shows poor communication and record keeping from the landlord, as the resident had to chase for updates and it provided unclear instructions to its contractors. This likely caused unnecessary frustration for the resident and contributed to delays in completing the repair works.
25. Nevertheless, following its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged its failures and provided £950 for its handling of the damp and mould and associated repairs. This is in line with what we would award for the failings identified and we think the landlord offered compensation that was satisfactory to acknowledge its oversights.

26. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The resident formally complained on 20 November 2023, and the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on the same day. This was in line with the required timeframe.
27. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 29 December 2023. The Code states that landlords should acknowledge stage 2 escalation requests within 5 working days, but there is no evidence to show it did this. The resident chased for a response to her complaint on 23 January 2024 and 13 February 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 February 2024, which was 7 working days over the timescales set out in the Code and was therefore unreasonable.
28. The landlord should have given the resident a better complaint handling experience and provided its stage 2 complaint response within the required timescales. Nevertheless, the delay was minor and would not have caused significant inconvenience to the resident. Following its complaints process, it has also recognised its failings in its complaint handling and provided £100 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance. We consider this to be reasonable and are pleased to see it has taken responsibility and apologised.

Learning

29. In damp and mould cases, it would be reasonable for the landlord to offer inspections with the neighbourhood officer and a surveyor as quickly as possible, to show the situation is being taken seriously and to offer support.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Throughout its handling of the damp and mould issues, the landlord should ensure it is accurately recording outstanding repairs and communicating them clearly to its contractors.

Communication

31. The landlord should ensure it provides clear information to its residents. In this case, it was unreasonable that the resident had to chase for updates and information on what the landlord was doing to resolve the damp and mould.