Magenta Living (202342247)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202342247 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Magenta Living |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
13 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident has 3 young children, 2 of whom are disabled. In 2022 she complained to the landlord about damp and mould. She again complained to the landlord in December 2023 because she was unhappy it had not resolved the damp and mould issues. She wanted compensation for the repair delays and mould damage to her personal belongings.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to damp and mould reports and damage to personal belongings.
- We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould reports and damage to personal belongings.
- We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports and damage to personal belongings
- The landlord took accountability for its delayed resolution of the damp and mould issues. However, it did not offer proportionate compensation for the impact its delays caused to the resident’s vulnerable household. It also failed to consider appropriate redress options for damage to personal belongings.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
- The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with its policy timescales and were empathetic in tone.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the further failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 10 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £750 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.
The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.
|
No later than 10 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Information order The landlord is ordered to provide the resident details of its liability insurers in relation to a potential claim for damage to her sofa and flooring. If the resident is unable to progress an insurance claim due to time passed the landlord must consider a financial contribution towards the cost of the damaged items. It must inform the resident and us of its decision by the due date and provide reasons to the resident and to us if it decides not to offer a financial contribution. |
No later than 10 April 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should consider providing refresher training to relevant complaint handling staff on possible redress options for damage to furniture to ensure compensation requests are considered in line with its policy provisions. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
4 December 2023 |
The resident complained to the landlord. She said:
|
|
22 December 2023 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It:
|
|
9 January 2024 |
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she was unhappy it did not provide compensation for its delays and damage to her belongings. |
|
24 February 2024 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she remained unhappy that the landlord had not compensated her for damage to her sofa and flooring. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports and damage to personal belongings |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- The resident remains unhappy with the level of compensation offered towards her damaged belongings and the impact caused to her. It is important to note that we cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for the damage reported. Such decisions may be made by the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has such cover in place) or via the courts. Instead, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns, and whether it acted appropriately and followed its policies and procedures.
- The resident first reported damp and mould concerns in 2021, and she complained to the landlord in 2022 about damp and mould. Usually, we consider events within the 12 months before a complaint is made so that issues remain current and relevant evidence is available. However, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that its failings in this matter dated back to 2021. We have therefore considered events from 2021 as part of our investigation, in line with the landlord’s approach.
What we have investigated
- In the resident’s complaint on 4 December 2023, she said the repair works raised following her previous complaint had not been effective and damp and mould were still present. She asked the landlord to compensate her for its delays and for mould damage to personal belongings, including a sofa and flooring.
- Before issuing its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 12 December 2023. This was appropriate, as landlords are required under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards within their properties. Since damp and mould can pose health risks, the landlord is responsible for identifying and addressing such issues where necessary.
- The survey confirmed the presence of mould around the windows, in the living room, and in the outhouse, as well as a gap in the chimney breast that was allowing water to enter. It also noted poorly fitted bedroom air vents. These issues had previously been identified in a survey the landlord completed in 2022. This indicates that works previously completed were either incomplete or ineffective as the resident stated.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced ongoing issues since 2021 and that its previous repairs were of poor quality. This shows the landlord took accountability for previous its repair failings. It also detailed a full list of repairs to remedy the issues, which showed a commitment to putting things right.
- Despite this, the landlord refused the resident’s request for compensation for damage to personal belongings. It failed to assess how its own repair delays contributed to the damage to the resident’s belongings, such as the sofa and flooring. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will acknowledge its fault where appropriate and take steps to remedy issues and prevent recurrence. This includes offering compensation when justified. The policy also allows the landlord to consider a goodwill payment where it is responsible for service failings. It missed an opportunity to consider an appropriate payment to reflect the damage to the resident’s belongings.
- Instead, the landlord said it was the resident’s responsibility to claim on her personal insurance. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and compensation policy states that residents are responsible for insuring their belongings in circumstances such as theft, loss, fire, accidental damage, or deliberate criminal damage. None of these circumstances applied in this case, and it is therefore unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion.
- It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident details of its insurers. This would have allowed an independent assessment of whether the landlord was liable for the damages and if it should reimburse her for the damaged items. However, it failed to do so, which was a failing.
- Following the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord asked the resident for evidence of damaged items. The resident advised she had limited evidence available. However, there was photographic evidence on file showing mould on a sofa. In addition, the landlord’s surveys in 2022 and 2023 confirmed the resident’s flooring was water damaged due to the gap in the chimney breast. In the circumstances, the landlord should have signposted the resident to its insurers or considered whether it was appropriate to make an offer of payment in the absence of such information.
- In its final response, the landlord said it could not calculate a specific amount to cover damage to belongings and again told the resident to claim on her personal insurance. It again missed the opportunity to consider compensation in line with its compensation policy or to provide details of its own insurance. The landlord failed to demonstrate it reviewed the resident’s complaint afresh to ensure fair and transparent decision‑making, which was a further failing.
- In February 2024, the landlord again asked the resident for evidence of the costs of damaged belongings, but the resident explained she could not provide this due to the pressure of her caring responsibilities. The landlord also offered to pay for rented furniture, but the resident said this was not feasible as her disabled children would likely damage the rented furniture. These actions showed efforts by the landlord to consider redress options.
- The landlord was aware of the resident’s children’s vulnerabilities and given the documented health risks associated with damp and mould, it would have been appropriate for it to conduct a risk assessment. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that, from 2021, it assessed any risks posed to the household by the property condition, which was inappropriate. The resident’s frustration and distress in relation to this matter were understandable.
- Although the landlord acted promptly following the resident’s complaint and completed the repairs in February 2024, its overall repair response lacked urgency. While the landlord accepted its delays, the compensation it offeredthe resident was not proportionateto reflect the long-running damp and mould issues, the family’s vulnerabilities, or the impact of its failure to follow its own policies.
- Considering this, the landlord must pay a further £500 compensation to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the further failings identified. The total offer of £750 is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which significantly impacted the resident.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process, which was in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
- The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint (made on 4 December 2023) within its 5-working-day timescale, on 6 December 2023. On 13 December 2023 the landlord requested an extension to allow it to fully investigate all issues in line with its complaints policy. It then provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023, which was within its 15-working-day response timescale.
- The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 January 2024, which it acknowledged the same day and again on 11 January 2024. In line with its complaints policy, it requested an extension on 6 February 2024 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 February 2024, within its policy response timescales.
- The landlord’s complaint communication was timely and empathetic in tone. We have therefore found no maladministration in its complaint handling.
Learning
- The landlord advised it had reviewed this case and revised its procedure to improve service delivery. This represented appropriate learning to help improve repair monitoring and prevent future occurrences. However, it failed to signpost the resident to its insurers regarding damage to her belongings. It is therefore recommended that relevant complaint handling staff receive refresher training to ensure future compensation requests are assessed fairly and in line with policy.
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s recording keeping was clear and sufficiently detailed to enable a thorough assessment of its response to the resident’s complaint.
Communication
- The landlord provided regular and timely updates to the resident regarding the progress of its complaint responses. This demonstrated positive communication.