Aster Group Limited (202222222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222222

Aster Group Limited

29 June 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in her bathroom.
   2. Complaint Handling.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord and lived in a first floor flat. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident’s local authority wrote to the landlord on 8 July 2022. It is understood that its environmental health team had attended the resident’s home that day due to her contacting it about concerns with damp and mould. It said it observed water damage to the resident’s bathroom ceiling and to the boxing behind her toilet. It also explained that it had traced the source of the water ingress to the neighbouring property above. Having inspected the neighbour’s property, it determined that the set-up of the neighbour’s bath meant that water ran down a shower curtain, onto the floor, and into the resident’s bathroom via the ceiling. To resolve the matter, it recommended that the landlord install a shower screen in the neighbour’s property, and carry out remedial work to the resident’s bathroom which included treatment of the affected areas and repainting, and renewal of the toilet boxing.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in July 2022 concerning its handling of damp and mould. She was dissatisfied as she said that she was still waiting for the above repairs to be completed and requested compensation. She said that her and her family’s health had been impacted as a result of her living conditions and the delays to rectify the issue, and was concerned about the potential impact of the situation on her unborn baby.
5. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged delays in completing the repairs, and poor communication. It said that it was unable to consider compensation requests for impact on health under its complaint’s procedure, and advised the resident to appoint a solicitor and/or to contact its insurer should she wish to pursue a claim for personal injury. It offered the resident £500 compensation which was £250 for its failure to carry out repairs in a suitable timeframe and £250 for poor communication and the inconvenience this caused.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, particularly the level of compensation it offered.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

7. It is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between damp and mould and any impact on the resident or her family’s health, and to award compensation in that respect. This (in addition to any associated financial impact) would need to be considered via an insurance personal injury claim or by a court. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s policies

8. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that all claims for ill health and injury are dealt with via a personal injury claim in consultation with its insurers and not via the complaints process.
9. The landlord has a repairs policy. It states that it will complete non-urgent (routine) repairs within twenty working days.

Handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould in the bathroom

10. There is no dispute that the landlord was responsible for repairs to rectify the damp and mould issue at the resident’s property. The landlord also has an obligation to ensure it has complied with its repair responsibilities for any other properties it manages, such as that of the resident’s neighbour above.
11. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that it exceeded what would usually be considered a reasonable timeframe in which to undertake routine repairs to address damp and mould. This was appropriate considering that the landlord said that the resident initially reported the issue on 30 June 2022, and it did not complete remedial work to the resident’s and neighbour’s properties until approximately two months later, on 26 august 2022.
12. The landlord acknowledged that it did not attend the resident’s property following her initial report of the matter (as it should have done), but rather an inspection had been undertaken by the local authority who inspected both the resident’s and neighbour’s homes on 8 July 2022. It was reasonable that the landlord categorised the repairs identified by the local authority as routine, given that the local authority instructed the landlord to carry them out within forty days. However, the usual standard was twenty working days as reflected in the landlord’s repairs policy.
13. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that miscommunication between its surveyor and contactor was a significant factor in its delay to progress the repairs and that it did not always keep the resident informed. In particular, it appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to call the resident back after she had contacted it for an update on 5 August 2022, and that it had not done so until 16 August 2022. Overall, the landlord apologised and recognised that its communication errors caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble in having to contact it to chase the repair work. Its explanations also accorded with the evidence seen in this investigation.
14. The resident’s view, is that the compensation does not adequately redress the landlord’s accepted service failures in this case. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to redress its poor service. There was a delay in the landlord undertaking the required work, which constituted a failure in service, but the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to acknowledge where its service and communication could have been improved, and remedied its failings by completing the repairs and offering appropriate compensation.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s health concerns, and appropriately utilised its final response to recommend that the resident sought legal advice and provided her with its insurer’s details should she wish to make a claim for personal injury. The landlord’s decision not to consider the impact on health in its compensation award was reasonable and in accordance with its compensation policy. In addition, it appropriately explained the steps the resident should take if she wished to have this aspect of her complaint considered in the most appropriate manner.
16. The Ombudsman agrees that the amount of £500 compensation is proportionate to the service failures acknowledged by the landlord and is in line with our Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) for instances where there has been no apparent permanent impact, but was a failure that may have adversely affected the resident. For this reason, the landlord has made redress to the resident which resolves its handling of the damp and mould repairs satisfactorily.
17. It is noted that shortly before the landlord issued its final response, on 22 October, the resident advised the landlord that the damp and mould had returned and gave it notice that she was moving out of the property. The resident has not raised any specific concerns with the reoccurrence of damp and mould with this Service, and therefore this does not appear to be an outstanding concern. It has also been noted that the evidence suggests that the resident moved into another property she had purchased, several weeks following the earliest evidence of her reporting that damp and mould had reoccurred. As such, no recommendations have been made in relation to the reported reoccurrence of damp and mould, given that it would have become the landlord’s obligation to address this whilst the property was empty for any new incoming tenants not associated with the resident’s tenancy.

Complaint Handling

18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that when a complaint is made, landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. At stage two, landlords must respond to the complaint within twenty working days of the complaint being escalated.
19. The resident made her initial complaint on 16 August 2022, and the landlord issued it stage one response in time, on 31 August 2022, given the bank holiday of 29 August 2023. As such there was no delay.
20. However, when the resident escalated her complaint on 5 September 2022, the landlord did not issue a final response until 41 working days later, on 3 November 2022. This considerably exceeded the timeframe in which it is expected to respond to a stage two complaint by 21 working days. The evidence shows that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations in some respect, in that it provided her with an extended deadline on 20 October 2022. However, there was a considerable delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage two complaint and in allocating the case to a stage two complaint handler (which took 11 working days after initial escalation). Although the landlord’s records show that it took note of this failing, the evidence does not show that the landlord acknowledged this in its final response, apologised nor provided an explanation to the resident. This was a failing.
21. Overall, the landlord’s delay in dealing with the of the resident’s stage two complaint did not affect the outcome of the complaint, but some compensation is due to the resident for the inconvenience and time and trouble she would likely have experienced as a result of the delay. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident a further £50 compensation for its complaint handling which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge this and/or fully put them right.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s report of damp and mould prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

24. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the service failure identified in respect of its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint within an appropriate timeframe. Evidence of payment must be provided to this Service by the deadline.
    3. Carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Complaint Handling Code going forward.

Recommendations

25. The landlord should now pay the resident its previous offer of £500 in respect of its handling of the damp and mould, if it has not already done so, as the finding of reasonable redress was made on that basis.