Aster Group Limited (202214054)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214054

Aster Group Limited

10 August 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about leaking and drafty windows causing damp and mould in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in November 2020. The property is a two bedroom house. The building is grade 2 listed. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement:
1. The resident is responsible to pay rent weekly.
2. The landlord is responsible to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including outside walls, outside doors, windowsills, window catches, sash cords and window frames including necessary external painting and decoration.
3. Implied into every tenancy agreement is the term of quiet enjoyment. This means that the resident should be able to enjoy their property without undue interference or interruption. Landlords should not allow properties they own to be in a state that would interfere with the tenant’s use of their property. This might include where poor conditions in a property or area controlled by the landlord leads to infestations or health risks in the tenant’s home.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that critical emergency repairs are carried out within 4 hours to make safe any defect where there is potential to endanger life. Emergency repairs are carried out within 24 hours where defects could cause health and safety risks. Urgent repairs are carried out within 3 or 5 working days. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days.
The landlord’s management transfer procedure says that a management move can be requested based on individual exceptional circumstances. Customers can be considered as a priority for a management transfer if they are a victim of a serious crime, serious sexual assault, domestic abuse, severe harassment, or serious nuisance which can be evidenced. Customers can be considered for a management transfer if they are under-occupying accommodation after succession. Or if they succeeded to a property that had been adapted for the needs of the deceased tenant, and the surviving tenant does not require the adaptations. Exclusions for a management transfer include:
1. Cases of overcrowding.
2. Unsatisfactory property conditions.
3. Affordability and rent arrears.
4. Medical conditions.
5. Emergency rehousing.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a system that identifies and categorises various hazards that can be found in a home. The landlord is responsible for avoiding or at least minimising these hazards. Hazards arise from faults or deficiencies in the home. The fault or deficiency can arise because of the way the property was designed, built, wear and tear or lack of repairs. The HHSRS assesses 29 housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of current or future occupants of the property and the best way of dealing with them.
Damp and mould are health threats due to dust mites, mould or fungal growth. It includes physical, mental and social wellbeing ill effects associated with damp, humid and mouldy conditions. Health effects include allergies, asthma, breathing difficulties, fungal infection, rhinitis, depression and anxiety. Landlord’s should be proactive and consider these preventative measures before damp and mould arise:
1. Damp proof courses, membranes and detailing around doors and window openings.
2. External fabric kept in good repair to avoid rain penetration.
3. Frost protection for pipes and tanks.
4. Properly installed baths and sinks.
5. Properly installed drainage.
6. Properly installed and maintained rainwater goods.
7. Properly ventilated roof and under floor spaces to ensure timber remains air dry.
8. Adequate extraction of moisture laden air during peak times, like cooking and bathing and laundry.
9. Continuous low-level background ventilation where necessary.
10. Sufficient means of ventilation to cope with moisture from normal domestic activities without the need to open windows that could lead to heat loss, noise and security risks and appropriate ventilation for dwellings of high occupant density.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords which include:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord has a condensation and mould procedure which says that:
1. An initial “level one” inspection will take place to assess the extent and cause of condensation, damp and mould to determine the actions that should be taken. Escalation to a second “level two” inspection will take place based on the severity of the mould.
2. A request for a survey will be logged on the landlord’s system and carried out within ten days.
3. Where mould is due to “routine domestic activity” the resident will be given advice of how to remedy the issue.
4. If fuel poverty is a factor, the resident will be referred to the landlord’s financial wellbeing team.
5. Either level of inspection should consider ventilation. Trickle vents, extractor fans and internal doors should be checked and repaired if necessary.
6. Humidistat fans should only be used in kitchens and bathrooms. Any property without these should have one installed wherever practicable.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that compensation will be considered on its merits and decisions will be based on individual circumstances, taking into account all relevant known circumstances and supporting evidence. Compensation is divided into 3 categories:
1. Home loss payments for customers who have lived in their property for a minimum of 12 months and are then required to move home permanently as a result of redevelopment or demolition of their home.
2. Disturbance payments for customers who are required to move temporarily.
3. Discretionary payments for service failure will only be paid when a complaint has been received and service failure has been accepted. Levels of discretionary compensation will be assessed according to the evidence.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records showed that the windows were timber single glazed in 1999 and due for renewal in 2029.
The landlord’s repairs records showed a number of repairs and issues with the sash windows in the property dating back to 2018. The records showed:
1. On 17 August 2018 the landlord attended to a bedroom window which would not open. It said that the sash window strings were missing.
2. On 29 January 2019 a further record showed that the sash window frame was rotting and the metal strip was coming away from the window.
3. On 26 June 2019 two windows counterweight spirals had gone and needed replacing. The upstairs bedroom window had rotted. Materials had been ordered and a full day was required to complete the works. On 26 July 2019 the windowsill was replaced and filled. New springs were ordered.
4. On 20 August 2019 spiral balances were fitted to sash windows in the bedroom and living room.
5. On 28 August 2019 the repairs records showed that the sash windows were starting to disintegrate.
6. The resident’s tenancy commenced in November 2020.
The landlord’s records showed that on 14 January 2021 it suspended work due to covid-19 and was carrying out essential works only.
The landlord’s records showed further repairs to the windows at the property following the commencement of the resident’s tenancy. The records showed that:
1. On 18 March 2021 the landlord attended to the windows throughout the property. It eased 2 sliding sashes and filled gaps around window frames. The landlord’s operative advised the resident to ventilate at night to help with condensation.
2. On 20 July 2021 the records showed various issues with windows upstairs in the property and the glass in the frames.
3. On 2 August 2021 the landlord attended to look at three windows and the front door. The window in the bedroom was rotten and the glass was loose. The landlord’s records said that the windows were being replaced at the end of the year.
4. On 16 November 2021 the landlord’s records said, “please note this window is falling apart and needs new”.
5. On 19 November 2021 a window was boarded up as panes of glass were falling out.
6. On 23 November 2021 the bedroom window had completely fallen out.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident contacted the landlord on 17 March 2022 and asked for an update on when the windows would be replaced. She said that one window was boarded up. The landlord responded on 21 March 2022 to advise that it could only do temporary repairs and that a stock appraisal would be carried out.
On 27 June 2022 the landlord’s records showed that the resident had telephoned to chase a repair to a window. On 8 July 2022 the resident called again about her window being fixed. She said that the glass was being removed and it was being boarded on the following Monday. The resident queried whether this was one window or more than one.
The landlord’s records of 21 July 2022 showed a telephone call between the landlord and the resident. It said that the resident had been let down and had waited in all day and no one had arrived. It said that the resident was now withholding rent and that this would become a formal complaint. The landlord said that its contractor would contact her.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord’s housing officer raised a formal complaint on behalf of the resident. This related to:
1. A repair to a window which the resident said she was still waiting to be fixed since 16 November 2021. The landlord’s officer said that this repair was with the landlord’s contractor.
2. There had been a lack of communication from the contractor and the resident had been given numerous promises of when the repair would be completed. The contractor had said that it was waiting for materials but the resident had not been told this. The resident had told the officer that the contractor had been to see her but it was unable to complete the repair until it had the materials in stock.
3. The resident was worried about the fire safety in the property as, in the event of a fire, she would not be able to climb out of the windows if the main route was blocked. She was also concerned that if this was not repaired by winter, she would not be able to heat her home as it would cost too much.
4. The resident had asked for a management move but had been told that she did not meet the criteria.
On 9 August 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would provide a stage 1 response by 23 August 2022.
The landlord’s internal records of 15 August 2022 showed that 11 jobs had been raised going back to 2018 to repair windows at the property. The landlord had spoken with the resident who said that all windows were in poor condition. The contractor was in the process of programming the works but the landlord felt that it should cover these earlier requests as this was now a formal complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 23 August 2022. It said:
1. It had spoken with the resident about her complaint on 9 August 2022.
2. The complaint was about the window frames which appeared to be rotten and in poor condition, causing them to be fixed shut. The resident had told the landlord that despite repeatedly phoning to raise her concerns, very little action had been taken. The resident said that her home was suffering from mould and condensation.
3. The resident had asked for further works to be completed to prevent damp and condensation and an explanation for why work had not been carried out.
4. The landlord said that a contractor had been assigned to carry out and deliver work in the area. It estimated that work would commence August 2022 with an estimated completion of 31 October 2022. The contractor would contact the resident to confirm an appointment.
5. Due to supplier issues, beyond the landlord’s control, there had been delays in getting the timber to carry out the repairs. The landlord had been advised that the contractor had visited on 18 August 2022 to show the resident the timber frames and answer any questions about the work. It said it had assigned a clerk of works to carry out a “work in progress” post inspection of the repairs to ensure the scope of works identified had been completed to its quality standard.
6. Although inspections were carried out and various repairs made, this did not fully resolve the issue. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it was working with colleagues in the repairs team to prevent such issues from reoccurring. The landlord offered £100 in compensation.
7. The landlord said that during its conversation with the resident she had requested to move. The landlord said it was liaising with the neighbourhood officer who would contact the resident to discuss this further.
On 1 September 2022 the landlord’s records showed that the landlord spoke with the resident about the stage 1 response. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2. On 2 September 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It said it would respond by 30 September 2022.
The landlord’s records of 26 September 2022 showed that it had spoken with the resident the previous day. It had offered a further £250 compensation however, the resident did not wish to accept this. She said that she wanted to move as her property was suffering from damp and mould. The landlord said it had not seen any photographs on its system. To close the complaint the resident wanted her arrears to be cleared and to pay no rent until the work was completed.
The landlord’s records of 28 September 2022 said, “told to abort by planners”.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 30 September 2022. The landlord:
1. Summarised the resident’s complaint as:
  1. Windows were still in poor condition and the resident had concerns that works would not be completed before winter due to contractor delays.
  2. The resident had requested to move due to her housing conditions.
2. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and the impact this had caused the resident’s wellbeing. It said its contractors were experiencing resource issues of multiskilled operatives, which was a challenge across the housing sector. It said it was talking to its contractor and a new delivery team would be carrying out the work. Weather permitting, it aimed to complete the work by 31 October 2022. Should there by any changes or delays the landlord would write to the resident.
3. It had discussed rehousing with the housing officer. The resident had not met the criteria for a management move however, it had referred this to the housing team to provide the resident with some help and support regarding housing options.
4. The landlord would arrange for a surveyor to visit and inspect the condensation and mould.
5. The landlord said it understood the resident was concerned about fire safety in the property and that it took this very seriously. It was working closely with the contractor to speed up the delivery of the work.
6. In its stage 1 response it found that it had addressed the issues raised and an action plan was put in place which it communicated to the resident. In addition, repairs colleagues had arranged for an internal inspection and remedial works to be carried out.
7. It had reviewed the level of compensation offered in its stage 1 response and felt that this should have been higher. It offered £150 for poor communication and inconvenience and £250 for service failure and delays.
8. The resident had asked to return the £100 compensation she had accepted at stage 1 and asked that her arrears of £545.50 to be cleared. The resident had also asked to cease payment of rent until the works had been completed. The landlord said that it was unable to take back the £100 paid but would remove £400 offered from the arrears which would leave a balance of £145.50.
The landlord’s records of 5 October 2022 said that a window was rotten. The wooden fanlight window above the new composite door needed to be replaced. The bottom rail and glazing bars had rotted and were beyond repair.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord’s records showed:
1. That it had spoken to the resident. Following repairs to the windows, it had identified that full replacement was required and given the bespoke nature of the windows, they would have to be manufactured. The windows would be installed in January 2023.
2. With regard to the resident’s request to move, an assessment of the property condition would be completed to confirm if the property was uninhabitable.
3. The landlord had advised the resident to send pictures as it had been unable to view any on its system.
4. It said that the resident had claimed that the property was suffering from damp and mould and that some of the windows were boarded shut. It said that it would do a temporary repair to enable the resident to open the windows or provide a dehumidifier due to the resident’s concerns that this was affecting her 2 year old son.
The landlord’s records for 23 November 2022 said that the landlord had spoken with the resident who was unhappy that she had been advised that only one window was being replaced and two were having repairs made. She wanted to know why replacement was not being completed to all three windows, following the delay she had experienced to date and if repairable why had they not been repaired previously. It also said that that whilst it empathised with the resident’s situation, the condition of the windows did not meet the criteria for a decant.
A further stage 2 response was sent by the landlord on 23 December 2022 as a follow up to the previous response. The landlord said:
1. It wanted to provide a further update regarding the outstanding issues and apologise for the further delays in completing the work as planned.
2. In its stage 2 response it offered £400 compensation in recognition of:
  1. £150 for poor communication and inconvenience caused.
  2. £250 for its service failure and delays in completing the work.
  3. It confirmed that if accepted it would be credited to the rent account as the resident was in arrears. On review it could find no record of the resident accepting the stage 2 offer or a credit being made to the rent account.
3. Following a conversation with the resident on 13 October 2022, the resident advised that she felt that the property was uninhabitable and would like to be moved to temporary accommodation whilst the windows were completed. To assess the condition of her home an inspection was carried out on 23 November 2022. Following the inspection, it was identified that a decant was not required on this occasion.
4. In relation to the window replacement, it had initially assigned a contractor to carry out the installation. However due to unforeseen circumstances and some contractual issues, it had no choice but to procure the services of an alternative contractor. This was to carry out the installation of 3 sliding sash timber windows and fanlights above the front door.
5. The windows were on order, however due to material supply issues, the windows would be installed between 27 February 2023 and 10 March 2023. The contractor would contact the resident to confirm the date and arrange access.
6. The landlord apologised again for the further delay and said it had assessed additional compensation to redress the time and impact that this had on the resident and her family. In recognition of the additional delays, it offered an additional £250 in compensation. It said it would also offer a further £250 for the inconvenience and impact this had on the resident and her family.
7. The landlord said that as part of the proposed works at stage 2 to address the damp by the front door, works had been raised to complete a further investigation. This was to hack back plasterwork by the front door and reseal the window above the front door. The repairs had been booked in to be completed on 19 December 2022.
8. In a call from its complaints team on 20 December 2022 the resident had explained that during this visit the operative completed some temporary repairs to the door. The operative confirmed that it was not necessary to hack off the plaster, as it was able to clearly see that the cause of the damp was due to the rotten door frame. The operative had explained that he would report this back to the landlord. The landlord confirmed that the fanlight and door frame would be replaced to remedy this problem and it had been assigned to a contractor.
9. During the telephone conversation with the complaints team, the resident explained that she was concerned with the impact damp and mould conditions were having on her and her family and that there were health concerns for her children. The resident had explained that she had to replace several items due to them becoming mouldy. The resident had not been able to evidence the costing of the items which were detailed as:
  1. 2 pillows.
  2. Bedding and blankets.
  3. Living room curtain.
  4. 2 sets of curtains.
  5. Glass tray.
10. The landlord said it was unable to assess or offer compensation under its complaint procedure for medical or health claims, however if the resident wished to pursue a claim for injury it could be dealt with via its solicitor appointed by its insurers. It provided details of its insurer and said if the resident did not wish to appoint a solicitor, she could email a member of its staff who would inform its insurers.
11. The resident had told the landlord that she would be happy in settlement of her complaint for the compensation to clear her rent arrears which were £654 until such time as the outstanding works were completed.
12. The landlord said it could consider an amount towards her damaged items under its compensation policy and as she was unable to evidence this it offered £154.60 towards the items detailed. This brought its offer to a total of £654. This would be credited directly to the rent account to clear the remaining outstanding balance.
13. The previous offer of £400 compensation offered at stage 2 did not appear to have been accepted or previously paid to the rent account. It would therefore credit this directly to the resident if there were no further arrears on her account and she was happy to accept this total final offer.
14. It said it would continue to work with the resident to conclude her complaint and once again apologised for the inconvenience caused and thanked her for her patience.
15. As this was its final offer in respect of her complaint concerns, it would ensure that this Service was provided with a copy of its further response to the resident.
The landlord’s responses of 30 September 2022 and 23 December 2022 were its final responses to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
As part of the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord’s complaints learning record said:
1. That there had been repeated site visits by operatives and surveyors who appeared to have failed to identify the deteriorating timber frames since 2018.
2. By the time the planned maintenance contractor attended 4 years after the first report, the repair had become a major renewal requiring extensive and intrusive inconvenience to the resident and high costs.
3. It said repeated calls had been made by the resident which appeared to have been missed or dismissed.
4. It said that if it did not have the skills in house to attend to timber repairs, this should either be outsourced to a competent contractor or early engagement with the contractor to prevent extensive deterioration of a timber structural item.
5. This had caused damage to the relationship between the landlord and the resident and increased repair costs.
6. It said that this had been raised with the head of operations and the contracts manager.
The landlord’s records of 19 January 2023 showed a repairs log which said “please attend to stain block and treat mould around front door and windows, approximately 5 meter square. Windows are being replaced in March. Also replace board on main bedroom window as now damp and mouldy”.
On 21 June 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that the windows had now been replaced. However, she was still waiting for the landlord to return to seal the windows, undertake plastering and paint the windows. She also advised that there were still some issues with damp and mould in the hallway. The front door was relatively new but the wood frame had rotted leading to issues with the fanlight windows above. The landlord had replaced the frame and fanlight windows but there had been some damage caused to the wall during installation.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinions, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about leaking and drafty windows causing damp and mould in the property.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is required to keep the structure of the property in good repair.
The landlord acknowledged in its responses that there had been delays in carrying out repairs to the windows and in replacing them. The pandemic did exacerbate the landlord’s earlier and overdue failings however it was aware of the condition of the windows some 2 years prior to the pandemic. The landlord’s records showed that it was aware of the poor condition of the windows in 2018 as:
1. The landlord’s complaints learning record said that there had been repeated site visits by operatives and surveyors who appeared to have failed to identify the deteriorating frames since 2018.
2. It said that repeated calls had been made by the resident which appeared to have been missed or dismissed. This had resulted in the repair becoming a major renewal which required extensive and intrusive inconvenience to the resident.
3. The repairs logs referred to windows falling out, windows disintegrating and rotten windows. The landlord should have identified the need for replacement earlier through its repairs reports.
In January 2021 the resident reported window repairs and condensation. She was advised to ventilate at night to help reduce this. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acted on the resident’s reports of condensation in 2021 or carried out any inspections to assess the cause of the condensation following the resident’s reports. The resident’s tenancy commenced in November 2020 and the landlord would have completed a void inspection at that time before the property was let. This service requested a copy of the void inspection report but this was not provided. A copy of the post void inspection report was provided but this was not dated and was limited in its information. The void inspection should have brought the landlord up to date with the condition of the windows and allowed them to undertake works whilst the property was vacant. The resident lived in the property during winter months with young children. The landlord should have acted in accordance with the damp spotlight report and its own policies.
In August 2022 the resident raised a complaint about the condition of her windows and asked to be moved due to the damp and mould in her home. The landlord’s condensation and mould procedure, says that if a stage 1 complaint is received, a level 1 inspection should be completed by the landlord’s surveyor. There was no evidence to suggest that this took place in line with its procedure. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 30 September 2022 said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit and inspect the condensation and mould. An inspection was carried out on 23 November 2022 however, no evidence was provided to demonstrate the findings of the inspection, any recommended work to remedy this, or resolve the resident’s concerns.
The resident told the landlord that she was concerned about the affects the damp and mould was having on her and her family’s health. The landlord’s response at stage 2 said that it could not address this as part of its complaints policy but that the resident could appoint a solicitor to pursue this further with its insurance team.The landlord’s response was not reasonable and failed to address the resident’s concerns or suggest how it would remedy the condensation and mould.
Residents will often describe how they have been affected by the situation that has led to their complaint, such as impact on family life, use of their home, enjoyment, health and emotional wellbeing. This may be expressed as giving rise to or exacerbating existing health conditions. The Ombudsman’s remedies can recognise the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a service failure. Distress can include stress, anxiety, worry, frustration and uncertainty; raised expectations; inconvenience; strong sense of being treated differently; and problems caused by delays. There may also be aggravating factors that could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident. Such aggravating factors include mental health, young children, disability, dependant with disability and previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy.
The resident was left with boarded up windows due to glass falling out for a period of time. The landlord’s records of 19 January 2023 showed that the window was still boarded and the board required replacement due to it becoming damp and mouldy. In one instance the landlord’s records of November 2021 said that a whole window had fallen out. The landlord did not identify until November 2022 that full replacement windows were needed.
The landlord’s records showed that windows would be replaced by the end of 2021. There were repeated delays and changes in contractors throughout 2022 and into 2023 with the windows finally being replaced in March 2023 as confirmed by the resident.
Photographs provided as evidence showed that the windows were in poor condition with rotten woodwork and black mould. Windows frames were disintegrated and coming away from the walls. The property was not weatherproof due to the state of the windows and was not secure from intruders.
The landlord appears to have waited for its planned programme of window renewals and delayed in replacing the windows. The landlord failed to meet its repairing obligations, which in this instance, warranted complete replacement of the windows as they were beyond repair. The resident was unable to have quiet enjoyment of her property.
The resident confirmed to this Service that the windows have now been replaced however, she is still waiting for outstanding works to be completed. She also reported that she still has an issue of damp and mould in the hallway.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation), put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer to redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by raising its failings in its processes with its senior management. The landlord’s complaint learning records said if it did not have the skills in house to attend to timber repairs, this should have been outsourced to a competent contractor to prevent extensive deterioration of a timber structural item. Whilst the landlord has identified a failing in its process and raised this with senior management, it has not said how it will prevent this from happening again.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that whilst various inspections had been carried out and repairs made, this did not fully resolve the issue. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered £100 in compensation. At this stage however, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the condensation and mould. The resident had asked for further works to be completed to prevent damp and condensation. There was no evidence provided to show how the landlord had addressed the damp and mould issues.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for not effectively managing the resident’s reports and for its poor communication, the service failure and inconvenience caused.
The landlord offered compensation for its failures in the amount of £1154. This was broken down as:
1. At stage 1 the landlord offered £100 for the delays and inconvenience.
2. At stage 2 the landlord offered £150 for poor communication and £250 for service failure and delays.
3. Following the resident bringing her complaint to this Service a further stage 2 follow up response offered £654. This was broken down as £250 for inconvenience and impact on the resident and her family. £250 for additional delays and £154.60 towards the damage caused to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord however failed to consider any detriment to the resident and her family and the impact on her wellbeing. There was no evidence to show that the landlord had considered the health and wellbeing of the resident and her family due to the poor condition of the windows. The resident advised the landlord that she had concerns about the damp and mould and the impact this was having on her 2 year old son.
The landlord does not appear to have considered its obligations under HHSRS to identify any risks. There was glass falling out of windows and in one repair log it said that a window had completely fallen out. The resident was left with boarded up windows from November 2021 until the windows were replaced in March 2023.
The landlord requested photographs from the resident as it could not see any on its system in relation to the damp and mould. It should have attended and taken photographs as part of its inspections previously and identified any works required.
The resident informed this service that the matter had now been resolved, her new windows had been fitted and the frame around the front door and windows above had also been replaced. She was however still waiting for the landlord to return to complete the works to the windows and damage to the wall near the front door. She said she also still have damp in the hallway. The repairs are therefore not complete and work remains outstanding.
Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord’s response was not appropriate or proportionate to the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident, which in this Service’s opinion, resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move from the property until repairs were completed.

In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it had discussed rehousing with the housing team however, the resident had not met the criteria for a management move. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have explained in its response why the resident had not met its criteria.
The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out when it will consider a management move. The exclusions listed in its policy include unsatisfactory condition of property.
It was appropriate for the landlord to decline the resident’s request for a management transfer in line with its management transfer policy.
There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a management move.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about rotten windows causing damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a management move from the property until repairs were completed.

Reasons

The landlord failed to identify that the windows were in need of renewal at an earlier stage and delayed in replacing the windows. It also failed to address the resident’s concerns in relation to damp and mould at the property caused by the poor condition of the windows.
The landlord responded appropriately the resident’s request for a managed move which was declined in line with its management transfer policy.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident additional compensation in the amount of £2,000
1. £1000 for failing to identify the need for replacement windows at an earlier stage.
2. £1000 for failing to address the resident’s concerns in relation to damp and condensation in the property.
3. Any previously offered compensation which has not already been paid.
4. This should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Undertake the remaining work to seal and paint the windows and replaster any damage around the windows.
2. Inspect the damage caused to the brickwork near the front door and make any necessary repairs.
3. Carry out a damp and mould survey and provide the findings to this Service and the resident. If there is any damp and mould found at the property, confirm how this will be treated and provide a timeframe for this to be completed.