Abri Group Limited (202201157)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201157

Abri Group Limited

2 October 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been a periodic assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since May 2021. The property is a new build 2-bedroom 1st floor flat. The resident’s partner is a joint tenant and also resides at the property alongside 2 children.
  2. On 2 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord mould and condensation on windowsills in both bedrooms. She said that every morning the windowsills were filled with water, so she thought the windows were leaking. The landlord acknowledged the report on 4 November 2021 and a repair was logged with the developer on 10 November 2021 (new build within defect period).
  3. The developer inspected the property on 15 November 2021 and reported that there was no evidence of damp, and that the issue was condensation and poor ventilation. They said they had provided advice and guidance to the resident on how to ventilate the property correctly, and confirmed that once the wall had dried, they would re-seal the window.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2021 and said that the same issue was now appearing on other windows and she asked when it would attend to address the damp and mould. The landlord re-escalated this to the developer.
  5. Two of the developer’s operatives attended on 25 November 2021 to carry out an inspection. They again said the issue was due to poor ventilation, and that laundry was being dried throughout the property which was causing excess condensation. They said further advice had been provided to the resident on how to ventilate correctly to avoid the problem and as the issue was not a defect in the building there was no further action they could take. The landlord marked the report as resolved on 26 November 2021.
  6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 December 2021. She said she had to throw away possessions damaged by mould which had been hung in a cupboard or stored on the floor, away from the windows. She believed the issue was that the building had not been dried out thoroughly before they moved in. She said she had followed the advice to ventilate properly and used extractor fans and mould spray, but the wall around the window was constantly damp. She did not believe that was caused by condensation build up but was, instead, an issue with the building.
  7. The resident said she had been told someone would be in contact, but it had been almost a month with no one getting in touch. She advised that her partner had asthma and she was worried about the health impact on her son. She wanted the landlord to resolve the issue and to reimburse her for the damage to her possessions and the cost of the dehumidifiers she was advised to buy.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 February 2022. It said inspections had been carried out and it was confirmed there was no damp and mould near the wardrobe and so the mould on belongings was due to insufficient ventilation of the property. It said it had given advice around this when the resident made her initial report and additional advice on dealing with the condensation had been provided during visits.
  9. The landlord went on to say that concerns about the windows had been investigated by a contractor and it was determined that they did not require repairs. The contractor had also noted that if there were wider issues with the insulation then mould would be seen throughout the internal walls and not just on the windows.
  10. In the resident’s stage 2 complaint, she said she had followed the advice where possible. She said the developer had promised to supply her with an industrial humidifier and the inspections had only focused on the windows and ventilation, and not the whole property.
  11. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 6 May 2022, it reiterated its position and said the property was a new build so it would be damp for a period of up to 2 years. It said new builds were really well insulated which could lead to excess moisture and this was not due to anything the resident or the developer had done wrong. It said there were some practical adjustments to manage this without it being costly and went on to provide that advice. It said its specialist damp and mould surveyor had recommended the installation of a positive input ventilation (PIV) system. It also requested to arrange a visit with the resident.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and in June 2023 she escalated her complaint to this Service. She said she continued to experience problems with damp and mould and had recently made a further complaint to the landlord. She wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the damage to her belongings or waive her rent arrears in its stead.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that the matters complained of have negatively affected her partner and her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s partner’s and her children’s ill-health.
  2. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. It is also not within this Service’s remit to order the landlord to write off arrears, or to reimburse the resident for damage to her belongings. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are usually claimed via its insurance. This Service is aware that this forms part of the new complaint the resident has raised with the landlord (see below). Therefore, it is not addressed further in this report.
  4. Since making this complaint, the resident also logged another complaint with the landlord about ongoing issues of damp and mould in 2023. This complaint has completed the landlord’s complaint process and was referred to this Service for consideration under a separate case (reference 202318461). It is not, therefore, considered further in this assessment, which is focused on the events leading up to 27 June 2022, when the landlord concluded the visit and follow-up actions from the stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. It is important to note that it is not the role of this Service to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould. This investigation considers only whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the reports it received from the resident, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable.
  2. The landlord provided this Service with its damp and mould policy. However, the version submitted was updated in October 2023, so it is not relevant to the provisions the landlord had in place at the time of this complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman has based its assessment on what was considered good practice at the time as well as its own expectations in this regard.
  3. When the resident reported the issue, the building was within the new build defect period. As such, any reports which indicated that the underlying cause might be a building defect should be referred to the developer for investigation. The resident made her report on 2 November 2021 and the landlord responded promptly on 4 November 2021 with an acknowledgement. It then followed up with advice and information on addressing and reducing condensation and mould on 10 November 2021. It is the expectation of this Service and accepted good practice that the landlord would issue advice and information to its resident as the first step of its response.
  4. Although, the landlord did not believe the issue was likely to be a building defect, it referred the matter to the developer for investigation on the same day because the resident thought the issue was down to a defect in the windows; this was the right thing to do. The developer conducted their investigation and established that there was no damp, and instead identified the issue as one that could be addressed by the resident in the first instance. Advice was provided during the visit. No further action was identified for the landlord to take.
  5. However, when the resident reverted to the landlord and reported further issues of the same nature, the landlord pursued this with the developer by requesting another inspection and confirmation of work required. This was a reasonable and appropriate step given that the resident had informed the landlord the mould had spread, and she was concerned about the impact on her son’s health.
  6. The developer conducted a further inspection and reported back that there was still no sign of damp, and the mould and condensation they had witnessed could be addressed by amending some behaviours and taking steps which would help to rectify the situation. While this Service cannot make a finding on the developer’s actions (as it is not a member of our Scheme), it is noted that the advice provided to the resident at the time was largely reasonable. Where it was not, this was later rectified by the landlord with more suitable advice.
  7. Later visits by the landlord and an independent surveyor also noted some of the same issues, such as extractor fans not being used, the property not being correctly ventilated, and multiple occupants sleeping in the same room (there was not an underlying issue of overcrowding). These are all factors which can contribute to increased moisture in the air and thereby mould growth.
  8. The resident also reported that the mould damage to her belongings was occurring inside a cupboard or on items stored away from the areas where the mould growth and excess moisture was. It is noted that the resident was moved from her previous property due to damp and mould so there is the possibility, however small, that the issue could have transferred with the belongings. It would not have been unreasonable for the landlord to take these things into account in its handling of the resident’s reports.
  9. The resident has said that all the investigations conducted by the landlord and developer focused only on the windows and did not extend to the entire property. However, this was not unreasonable given that there was no evidence of rising damp from the floor (a concern expressed by the resident) or damp and mould growth in the wider property. It was reasonable and proportionate for enquiries to be focused on the areas where evidence of an issue was present.
  10. The resident further said in her complaint correspondence of 17 December 2021 that she had been informed someone would be in contact with her, but this Service has not seen evidence that she was told this. It is possible, however, that there was some confusion in the communication around the next steps to re-seal the window; whether the resident was to inform the landlord once the wall had dried sufficiently or whether she was expecting the landlord to enquire after a few weeks.
  11. The developer should have been clear about this, both with the resident and the landlord. However, it can reasonably be expected that the landlord would have clarified this with the developer when they reported back in November 2021, so that it could proactively monitor the situation and confirm the work was done as advised to the resident. As such, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed of next steps leading to her to contact it for updates, and this represents a failure in service.
  12. Following the inspections by the developer and the resident’s continued dissatisfaction, the landlord then arranged for its own operative to visit. However, whilst it had booked the visit with its operative, it does not appear to have informed the resident who then called in to request an update and was informed that a visit was scheduled for the following day. This was a failing, as visits should be booked with the resident in advance with sufficient notice given.
  13. The resident has said that she was given conflicting information about whether the windows needed to be repaired. This is reflected in the correspondence exchanged between the developer and the landlord at the time. The landlord’s operative visited the resident and thought that the external mastic on 2 windows had shrunk, reporting back that this needed to be fixed. The developer booked a contractor to inspect and repair the windows if needed but then reported back that the inspection established the windows did not require repair.
  14. It would have been appropriate for the developer’s contractor to produce a report of the inspection which should have been shared with the resident and the landlord. Where they did not do so, the landlord should have requested this to assess why the developer’s findings differed from its own. It should have then provided an explanation to the resident about this. However, the landlord did engage an independent third-party surveyor to carry out an inspection. While it could have done more to probe the responses provided by the developer, engaging an independent third party was an appropriate and reasonable alternative.
  15. The specialist damp and mould surveyor inspected and tested the entire property on 15 February 2022, having been engaged to do so by the landlord on 31 January 2021. The report was provided to the landlord on 17 March 2022. The specialist also concluded that the issue was one of ventilation rather than damp.
  16. The surveyor’s recommendations included repair of the broken kitchen extractor fan (which this Service has not seen evidence of being previously reported by the resident for repair), an upgrade of the existing ventilation, and the installation of a PIV. The surveyor’s recommendations were accepted and signed off by the landlord.
  17. The installation of PIV is ordinarily seen in extreme cases of damp and mould and was an unusual step in this particular case. This, however, reflects the landlord’s willingness to engage with the issue and to rectify it where it could. This Service is aware that there were issues with arranging appointments for installation but that is the subject of the more recent complaint. This assessment considers that the steps taken by the landlord in relation to the approval of the PIV system went beyond what it would be expected to have done at that stage.
  18. The resident has asked that she is reimbursed for the cost of the humidifiers she bought. Amongst the advice a landlord is expected to provide to residents experiencing issues of mould and condensation is the use of humidifiers and its benefits. It would not ordinarily be expected to fund this purchase. The resident has also said that she was promised industrial humidifiers by the developer. As the landlord has informed her, this is not an expected or proportionate step in a situation like this (for the reasons it has explained).
  19. The resident made the landlord aware of her partner’s health condition and raised concerns about the impact on herself and her children. In consideration of this, the landlord arranged for a mould wash, application of stain block, and redecorating of the windows. This was in addition to the approval of remedial action recommended by the damp and mould specialist, and this work was completed on 27 June 2022.
  20. The landlord followed its visit with a letter providing relevant and practical advice on the steps the resident could take to manage the situation going forward. The resident had raised concerns about advice to dry laundry outside when she lives in a 1st floor flat and has no access to open air drying facilities. The landlord confirmed that clothing should be dried in the bathroom with the extractor running and door closed as that is a room built to deal with higher moisture levels while the rest of the property was not. It also advised that the resident should wipe down excess condensation around the windows. Again these are steps that can help to reduce excess moisture and thereby the growth of mould.
  21. The tone of the landlord’s correspondence throughout the issue remained empathetic, highlighted that the situation was of no one’s making or fault attributable to anyone; stressing that there were unavoidable underlying factors and giving advice on how to work around those.
  22. While the landlord’s overall response to the reports of damp and mould was fair and reasonable, this investigation has highlighted issues which amount to service failure. The landlord is, therefore, ordered below to write to the resident with an apology for these failings and to pay £100 for the inconvenience and confusion caused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, its colleagues or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer or a group of customers’. The policy set out timeframes for responding to complaints; namely 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. It also stated that complaints would be acknowledged within 1 working day.
  2. The policy further said that, where the landlord required more time to complete an investigation, it would contact the resident to explain this, and agree how often they will be kept updated. The policy said all Stage 1 complaints should be handled within 20 working days and Stage 2 complaints should be handled within 30 working days, unless there was a good reason why the landlord could not respond.
  3. The resident made her complaint on 17 December 2021, but this was not acknowledged until 21 December 2021; 2 working days later. The landlord called the resident on 11 January 2022 to confirm an extension, but this was 15 working days after she made her complaint and 5 days after the stage 1 response was due.
  4. The landlord did keep the resident regularly updated during the extension period as stipulated in its policy. However, its stage 1 response was not issued until 7 February 2022, 34 days after the resident made her complaint and outside the 20 working days extension period set out in its policy.
  5. The resident informed the landlord on 9 February 2022 that she was unhappy with its stage 1 response. However, the landlord did not treat this as an escalation until the resident emailed to ask for this explicitly on 16 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the request for escalation to stage 2 on 21 February 2022, 3 working days later.
  6. The landlord then did not contact the resident until she emailed it on 11 March 2022, asking how she could escalate her complaint to this Service. This was 17 working days after she had escalated her complaint. The landlord then did not revert to her until 15 March 2022, 2 working days later, to request an extension for its stage 2 response.
  7. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of updates sent to the resident during this period, including a reply to her email of 20 March 2022. The next logged contact with the resident by the landlord was on 27 April 2022. A stage 2 response was issued on 6 May 2022, 55 working days after the resident’s escalation request and outside the 30 working days extension period set out in the landlord’s policy.
  8. Further, a proper explanation was not provided for why the landlord was unable to respond to the complaint at both stages within its stipulated timeframes. The stage 2 response said it had taken longer to reply in order to better understand the resident’s experience. It is not clear what this entailed or why it took 3 months to issue a stage 2 response. In all, the landlord took almost 5 months to address a complaint that it should have progressed through its complaints process in 30 working days. The Ombudsman does not consider the explanation provided to be a ‘good reason’ for the landlord not being able to meet its own response times.
  9. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code that was in effect at the time said that ‘if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure.’ The resident clearly communicated that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response on 9 February 2022, and that was enough for the stage 2 process to have then been engaged without an explicit request for escalation.
  10. The landlord’s poor handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration. It is, therefore, ordered below to write to the resident with an apology for its failure. It is further ordered to pay the resident £200 for the upset and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  11. On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and the Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  12. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident with an apology (with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its:
      1. Failures in the handling of the reports of damp and mould.
      2. Complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £300 compensation, as follows:
      1. £100 in recognition of the confusion and inconvenience caused by its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
      2. £200 in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Review the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.

Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.