Amplius Living (202424659)

Background

1. The resident lives with her 2 children. She was concerned about mould on the living room carpet. She asked the landlord to replace her carpet and remains unhappy with its decision not to do so.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of mould on the living room carpet.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of mould on the living room carpet.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of mould in the living room carpet

5. The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concerns about mould on the carpet in a timely manner. However, it did appropriately investigate whether there were any defects in the property causing mould.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to acknowledge and put right complaint handling delays. It also failed to signpost the resident to its insurer given her concerns about liability.

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.

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 resident reported there was mould on her living room carpet on 14 September 2023. It was in an isolated area only under the sofa. During 2023 and 2024, the landlord carried out 4 inspections of the carpet:
   1. On 21 September 2023 it responded in line with its policies for repairs and mould. However, it failed to properly record the results of the inspection. As such there was confusion about what should happen next. The resident had to chase the landlord, and it raised a job on 27 October 2023 to lift the floorboards and check the pipework. The landlord sought clarification about this September 2023 inspection later in 2024. It was told by the contractor that their recollection was the moisture meter reding on the carpet was “not conclusive”. However, there was no corroborating evidence for this.
   2. On 8 February 2024, the operative who checked the lounge confirmed there to be no evidence of damp and suggested that the carpet remain. They also recommended that the sofa be cleaned and moved every now and again as the issue was due to restricted or lack of airflow. The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident. However, she did not accept this and reminded it that it had previously advised that it wished to investigate under the floorboards. Internal records show that the landlord had concluded that this was not necessary. While this may have been the case, the decision should reasonably have been explained to the resident.
   3. It attended on 21 March 2024, after the resident raised further concerns on 16 February 2024 that the mould was sticky. Following this, it was recommended that the landlord carry out further investigations to the floorboards and suspended floor. It promptly raised a job for this.
   4. The landlord inspected the flooring for a fourth time on 9 May 2024. The carpet was lifted and the flooring was cut. The result of this inspection revealed no signs of anything that would cause the growth of mould. It noted the airbricks were not obstructed and allowed airflow. However, the landlord did not find out these results until over 1 month later, as the contractor did not send the results in a timely manner.
8. There was almost 5 months between the first and second inspections. We appreciate that part of the delay was due to the resident not preparing the area for inspection. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the delay was unavoidable and why the landlord could not schedule an appointment sooner. It is noted that during this period the resident was concerned there may have been a wider issue causing the mould growth.
9. We have seen that at least on 2 occasions, the contractor did not update the landlord with its results from inspections in a timely manner. This caused confusion about what follow on work was necessary. The contractor’s responses to the first inspection indicated it was not making comprehensive records. This highlights a record keeping failure. It is important landlords monitor and have oversight of its contractors as outlined in our Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report. It also added to the overall delays with dealing with the matter as it had to arrange another inspection.
10. It was afurther failing that the landlord had to contact the contractor for more information about what happened after some inspections. We also noted that on 4 April 2024, it had to ask the resident if an appointment had been made raised or made. This information should have been reasonably available to it. It also indicates that that it did not have appropriate oversight of the contractor’s work.
11. The resident explained to the landlord that she had been told to expect follow up work after the first inspection and that moisture had been found. This is not reflected in the records as highlighted previously, the contractor did not report the results in a timely manner. The resident also said she was told after the fourth inspection that mould had been found and recommendations would be made. While we do not dispute what the resident has said, there is no other evidence to confirm this. The landlord should reasonably have responded to this when it investigated the resident’s complaint.
12. Even after the landlord found no presence of moisture, it still agreed to inspect under the floorboards and was able to satisfy itself and the resident there was no evidence of damp. We note there was a delay in updating the resident with this final report. However, at this point, previous inspections had not revealed moisture. As such the impact of the delay was minimal under the circumstances.
13. The landlord did not always raise inspectionsand confirm inspection results in a timely manner taking almost 11 months to conclude its investigations. However, it demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and continued to investigate possible causes of the issue that had been reported. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its suitably qualified staff which concluded that the mould on the carpet was not caused by a property defect. However, it should reasonably have ensured that a sufficiently detailed record of its findings was maintained and that it was communicating with the resident transparently and in a timely manner.
14. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we will order the landlord to pay £100 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in investigating the mould.

15. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
16. The landlord took 136 working days to issue its stage 1 response, and we have not seen any evidence that it acknowledged the complaint. It is noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 October 2023 to advise it would not be able to resolve the complaint in 10 days. This was appropriate. It also advised that it would update her on 3 November 2023. There is no evidence that it did so, and rather than committing to an update, in accordance with the Code, the landlord should have confirmed the date it would issue its response. As it did not, its handling was inappropriate.
17. The delay in handling the complaint at stage 1 was significant and understandably caused distress and inconvenience while the resident was awaiting a resolution. While the landlord acknowledged the delay in correspondence to us, it was not appropriate that it did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response. It missed the opportunity to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays and to put things right.
18. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response it was not responsible for treating the mould on the carpet. It was aware that the residentdisputed this and felt it was liable for replacing the carpet. As such, it is unclear why it did not provide details of its insurer given that liability for the carpet replacement was in dispute. This was a failing. We have therefore ordered the landlord to provide the resident with information about making a claim through its liability insurer now.
19. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and the failure to signpost the resident to its liability insurer.

Learning

20. The landlord’s handling of the issue was impacted by the lack of comprehensive reports from its contractor. It has told us that its surveyors are advised to ensure all photographs and notes are added to the system in the form of a report. It should continue to monitor whether this is being completed to an appropriate standard.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was not appropriate at times. This indicates that relevant staff may not be recording data accurately or with enough details. It should ensure it can retrieve accurate data about the status of repairs.

Communication

22. Overall, the landlord’s communications could have been better. It was positive to see that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns. However, it should consider providing following up actions in writing so there is no ambiguity about what should happen next.