ForHousing Limited (202417514)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property as it was suitable for his medical needs. He has long-term mobility issues, and chronic respiratory conditions. The resident complained about several issues including damp and mould, blocked garage access, and the conduct of contractors. The landlord resolved the damp and mould and offered compensation totalling £850 in the complaint process. The resident remains unhappy with the outcome of his complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould and the conduct of its contractors.
   2. Request for a new kitchen.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the conduct of its contractors.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
5. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:
   1. Responded to reports of damp and mould within proper timescales.
   2. Completed damp proofing works to resolve the source of the damp rather than just treating the mould.
   3. Did some work incorrectly which led to repeated visits and delays for the resident.
   4. Did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when considering his complaint or its response to his reports of damp.
   5. Made some errors in recordkeeping which mean it is not clear whether it completed all damp proofing work.
   6. Responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint and completed a detailed investigation.

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.

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 did not look at

7. In the original complaint the resident also raised an issue with his heating, and how the landlord managed his request for a refund of fees for his garage. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that the heating issue was addressed in another complaint. The resident did not bring that complaint to us, so we have not investigated it. We have not investigated the refund for the garage as the landlord addressed the issue in the stage 1 response and there is no evidence that the resident escalated the matter at stage 2.

What we have looked at

8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will inspect and address all reports of damp and take responsibility for resolving any underlying causes. The policy says it will prioritise households with vulnerable residents and complete a health and vulnerability assessment as part of its damp investigations.
9. The landlord completed damp surveys on 29 January, 19 February, 28 March and 11 April 2024. There is no evidence that it completed a health and vulnerability assessment alongside any of these surveys. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility difficulties, and the resident also told it in his complaint that he had respiratory conditions.
10. Between the surveys, the landlord carried out several damp proofing works. These included injecting a new damp proof course, installing wall vents, applying mould washes and mould paint. However, in 2 separate surveys the landlord found that it had installed the damp proof course at an incorrect height. This resulted in delays and more inconvenience for the resident. The landlord also found that it had not treated all affected areas with mould remover and had instead applied mould paint without prior treatment.
11. On 19 April 2024, a damp surveyor recorded that a renderer should assess the external render, as the damp appeared to be penetrative despite the installation of a new damp proof course. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the condition of the external render or arranged this assessment.
12. Each survey found further damp‑related issues. While it was right for the landlord to identify potential causes, the overall investigation took an unreasonably long time. On 28 March 2024, the landlord found damp in the bedroom around pipes entering the concrete floor. The surveyor recommended installing a damp proof membrane and re‑screeding the floor.
13. The landlord’s records do not confirm when, or if, it completed these recommended works. The landlord acknowledged a delay instructing the work in its stage 2 complaint response. However, when the landlord contacted the resident on 21 June 2024, the resident did not report any ongoing damp in the property.
14. The landlord missed opportunities to reassure the resident during this period. Its failure to resolve the damp issues following the first survey undermined the resident’s confidence in its ability to manage the problem. The resident clearly raised concerns about the impact of mould on his health. There is no evidence that the landlord considered these concerns, as it did not refer to them in its complaint responses. The landlord’s vulnerability records for the resident also do not record his respiratory conditions.
15. We have seen evidence that the landlord raised the resident’s concerns internally with staff and arranged further surveys when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with earlier findings. When the resident reported that an operative had fallen and damaged his phone, the landlord offered a goodwill payment. The landlord’s records do not refer to a fall, and we cannot say what occurred during the visit. The landlord told the resident that he could submit an insurance claim. It was reasonable to offer this choice.
16. The landlord offered £800 in compensation for the issues raised in the complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The amount reflected the level of inconvenience caused, considering that the damp did not affect every room in the property and that the complaint covered a period of around 3 months.
17. However, the compensation does not amount to reasonable redress. It is still unclear whether the landlord inspected the external render for defects or completed the recommended damp proofing works in the bedroom. Given the evidence that some earlier works were completed incorrectly, the landlord should also have considered arranging a further damp survey to confirm that it had fully addressed all outstanding issues. It also did not consider how the situation affected the resident given his vulnerabilities.
18. For the reasons above we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the conduct of its contractors.

19. In the landlord’s damp and mould self-assessment, it sets out that when it completes damp works in a kitchen it will assess whether a new kitchen is needed. It will also consider the lifespan of the existing kitchen.
20. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) says that landlords should ensure properties have adequate facilities for the preparation, cooking and storage of food. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 landlords must repair broken, damaged, or unhygienic kitchen cabinets, worktops, and drawers.
21. The landlord found that a cupboard back board was water damaged and affected by mould. It offered to replace this part; however, it would not be a direct colour match to the rest of the kitchen. The resident rejected this offer, and it is not clear whether it replaced it later.
22. This offer was appropriate. The landlord’s obligation is to provide a safe, hygienic and functional kitchen. It is not required to provide a like‑for‑like or colour‑matched replacement where this is not necessary to meet that standard.
23. We understand that the resident is unhappy that the kitchen would not match and asked for a new kitchen. The landlord confirmed that it upgraded the kitchen in 2010 and it will not be renewed until 2040 provided it is functioning correctly. We recognise that budget is a key issue for social landlords in deciding how to manage its kitchen upgrades and replacing individual parts rather than the full kitchen can be the most cost-effective choice.
24. In this case, there is evidence that the kitchen meets regulatory standards with the proposed part replacement. For that reason, there is no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to replace his kitchen.

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
26. The landlord sent its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses on time. It was clear in its responses and broke the complaint down into individual elements to support the resident’s understanding. However, it did miss opportunities to confirm the resident’s vulnerabilities and provide more support and reassurance.
27. We have seen evidence that the complaint investigation itself was thorough and looked at all evidence available to it including all damp surveys and repair records. It also offered a suitable level of compensation and used its discretion to offer a goodwill gesture for the alleged damage to the resident’s phone.
28. For the reasons above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s records do not clearly show when or if it completed the damp works to the bedroom, or whether it checked the external rendering. It should make sure that all repair records are clear and confirm what work is done on each visit. It should also explain any delays.
30. The vulnerability records in this case were not up to date, and this affected the resident’s overall experience. The landlord should consider how often it updates this information and considers refresher training to staff on how to log vulnerabilities when a resident discloses them.

Communication

31. During our investigation we did not identify any issues with the landlord’s communication. Its communication with us was also clear and prompt.