A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202113836)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202113836
A2Dominion Housing Group Limited
10 March 2023
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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of a top floor one–bedroom flat in a modern block built around 2003.
- In February 2019 the resident reported damp in his open plan kitchen and living room, at high level on the external walls. By February 2021 damp was also affecting the bathroom. The landlord carried out various remedial works during this time, most notably making changes to the loft insulation in May 2019 and December 2020.
- The landlord suggested that additional ventilation might help. However, the resident, believing that the problem stemmed from a lack of cavity wall insulation, had refused to allow a vent to be fitted in the living room without first having the external walls surveyed to establish the level of cavity wall insulation.
- Following the resident’s initial complaint in August 2021, a further survey of the roof space was carried out in October 2021 that found that the loft insulation did not meet current guidelines. A visual inspection of the wall cavity also found that it had no insulation. It was recommended that the loft insulation be upgraded and to look into installing cavity wall insulation.
- The landlord’s stage two response of 9 September 2021 apologised that the recently laid loft insulation was not laid to current regulation and that it had failed to diagnose the cold bridging that was occurring earlier. It noted that an upgrade to the loft insulation had been instructed and was completed on 27 October 2021. It also said that a specialist contractor had been instructed to attend on 14 October 2021 to report on whether retro fitting of wall insulation could be installed in the whole block. The landlord offered the resident a total of £450 compensation, made up of £150 for the time taken to resolve the issue, £100 for the poor quality of work that was done, £100 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for lack of communication.
- The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said he had been told by various surveyors and contractors for years that the building lacked cavity wall insulation but that this had only recently been accepted by the landlord, although the work had still not been carried out. He would like compensation for high heating costs, the cost of buying and running dehumidifiers for the period of his tenancy and redecorating costs. He said that the black mould affected his health as he suffered from asthma.
- It was not until 15 December 2021 that the specialist survey took place. The survey report concluded that insulation levels were more than adequate and that the damp in the resident’s flat was due to a ventilation issue. As a result of this, the landlord made a decision not to undertake any further insulation work.
Assessment and findings
Scope of Investigation
- Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
- There is a difference between the resident’s and the landlord’s account of events. The resident says that he has been reporting issues with mould and damp for the last five or six years. This Service asked the landlord to provide all relevant contact notes from 2016 onwards. However, the landlord said it has no record of any such reports prior to 2019.
- Also, the resident has said that a number of surveyors and contractors have told him over the years that a lack of cavity wall insulation is the problem. However, that is not reflected in the reports of visits by professionals. The first mention of a lack of wall insulation is from the surveyor’s report on 6 October 2021.
- The available evidence suggests that the resident first reported a problem with damp on 1 February 2019. The landlord carried out a mould wash of the walls on 13 February 2019 and then a supervisor attended on 16 April 2019 to further assess the issue and check the ventilation in the flat. On 8 May 2019 the roof and loft were checked and it was reported that condensation was coming into the loft because the eaves were not insulated, causing cold spots. Then on 22 May 2019 work was carried out to insulate the eaves. Trickle vents were fitted to the kitchen windows on 4 July 2019. Through these actions the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve the damp reported at this time.
- The next record of a report from the resident about damp patches is on 14 October 2020. It was at this point that the landlord suggested that a vent be installed in the lounge. Upon the resident refusing this, the landlord requested that the roof be inspected for any defects. At the time, a contractor noted that the problem only occurred during the colder months of the year, which would appear to be cold bridging of the affected areas, rather than an issue with the roof.
- There was an inspection of the loft on 26 November 2020. If the Ombudsman understands it correctly, it was identified that the loft insulation was ill-fitting. Therefore, on 8 December 2020, the existing loft insulation was removed and new insulation refitted between the main rafters. These actions demonstrate that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and trying to resolve the problem. However, it missed an opportunity to confirm its position on the resident’s request that it survey the insulation in the cavity wall. Also, the replacement loft insulation subsequently turned out to be inadequate.
- In February 2021 the resident reported that the damp problem remained ongoing and was now affecting the bathroom. On 15 February 2021 an operative replaced the rotting window shelf. According to the resident, the operative told him that, when the window shelf had been removed, he would be able to see the wall insulation if there was any. However, the operative’s report of the visit states: ‘tenant says he’s walls have no insulation and could this be looked into if possible’. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the request at this time, and again missed an opportunity to explain its position on whether the walls were satisfactorily insulated.
- On every occasion above when the resident reported an issue with damp and mould, the landlord did investigate and took steps to remedy what it thought was the source of the problem. Overall, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response up to this point was reasonable and timely. However, it did not directly address the resident’s repeated queries about wall insulation and his view that further ventilation would not resolve matters, therefore there were further steps it could have taken to resolve his case.
- The resident made a formal complaint in August 2021 stating that a surveyor had agreed that the walls needed insulating but the landlord wished to install vents as that was cheaper. He requested compensation for costs he had incurred including bills, the effect on his health and for his time. Although the resident said he had complained about three months earlier, the landlord states it has no record of that and the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to be able to conclude that an earlier complaint was made. At this time, from the landlord’s complaint response, as the resident had refused to have additional ventilation installed, there were no open repairs jobs relating to the property. Due to the modern construction of the building, where wall insulation would be a requirement under building codes, and the fact that no other tenants were reporting similar issues, the landlord deemed it unnecessary to carry out investigations of that nature (although it had previously attempted to retrieve the building plans from its archive, to no avail).
- In response to the resident’s stage 2 request, in which the resident stated that numerous contractors had advised vents were not the answer, the landlord arranged for another inspection of the property, which took place on 6 October 2021. The surveyor found that the loft insulation that was fitted in December 2020 did not meet current guidelines and should be upgraded to 275mm. He also said that some of the insulation had been tucked down into the wall cavity at the front of the building and, when this was removed, it revealed that the cavity had no insulation. This area was directly above the area in the flat which had been affected by mould. The landlord’s response to this was to arrange for the loft insulation to be changed on 27 October 2021 to bring it up to standard. It also commissioned a specialist contractor to inspect the building to identify if there was a problem with a lack of insulation to the whole building and to get a quote about possibly retro-fitting it. By following the outcome of the inspection of 6 October 2021 – reinstalling the loft insulation and commissioning a specialist survey of the building’s insulation, the landlord took further steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about damp.
- Given the age of the building, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to assume that cavity wall insulation would have been fitted. It had therefore concentrated its previous efforts on trying to find another source for the damp, such as defects in the roof/loft or inadequate ventilation. However, it did not seek to defend that position once it had evidence that there was a potential issue with the cavity wall insulation, which was fair.
- The specialist report from December 2021 also began with the assumption that the walls would be filled with cavity batts (insulation). That assumption was confirmed with borescope photos. The specialist also took some thermal imaging pictures that showed there was no thermal bridging in and around the resident’s top floor flat.
- The Ombudsman understands that the landlord should normally be able to rely on the expert report to decide that no insulation work is required. However, the Ombudsman can see that the borescope photos were all taken at ground floor level. To completely rely on the expert report would be to ignore the other evidence already in the landlord’s possession. The surveyor from October 2021 had seen and photographed the void at high level in the front wall cavity. Whilst the overall evidence suggests that the building as a whole is adequately insulated, the possibility of a localised issue around the resident’s flat remains. A further visual inspection and borescope photos of the top floor flat would establish once and for all if there is a lack of cavity wall insulation in that specific area.
- As such, the landlord failed to coordinate with the specialist contractor to ensure that a thorough survey of the resident’s flat was carried out, particularly the previously identified area. As it did not, that leaves a question mark about whether there is missing cavity wall insulation in the vicinity of where mould and damp appears. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the landlord has not yet taken full steps to satisfy itself that there is adequate cavity wall insulation throughout and that it should commission a further specialist report to establish that fact and to then carry out remedial work if necessary.
- By offering £450 compensation in the Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its service up until that point in time and sought to offer a reasonable redress that was in line with its compensation policy. However, as noted above, there is a shortcoming in the survey by the specialist contractor which it has relied on. If as a result of a further specialist survey, remedial wall insulation work is identified, it is recommended that the landlord carries out the works.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
- Pay the resident the £450 compensation it has offered, if it has not already done so.
- Pay the resident a further £50 compensation for the shortcomings in the specialist survey of 15 December 2021.
- Commission a new specialist survey to establish the level of cavity wall insulation in the resident’s flat in the areas affected by mould.