ForHousing Limited (202312262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312262

ForViva Group Limited

20 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handing of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of unsafe paving.
3. The resident’s reports of repairs to the fence posts.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The resident lives in the property with her son. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 January 2021 regarding the installation of a fan in the bathroom. The resident reported that the landlord had attended on several occasions but this work had not been completed and was causing mould. The resident also raised that there were pigeons under the solar panels on the roof and damp in several rooms of the property. The landlord stated it would need to remove the solar panels to assess the roof and it would arrange for pest control to remove the birds.
On 23 November 2021, the resident stated there was a leak underneath the solar panels which is causing damp in her son’s bedroom. The resident also reported that there was pigeons nesting underneath the solar panels. The landlord attended on 24 November 2021 to inspect the leak and attempt clear out the guttering which was overflowing but this was unsuccessful. It was noted that scaffolding would be needed to remove the solar panels and refit them.
The solar panels were removed on or before 14 March 2022. The panels were refitted on 20 May 2022 and mesh was installed to prevent birds nesting underneath.
The resident contacted the landlord again on or before 27 January 2022 to ask for a fan to be fitted in the bathroom of the property. The resident also reiterated that there was damp in the property, and pigeon faeces in the guttering. The fan was fitted by the landlord in April 2022.
The resident continued to report the presence of damp and mould to the landlord throughout 2022, the resident stated there was water staining on the ground floor which was blistering the décor and the damp in the bedroom was growing.
The landlord attended on 29 April 2022 to conduct a damp survey. It identified a damp reading of 0 in the bathroom and bedroom, and a damp reading of 50 in the kitchen as a result of a leak in bathroom above the kitchen. A 2nd damp survey was completed on 7 October 2022, the report provided a damp reading of 0 in the kitchen. The 3rd damp survey took place on 29 November 2022, it found a damp reading of 8.6 in the bathroom and noted that the fan in the bathroom had been installed unsafely. A damp reading of 8.2 was provided for the bedroom. It was noted there appeared to be a leak from the loft space and the roof needed to be inspected. The following works were recommended:
1. Relocate the bathroom fan
2. Inspect roof to identify the source of the leak.
3. Repair lead to the chimney.
4. Investigate and repair source of leak under the bath.
5. Plastering works in the kitchen, bedroom, and stairs.
6. Insulate loft eaves.
In March 2023, the landlord reported that all damp works had been completed except for retiling. The resident responded that this was not the case because water was still penetrating through the chimney breast and the floorboards in the bedroom needed replacing because they were damp. The resident felt that the landlord has missed some works off and requested that the a specialist assess her property. The resident also expressed frustration that the cause of the issues reported was not identified sooner.
Additionally, the resident reported that some of the fence posts in the garden were damaged. The landlord advised that the tenancy agreement makes the repair of damaged fence posts the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident raised concerns that the pigeon faeces around the property was a health hazard, and that the drainage on the garden paving was insufficient which made the paving slippery. The resident reported that she had fallen over as a result and suffered injury.
The resident complained to the landlord via her Member of Parliament (MP) on or around 17 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2023. It noted it had inspected the property and provided a list of works it would complete, and the time frame for these. It noted it had asked its neighbourhood officer to contact the resident regarding the provision for fence posts in the tenancy agreement.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 via her MP on or around 14 February 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. It acknowledged that there was still works outstanding and outlined its Damp Manager had attended on 3 March 2023 to discuss the works. It also outlined that fencing is the resident’s responsibility to maintain as per the tenancy agreement. It offered to complete works relating to the resident’s report of the outside paving being slippery as a good will gesture, and offered to fit the resident’s own tiles if she provided them for the kitchen.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the matter was referred to this Service. The resident outlined her position:
1. The fan needs to be relocated to outside of the bathroom.
2. She would like the property to be reassessed by an expert surveyor.
3. There is still damp and mould throughout the property and the landlord’s actions so far have not solved the issue.
4. The tenancy agreement does not outline responsibility for fence posts.
5. The paving slabs outside the property are slippery from poor drainage which has caused injury.
6. The pigeons that nested under the solar panel had defecated in the garden which was a health hazard. Dead birds had been left behind after the solar panels were removed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal 4 injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repair procedure states that the response time for a repair is dependent on its priority. It categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – 3 working says.
3. Routine repairs – 30 working days.
4. Damp repairs – 40 working days.
The procedure states that repairs to fences, internal doors and door frames, skirting boards, tiles, and the removal of mould from wall and ceilings are the responsibility of the resident.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that the landlord takes a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould. The landlord states it will inspect and address all reported cases of damp. When diagnosing damp and mould, it will accept full responsibility for resolving the underlying issues. The policy states that the landlord will complete a health and vulnerability assessment of the household to determine if any support is required to facilitate the works. The landlord will also complete works to eradicate the source of the damp and mould.
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, the landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation throughout the tenancy. It must also ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Decent Homes Standard says the landlord should ensure that its properties are free of category 1 hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Damp and mould is listed as a potential category 1 hazard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.

Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damp and mould in January 2021. At the time of the stage 2 response, the resident noted that the damp and mould in the property had not been resolved. The repairs did not take place within the landlord’s advertised time frame for a damp and mould repair. Failure to meet time frames is a failure of service. The landlord did not provide any justification to the resident in order to manage her expectations or assure her it was taking the matter seriously.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what the Ombudsman expects from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, communicate effectively with residents, and, where significant works may be required, it should consider whether the resident should be moved from the property at an early stage. The evidence provided does not show the landlord took any of those steps.
The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to ask it to address the issues she was reporting or to chase repairs. Often the landlord did not respond or its response was vague. This was a failure. While internal emails provided to this Service shows that the landlord did chase its contractors for updates, this information was not passed to the resident. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or demonstrate it was taking the repairs seriously.
Attendance records show that the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on over 40 occasions throughout 2021 to 2023. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues. It can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord. While the landlord initially attended on time, its performance after this was often took too long and there was regularly a delay between appointments which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On several occasions, contractors turned up without the appropriate equipment so the work could not be completed, or turned up in the wrong order. The resident was evidently inconvenienced by the amount of visits and noted she felt like she was living on a building site. The resident also expressed that the ongoing repairs were impacting her mental health. The landlord missed the opportunity to complete the required works on time, efficiently, and with minimal disruption on the resident. This was inappropriate and a failure.
The evidence we have seen as part of this investigation shows that the resident sent the landlord a large volume of correspondence that was often long, repetitive, and to several individuals at once. Internal correspondence from the landlord suggests it was struggling to cope with the resident’s communication and this impacted its ability to respond to her in detail. While this Service recognises the difficulty the landlord faced, it did not outline its expectations or communication time frames to the resident in order to improve the situation. This impacted its ability to provide the resident with an effective service.
The landlord’s record keeping lacks detail. It is unclear from the evidence what works the landlord considers to be outstanding, when it plans to complete any remaining work, or how long this will take. The resident has outlined what works she considers are required, it is not clear what the landlord’s position is or whether it has communicated this to the resident.
The detriment the resident experienced as a result of the failings was significant because she was distressed at the conditions at her property and had to live with the damp and mould present for longer than reasonable. The resident outlined that she and her son had experienced ill health as a result of the damp and mould, and the distress caused. The landlord did not offer any support or reassurance to the resident which was inappropriate and a failure.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the time it was taking to complete the repairs and outlined the work it intended to do. The landlord did not acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident or demonstrate any learning or reflections. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for its failure to identify the repairs straight away and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould amounts to maladministration. The landlord’s compensation offer does not reflect or put right the failings identified for the following reasons:
1. The length of time it took to complete repairs.
2. The lack of proactive follow up repair appointments.
3. Its poor communication.
4. The evident distress the resident experienced at the condition of the property.
5. The inconvenience the resident experienced chasing the landlord for updates.
6. The lack of reflection and learning from the landlord.
In light of the landlord’s failings and the stress and inconvenience caused, the Ombudsman’s awards £600 compensation to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the damp and mould in the resident’s property. This is in line with the service’s remedies guidance, available on our website.

The landlord handling of the resident’s reports of unsafe paving.

The resident reported that the paving outside of the property was slippery, and she had fallen over on it. In July 2021, the landlord attended to repair the drainage but the resident reports that this was unsuccessful. The resident also noted that the paving was covered in pigeon faeces which was a health hazard.
The tenancy agreement states the resident’s responsibility to keep steps, paths, or hard surfaces in the garden in safe and sound condition. The landlord provided a copy of this to the resident when it set out its position.
While the resident notes that the tenancy agreement the landlord sent her when it outlined its position was not signed by her on the final page, the resident’s signature is present on the sections confirming the resident has received their tenancy rights and responsibilities information, and that she has understood the conditions of the tenancy agreement.
In its complaint response, the landlord offered to raise repair works for the resident as a good will gesture. It stated it would be in contact with the resident to arrange an appropriate time. It is not clear from the evidence if this work has taken place. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to arrange this appointment, if it has not already done so.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsafe paving.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the fence posts

The resident reported that 2 of the concrete fence posts in the garden were damaged and needed replacing. The landlord agreed to replace 2 of the posts, but outlined that it would not replace the others.
The landlord’s repair policy states that the resident is responsible for repairs to fences. The landlord outlined this in its response to the resident and was clear on its position.
While the resident asserts that the fence panels are her responsibility but the posts are not, the landlord’s repairs policy does not distinguish between the panels and the posts. Both elements fall under fencing and are the responsibility of the resident to maintain.
The Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of repairs to the fence posts. The evidence shows that the landlord was scheduled to replace 2 of the posts but it is not clear if this has been completed. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to replace 2 of the posts.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledge.
The Code defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ The word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used.
The resident had raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses on several occasions before the complaint was logged. In an email dated 1 February 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident that she had to “make a complaint in order to get this remedied” but there is no evidence that this contact was treated as a complaint.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 17 January 2021. The landlord acknowledged this as the resident’s first complaint. It is concerning that the landlord did not act before the involvement of the resident’s MP.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 24 January 2023. It is not clear from the evidence when it acknowledged the complaint which is a record keeping failure. The complaint response was addressed to a member of the MP’s staff rather than the resident which was inappropriate. It stated that the landlord was sorry that you (the MP) have needed to contact us on behalf of the resident. This undermined the resident and was dismissive of her lived experience. The response was not sympathetic or understanding of the distress caused and did not include any reflection or learnings which is a failure.
The resident’s MP requested the complaint be escalated on 7 February 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 8 February 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident to advise it would not meet its advertised time frame and the resident could expect a response by 23 March 2023. In this email, the landlord noted the date of escalation as 14 February 2023 which was incorrect and unreasonable.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 March 2023 which is outside of its timeframes for a stage 2 response. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. While the landlord did provide an update to the resident, it missed its revised deadline and did not provide any reasoning or further updates.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord outlined the work it planned to undertake but did not outlined what it considered had gone wrong or what it aimed to do to ensure the same issues do not happen again. It did not acknowledge the delay in providing its complaint response.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration because:
1. It did not recognise the resident’s earlier expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint.
2. It was dismissive of the resident and did not address her personally in its stage 1 response.
3. It did not provide any learning or reflection.
4. It provided inaccurate information about the date of the resident’s complaint.
5. It did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 2.
This Service awards £150 compensation to acknowledge and redress the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This is in line with our remedies guidance which is available on our website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of unsafe paving.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s fence posts.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £750. £200 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this amount, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 to acknowledge and redress then failures identified in relation to the damp and mould.
2. £150 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on any repairs required in relation to damp and mould. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when repairs will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to arrange an appointment to repair the paving slabs, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should replace the resident’s fence posts, if it has not already done so.