Muir Group Housing Association Limited (202318586)

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould concerns to the landlord. In August 2023, she told it of her concern that the property needed cavity wall insulation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of damp and mould and associated repairs.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould and associated repairs

5. The landlord delayed completing work and did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not keep adequate records of how it responded to all reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed for nearly a year before identifying failings in its complaint handling.

Putting things right

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.

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.

7. The landlord recorded a report of damp and mould in all rooms and affecting furniture on 23 November 2022. Later, on 9 December 2022, it noted a full inspection was needed. But it cancelled this request and made no record of why. That was a record keeping failing. It means it is unclear what action, if any, it took to resolve the resident’s report about damp and mould. The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy at the time. However, it has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) , to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
8. On 8 March 2023 the resident reported damp on external walls and that kitchen units were rotten. The landlord’s surveyor raised repairs on 13 April 2023 for 2 kitchen units to be replaced. However, it made no clear record of its inspection of the issues the resident had reported. It is therefore unclear how it had addressed the resident’s concerns about damp on external walls. 
9. The landlord’s repairs policy set out its aim to respond to routine repairs within 20 workings days. It also outlined that it would aim to complete planned works, such as more complex non urgent repairs, within 12 months. The landlord did not maintain adequate records to show how it responded to the resident’s repair reports within its routine repair timescales or that it communicated any reasons for delays to her. That was a failing
10. The landlord recorded its attempt to complete kitchen unit repairs on 11 May 2023. It noted at this time that it could not access the property as the resident said the appointment was not convenient. However, there is no evidence it attempted to reschedule this work. It did not do so until she made contact again on 3 August 2023. This is 102 working days from when it was reported. The landlord should have made more proactive attempts to reschedule the work it had previously identified. That it did not do so was a failing.
11. The landlord told the resident on 3 August 2023 that its contractor would attend on 25 August 2023 to replace 2 kitchen units. The resident told it at this time of her ongoing concerns about mould. She said it had completed multiple mould washes in the past and mould would return. She expressed her belief that cavity wall insulation was needed.
12. Our assessment of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns is hampered by its inadequate records. It noted that its surveyor had attended in August 2023 to inspect issues. It raised repairs on 5 September 2023 to treat mould at the property. But it should have made a full record of its surveyor’s inspection in August 2023. Without doing so it cannot demonstrate fully how it had responded to the resident’s concerns. There is no record that shows it addressed or explored her concern that further work was needed to stop damp/mould reoccurring. That was a failing.
13. The landlord completed work to replace 2 kitchen units on 19 September 2023. This was 135 working days after first reported. The same day it recorded that the resident had refused work to treat mould as she did not want issues “painted over again”.  However, after the resident agreed, the landlord arranged for this work to be completed in early November 2023.
14. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint it acknowledged she had raised damage to her internal walls at the rear several times. It noted it was still to carry out rear drainage work, and it apologised for this. As noted earlier, the landlord did not make full record of its attendances. The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in November 2022, March and August 2023. This was a record keeping failing. This was also a failure to effect repairs within a reasonable period of time. It is unclear from records when it identified drainage work to the rear was required. However, once the issue was reported the landlord is on notice to effect repairs. This included inspecting, identifying the cause and completing works. Once identified, it should have communicated with the resident about when this work would be completed. That there is no evidence it did so is a failing.
15. The landlord also noted it was yet to follow up on cavity wall insulation. It said its main contractor was unable to complete this work and it had not been proactive in sourcing an alternative contractor.  It said it had previously instructed a contractor to complete pointing, but this had not been completed pending cavity wall insulation.
16. Despite its assurance that it would keep the resident updated weekly about outstanding work, we have seen no evidence it did so. At the end of January 2024, the resident questioned when the outstanding work would be completed. She said it had completed a mould wash and guttering work. However, she was still waiting to hear about the drain to the rear, repointing and cavity wall insulation. We acknowledge that it offered to complete further mould treatment at the property, which the resident declined. But it is understandable that she wanted it to complete work that may have been causing/contributing to issues.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord provided dates in December 2023 by which it said it would complete the drain installation and kitchen flooring work. But these dates passed without it communicating about the work. If there was a reason it could not complete work by these dates, it should have clearly explained this to the resident. It did not do so and that was a failing.
18. As part of it stage 1 complaint response, the landlord awarded the resident £750 to support her with cleaning/ replacing a sofa and flooring. That was appropriate. It also directed her on how she may contact its insurance team to submit a claim in respect of damage to her belongings. That was also appropriate. We have recommended that it provide the resident with support/information in making any claim, should she need this.
19. After the resident escalated her complaint in February 2024, the landlord inspected the resident’s property again on 23 April 2024. It set out work it would complete to remove decking to the rear and install new drainage. This work, and work to address a roof issue, and repointing was completed during May and June 2024. Following this the landlord completed decoration and flooring replacement it had earlier agreed.
20. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in October 2024, it noted the work it had completed to the resident’s property. It said it would arrange a survey to identify any cavity wall insulation needed and would then arrange to repoint the front and side of the property. It subsequently raised further work to point all brickwork, and this was completed at the end of November 2024.
21. The landlord told us that it has since identified that the property already had cavity wall insulation installed in 2008. It is unclear why it took it so long to discover this. It should have clear and accessible records of work previously completed. It is apparent this was not the case. This unnecessarily delayed pointing work and that was a failing.
22. Even if it had established that cavity wall insulation had previously been installed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider if there was any indication this had failed.  But we have seen no evidence it has investigated this. Nor is there evidence it appropriately communicated with the resident. It should have done so. As a result, she has been left with the belief that the property still has no cavity wall insulation.
23. We acknowledge the landlord has completed further mould treatments following the resident’s reports since the stage 2 complaint response. She should not have been left with the impression that work was outstanding. Given this, we have ordered that the landlord check that the cavity wall insulation at the property is sufficient. It should then communicate its findings and any plan for further work to the resident.
24. We have found significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould that amount to maladministration. It did not maintain adequate records to show how it responded to reports. It delayed completing works after receiving the resident’s reports. Works were raised after the timescales for works had expired. It delayed completing work it had raised, even after setting out a timescale for some of this work. Further it failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about what work was outstanding.
25. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount does not adequately recognise the impact of its failings since November 2022. The resident experienced prolonged issues with damp and mould because of its delay. Further, she spent time and trouble and experienced further concern because of its failure to confirm the position with cavity wall insulation. With consideration to all the circumstances of the case and the failings we have identified, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to her of £1,200. This award, together with the amount it previously awarded is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance.
26. The resident told us of her ongoing concern of damp and mould in her kitchen units. She said that when 2 of the units were replaced by the landlord, the backs of the units were not installed. The landlord did not identify mould in the kitchen during its inspection of September 2025. But it noted that it had not been able to complete a full inspection due to the units being full. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, we have recommended that it arrange to inspect her ongoing concerns about the kitchen and set out to her any work it will complete to address these.

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in October 2023, the relevant Code was the April 2022 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with this Code in respect of timescales.
    2. It appropriately contacted the resident to agree an extension when its stage 1 complaint response was delayed.
    3. Its stage 2 complaint response was significantly outside its 20-working days timeframe. It provided this more than 7 months after the resident’s escalation request. It did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay at the time.
28. After the resident referred her complaint to us the landlord completed a review of its complaint handling. It identified that it should have logged a complaint for the resident in August 2023, when she expressed her dissatisfaction with its response to her reports of damp and mould. Further, it acknowledged it had not agreed extensions with the resident between May and October 2024. It awarded her £400 in recognition of these failings.
29. This award was appropriate and in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance. However, the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for these complaint handling failings at the time. Instead, it did so nearly a year after it concluded its complaints procedure. For this reason, while we have not ordered further compensation, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord did not maintain clear records to demonstrate how it responded to all the resident’s repair reports. Further, its delay identifying that cavity wall insulation had already been completed indicates these records were not readily accessible. It should review action it can take to ensure repair records are easily available and adequate.

Communication

31. The landlord did not communicate properly with the resident to make her aware of timeframes for completing all work. It did not update her when it was unable to meet agreed timescales. Nor did it communicate with her appropriately about cavity wall insulation.