Aster Group Limited (202226132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226132

Aster Group Limited

4 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
2. Decants and request to make the move permanent.
3. Reports of damage caused to her possessions.
4. Rent refund request.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the formal complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was the assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom flat, having completed a mutual exchange in 2019. The layout of the property, which is relevant to this complaint, comprises of a bathroom which shares an internal wall with the kitchen on one side where the bath is located, and a bedroom is located adjacent to the opposite internal bathroom wall. The hot water cylinder is located within a cupboard inside the bathroom. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a physical health condition and says she has depression.
Under the tenancy agreement the resident is to pay rent in advance on Monday of each week. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations for the supply of electricity, gas, water, heating, and sanitation. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs policy categorises repairs as emergency (make safe within 24 hours), urgent (repair within 5 working days) or routine (repair within 20 working days). The landlord also has a condensation and mould procedure, which says it will inspect reports of damp and mould within 10 working days. It will identify the causes and complete any necessary repairs or give advice to the resident. It can take readings using specialist equipment or leave monitoring devices to take readings to help with diagnosis.
The landlord states in its decant procedure that it will try to complete repairs to the property with the resident in situ. When this is not possible, it will offer to temporarily rehouse, or ‘decant’, the resident into suitable alternative accommodation for the minimum time needed to carry out the repairs. The decant could be to a hotel, holiday let or another of the landlord’s properties. It will arrange for removals and can pay for re-direction of post and carpet fitting. The resident will be given a licence for the decant, will not be charged rent but will remain liable to pay rent for their property. The landlord will manage the resident’s expectations and that they will need to return to their property and if the resident askes to make the decant permanent it will follow its management transfer policy.
Under the landlord’s management transfer policy, it will consider transferring a resident if they have an immediate need to move and are also registered with the local authority for rehousing. It will also consider residents who are victims of serious crime, domestic abuse, or severe harassment or nuisance. The policy excludes from a management transfer residents claiming they need to move due to unsatisfactory property conditions.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days or will provide an explanation and timeframe if it cannot meet this deadline and will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2 and the landlord will respond within 20 working days. The landlord will not consider new complaints about issues where it had already provided a stage 2 response, or complaints about personal injury, under its policy.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it will consider offering compensation for service failure determined through its complaints procedure. It will consider each case individually to compensate for loss, or for inconvenience and distress. The policy contains suggested compensation amounts based on time and impact of the service failure or inconvenience caused.

Scope of investigation

This case involves multiple issues over the course of several years. The resident has raised multiple complaints, which at times have had overlapping elements and response timeframes. In addition, there has been a very high level of communication.All of this adds an additional level of complexity to recording the events,and so it has not been possible to detail every event or communication within this report.
Events after the end of the complaints process, after which the Ombudsman accepted the complaint for investigation, have been omitted or condensed. Although the resident has discussed multiple issues which occurred before and after the matters detailed in this report, which the Ombudsman has reviewed, this Service can only consider complaints which have completed the landlord’s complaints process (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme).

Summary of events

Following a complaint made by the resident in 2021 about damp in the property after a leak in the kitchen (complaint 1) the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 June 2021. It said it had completed works previously identified but it would visit to inspect again. It did this on 20 July 2021 and raised a repair for a leaking hot water cylinder and to install new extractor fans. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 December 2021 in which it said:
1. It had inspected and raised a job for upgrades to the extractor fans to humidistat ones, but the electrician who attended on 18 August 2021 said the fans were humidistat, cleaned them, and ensured they were working.
2. There was no structural cause for damp or mould, but it would install monitoring equipment to measure humidity and temperature.
3. It offered £250 compensation for delays in carrying out repairs and £250 for delays in responding to the complaint.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord inspected the bathroom and said works were needed to the wall and skirting board which were rotten, and this required removing the toilet and sink for access.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2022 and said she was not satisfied with its stage 2 response to complaint 1, and that the compensation was not enough. She emailed again on 30 March 2022 and said it had delayed in repairing the wall, she had damp, and she wanted a rent rebate.
Between 10 April and 11 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord several times and called it to complain about damp, said she had slugs in the property and asked for more compensation. The landlord repaired a leak under the bath, as an emergency repair, on 15 June 2022. Following this the resident emailed the landlord again to ask for the wall repairs to be carried out, a new floor and a rent rebate.
The landlord provided a second stage 2 response to complaint 1 on 28 June 2022, in which it said:
1. It had reviewed the case following the resident’s feedback and results from the monitoring equipment, which found humidity of over 60% twice a day when condensation would form, the property was heated sufficiently and there was no evidence of leaks or water penetration from outside, or structural defects.
2. The works to the wall were completed on 12 May 2022 and the skirting board replacement was booked in for 5 July 2022 at the resident’s request.
3. There was no evidence the leak under the bath had been occurring over a long time, and no slugs or evidence of them was witnessed during inspections.
4. There was no evidence the resident could not have used any of her rooms and so it would not offer a rent rebate.
5. The resident had asked for £14,997.28 compensation but it had no reason or evidence to justify increasing the offer it made in its stage 2 response. However, it did offer £250 for the delay in carrying out works to the wall and skirting board. The total offer was £750, and this was its final response.
On 21 July 2022 the resident called the landlord and left a voicemail. The transcript says the resident said there had been continuous leaks which were ongoing. She wanted more work done to the bathroom and was not going to accept £750 compensation and wanted a rent rebate. In an internal email the same day the landlord said these were separate leaks which were not ongoing, but it needed to update her on the works. The resident called the landlord the following day and it called her back. Its note of the call said it had provided its final complaint response, but she could approach this Service. It had agreed to pay for the cost of running a dehumidifier and noted her request for a new floor and for the bathroom to be fully redecorated.
In an internal email on 2 August 2022 the landlord said it had spoken to the resident and told her it may need to take the wall down between her bathroom and kitchen. She said she needed to be decanted and would prefer a local holiday let. The following day it spoke to her again and agreed to decant her into the holiday let she had suggested. The resident was decanted between 9 and 20 September 2022.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 August 2022, and she said she did not want to return to the property and that it should move her. Its note said it advised her on bidding and mutual exchange, but she would not consider these and said it was for it to move her.
On 9 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint (complaint 2) in which she said she had been decanted and was not paying her rent as she could not live in the property. She said she had been served with an “eviction notice” but believed the rent should be suspended until the works were completed. She said the leaks and damp had not been dealt with after previous complaints and she hoped her belongings were safe and respected.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2022 and said she had gone back to the property to find plasterboard had been leant against her freezer damaging the door. She had “sealed off” her living room but the contractors had gone in, the cleaning had been done badly in the kitchen and her shower rail needed to be put back (which it was on 29 September 2022).
On 20 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again and said she had returned home but was still withholding the rent. She repeated that her freezer door was damaged. She said her painted floors had been scratched, contractors had gone into her rooms, damaged a cool box and there was still mould. She called and emailed the landlord again on 27 September 2022 to complain about damage to her kitchen floor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2022 and asked for further elements to be added to her formal complaint, including that there was still mould and damp, she had been without a bath for a week, her freezer door, contractors entering her rooms, and the damaged flooring. She asked to be compensated and for the cost of running the dehumidifier. The landlord emailed her on 3 October 2022 to acknowledge her complaint.
The resident contacted her MP and on 7 October 2022 the MP emailed the landlord to ask for comment on the resident’s situation. The landlord replied to the MP on 14 October 2022 and said it had completed work in the property which involved removing and replacing a wall, and it was visiting her that day to discuss her concerns over the works. It confirmed that she was still liable to pay rent while she was decanted and could not withhold this, and she had an open complaint about the issues she had raised with the MP.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 October 2022 and said its stage 1 response to complaint 2 would be delayed due to it visiting her the following day. On that day it reported a leak from the main stopcock which was behind the hot water cylinder as an emergency, however a follow-on job was needed to access the stopcock, and the leak was repaired on 25 October 2022.
On 23 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had “dreadful problems with damp and horrendous poor workmanship” in the bathroom and insisted it “Get me out of here now.” She called the landlord on 25 October 2022, and its note of the call said she wanted to move, and that the property was “unliveable due to damp, mould and constant leaks.” The resident also emailed the landlord and her MP the same day and left a voicemail for the MP. She said there had been damp in the property since she moved in, the repairs had done nothing, and her bed was now damp. She repeated her complaint points.
In an internal email on 26 October 2022 the landlord noted a meeting it held to discuss the situation. It said no further repairs were required and the property was habitable so a decant was not needed. It had spoken to the resident who disagreed and said it was an ongoing issue and she needed a dehumidifier. The landlord noted there had been 2 previous leaks and complaints which were unrelated and about separate issues. The landlord emailed the resident the following day to arrange a meeting for it to discuss the situation and said that it would request a dehumidifier for her. It called her later that day to say it would deliver the dehumidifier that day.
On 31 October 2022 the resident called the landlord and left a 5-minute voicemail, in which she said the property was not habitable, the dehumidifier was huge and in the way, and the previous repairs did not stop the mould. There had been “gallons of water” from the leaks, she had suffered for 3 years, and she needed to leave the property. The landlord called her the following day, and its note of the call said the resident said there was “horrendous mould”, and she was depressed due to the affect the mould was having on her possessions. She said she wanted to move but had particular requirements for where she would be happy living. It followed the call with an email in which it confirmed it would inspect the property.
The landlord visited the resident on 3 November 2022 and its note of the visit says she was concerned about mould in the cylinder cupboard and that the property was still damp. She was concerned about her possessions and said she had to sleep on the sofa. The landlord notes it did not see any mould in the living room or bedroom, or water coming through the bedroom floor as the resident had claimed.
On an unknown date the resident contacted a solicitor and the solicitor sent a letter of claim for disrepair to the landlord dated 2 November 2022, which it passed to its solicitors. The landlord decanted the resident into a holiday let from 4 to 14 November 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 November 2022 to make a new stage 1 complaint (complaint 3), about its decision that the property was habitable, it not including her in its meeting to discuss the property and its handling of her previous complaint about damp. The landlord acknowledged complaint 3 on 8 November 2022 and said this was the third leak and third complaint it had raised, and that this one related to the stopcock leak.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 November 2022 and asked for her furniture to be stored and for boxes so she could pack her possessions to be removed from the property. She said the damp was worst in her bedroom, the leak had been ongoing for years, and she could not return to the property. She called it on 16 November 2022 and said she could not stay in the property now that she had returned due to the damp, and noise of the dehumidifier needed to dry it out. She repeated that she wanted her possessions stored.
On 21 November 2022, following receipt of the letter of claim, the landlord completed a full survey and noted:
1. There was a leak under the bath, which caused high damp readings and damage to the wall, skirting, and into the cylinder cupboard, with “light black speckled mould”.
2. The skirting board on the wall dividing the bedroom from the bathroom was damp and caused by the leak in the bathroom travelling. The landlord tested the resident’s wardrobe with its damp meter, at her request, and found it to be dry. No other possessions were seen to be damaged.
3. The damp was caused by the leak under the bath, and not previous leaks which had been repaired as they had arisen. It recommended a decant while the property was dried out and works took place.
The same day the landlord raised and attended an emergency repair to fix the leak. It also called the resident to discuss the decant and she requested a holiday let she had previously been decanted to. She also asked to be present at a meeting to discuss the property.
Between 22 and 28 November 2022 the landlord and resident discussed the decant and storage of her possessions in calls and emails. It said it would not be appropriate for her to attend the meeting about repairs, it was not able to offer her a choice of properties as it did not provide emergency accommodation, but it had found a suitable bungalow (the decant bungalow) which would meet all her requirements. She could view it and it would let her know when it was ready, but the move would be temporary. It had agreed to use a storage firm which the resident had chosen for her possessions, and then to move these to the decant bungalow once it was ready. The resident was decanted to the holiday let of her choice on 29 November 2022.
Between 7 and 12 December 2022 the landlord and resident exchanged emails about the storage of her possessions. She said her mattress and some furniture needed to be cleaned due to having mould on it. She also said the landlord had told her she could remain in the decant bungalow and have her tenancy transferred. She questioned why she should pay rent on the property while it was uninhabitable, and said she wanted her furniture treated for mould. The landlord said it had not told her the move would be permanent, but that it may consider it in future and for now it would be temporary. It also said she needed to pay rent for the property as it was still her permanent home. It agreed to move her items to the decant bungalow rather than into storage, as she had agreed. In an email to the landlord the storage company said it did not see any mould on her furniture or possessions.
The resident and landlord exchanged further emails on 12 December 2022 in which:
1. The resident asked for help packing, for her furniture to be treated for mould and said her mattress had been spoilt. She wanted her garden items moved, her post redirected, and a meeting to discuss the arrangements.
2. The landlord replied that she would need to sign a licence for the decant bungalow. It would pay the storage company to pack and move her possessions including garden items, and she should wipe these down if concerned about mould. It reassured her that in dry conditions mould would not grow. It said she should arrange post redirection and it would reimburse her.
3. The resident said wiping mould off would not work and the storage company did not inspect her bed for mould. There was also disagreement as the resident believed the viewing was taking place that day which was incorrect.
The resident viewed the decant bungalow and emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022. She said it was smaller than the property and she was disappointed; some of her furniture would need to be stored. She also said there was mould in the “kitchen extension”, she wanted the hall wallpaper stripped, and a shower installed. She emailed again later that day to say she did not want to accept the decant bungalow due to the mould and other issues.
The landlord replied and said the decant bungalow was a similar size to the property and met all her very specific requirements. As she only had a one bedroom need it had exceeded this by offering a 2 bedroom. It also said the area she had mentioned was external and not “liveable space”, but it would have the mould cleaned. It confirmed if her furniture did not fit it would store it, it would not strip wallpaper or install a shower, but would provide a shower attachment. It repeated that it would be a temporary move, the property was a reasonable offer, and asked her to reconsider. The resident replied that she would not accept it and did not “want to be forced into a place that’s going to cause health problems”.
Between 15 and 16 December 2022 the landlord and resident, landlord and its solicitors, and the solicitors and the resident’s solicitor all exchanged emails about the decant. In these emails the resident requested to be decanted to a premium holiday park over Christmas and the landlord declined. It said the decant bungalow was suitable and even had the carpets shampooed, but the resident refused again. Following this the landlord emailed the storage company to ask it to store her possessions rather than move them to the decant bungalow.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2022 and asked for a new housing officer. She said she no longer wanted to work with her current one, who had been trying to arrange the decant, as he had caused her stress and was dishonest.
On 19 December 2022 the resident was moved to a new holiday let from her previous one where she remained until around 19 January 2023.
The resident emailed the storage contractor on 20 December 2022, and they forwarded her email to the landlord. She said she had found out her possessions were going into “deep storage”, and she would have no access, she wanted to see the storage and have access whenever she wanted. The resident also sent a text message to the storage company in which she said, “I cannot be stopped access to my belongings”. The storage company emailed the landlord and said it did not want the resident at its storage facility.
On 23 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident about complaints 2 and 3. It apologised for the delay, said it was dealing with them in line with her disrepair claim and would try to respond by the end of January 2023.
The resident’s solicitor and the landlord’s solicitors exchanged emails about the status of repairs at the property on 5 January 2023. The landlord’s solicitors said works had not started as the resident’s possessions were still at the property, as she had refused the decant bungalow and had refused her possessions going into storage.
On the same day the landlord emailed the resident to offer a second temporary decant property, a 2-bedroom house (the decant house). The resident viewed the property the following day and accepted it.In the landlord’s email of9 January 2023it said it would carpet the living room, hallway, and bedroom. It would also supply a £150 decorating voucher although it would not normally do this as the property met its lettable standard. It sent a blank copy of the decant licence for her to read and gave an update on the planned works for the property.
The resident signed the decant licence agreement on 11 January 2023 and the landlord arranged for the storage company to move her possessions to the decant house on 19 January 2023. On that date the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord’s solicitors and said she had told them the storage company advised against moving her bed and wardrobe “as they were too heavily warped from damp to be moved”. In its reply to its solicitors the landlord said the resident had decided to leave these items behind, and that the storage company said they could have been moved and were not damp but cold. The storage company’s email to the landlord has been provided to the Ombudsman which reflects the landlord’s reply.
On 26 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said the storage company refused to move her wardrobe as it was warped, and to leave her mattress as “it’s not worth the risk to my health”. The landlord replied on 3 February 2023 and said it had contracted a different company to move her bed and wardrobe to the decant house on 8 February 2023, which it did. The resident said the move went well but her mattress was damp.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2023 and left a voicemail the following day to chase her complaint responses.
The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord’s solicitors on 22 February 2023 regarding the resident wanting to stay at the decant house permanently. The landlord’s solicitors replied and said this was not possible and the landlord was under no obligation to agree. It said the decant house was in a high demand area and was a family home much in need.
On 28 February 2023 the landlord met with the resident. Following the meeting the resident emailed it and said she wanted to appeal to remain at the decant house and would only go back to the property if ordered to by a court. In the alternative she listed areas she would consider living in and her requirements. The landlord replied on 1 March 2023 and said it was quite clear that she could not remain at the decant house, that the decant was temporary and she had signed a licence agreement which stated this. It also offered advice about applying for a mutual exchange.
Following further contact from the resident the landlord emailed her again on 8 March 2023 and repeated that she could not stay permanently. It detailed the reasons why and pointed out that on her paperwork, when she first became a tenant of the landlord, she said she needed a ground floor property due to a physical disability, and so the decant house was not suitable long term.
The landlord provided its stage 1 responses for complaints 2 and 3 on 15 March 2023. In response to complaint 2 it:
1. Set out a history of her previous complaints in an appendix.
2. Apologised for its delayed response, which was due to it being a complicated case with a large amount of contact. It had not complied with the Code, this was a service failure, and it offered £250 compensation.
3. Said complaint 1 had addressed her complaints about the previous works carried out and it had provided an updated stage 2 response and offered £250 for the delay in the works at that time.
4. While the resident said the leak and damp had been ongoing, the latest leak under the bath was a new leak in a separate part of the property and was not a continuation of the issues considered in complaint 1.
5. Said regarding the works which took place in September 2022:
  1. It had taken too long to carry out the work in her bathroom, apologised and offered £500 compensation for the service delay and inconvenience caused.
  2. It would inspect her freezer door and either repair or replace her freezer.
  3. Apologised that its contractors entered rooms without permission and offered £100 compensation. It also said it would compensate her £45 for the cost of paint for the damaged floor.
  4. It was unable to consider her complaint about the effects the works had on her health and advised that she could make a personal injury claim.
  5. Apologised for the damage caused to her cool box and offered £50 compensation.
6. Said she had asked for a rent refund for when she was decanted. It recognised the inconvenience and offered £250 compensation for this.
7. Also offered £150 for the cost of electricity used for the works and dehumidifier.
8. Detailed the compensation offered in a table which totalled £1,445 and said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
In response to complaint 3 the landlord:
1. Apologised for its delayed response, which it said was due to it being a complicated case with a large amount of contact. It had not complied with the Code, this was a service failure, and it offered £250 compensation.
2. Accepted it should have repaired the leak to her stopcock quicker, apologised and offered £100 compensation.
3. Regarding saying the property was habitable, it said it had relied on the opinion of its contractors and should not have done this; it could have acted sooner and decanted her. It apologised and offered £350 compensation.
4. Pointed out that it had “received a large amount contact from you to numerous colleagues across the business. This has at times has been very difficult to manage to ensure that all information is shared with the relevant personnel dealing with your complaint.” (sic) However, it offered £100 compensation for its poor communications.
5. Said it could not consider personal injury under its complaints policy and advised her to make a claim.
6. Confirmed it would consider replacing any damaged possessions if provided with evidence of this.
7. Offered £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by having to be decanted between 4 November 2022 and 19 January 2023.
8. Offered a total of £1,250 compensation and said how she could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
On 20 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked for her complaint to be escalated and said it had not addressed her request for a rent rebate. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 22 March 2022 and emailed her on 21 April 2022 to say that it needed an extension until 9 May 2022 to respond.
The landlord provided it stage 2 responses to complaints 2 and 3 on 9 May 2023. In its response to complaint 2 it said it addressed her complaint about “living in one room for 23 months” in its responses to complaint 1; it had offered £500 which she was still able to accept. It also said it had offered compensation for the inconvenience of being decanted in it stage 1 response and was under no obligation to refund her any rent paid. It confirmed the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
In its response to complaint 3 it said there had been disruption to her while it repaired 2 separate leaks in 2 separate locations, including being decanted, but had offered suitable compensation. It did not have any responsibility to provide a rent reimbursement as the property was habitable while she was living in it. It confirmed the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Selected events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman accepted her complaint for investigation.
The resident made a further complaint (complaint 4) which the landlord responded to at stage 1 on 15 June 2023. The complaint was about wanting to know the rental amount for the decant house and wanting to have her tenancy transferred. In its response it said:
1. It was not obliged to provide rental information, as the resident was only responsible for rent at the property, however it provided the figure.
2. The resident had signed a temporary decant licence agreement, and it had explained previously why she could not remain in the decant house permanently. It confirmed it had considered her request but was consistent in denying it and providing reasons.
3. It did not uphold the complaint and said how the resident could request escalation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to complaint 4 on 14 July 2023 in which it:
1. Confirmed that she could not stay permanently at the decant house and set out its reasons. It also explained how it let its empty properties using the local authority’s choice based letting scheme based on priority needs.
2. Said it had checked its policy on management transfers and concluded she did not meet the criteria and set these out, but it would still allow her to apply if she wished.
3. Set out her previous complaints and the compensation it had offered across complaints 1 to 3, and a previous complaint made in 2019, which totalled £3,745, however she had only accepted £300 of this at that date.
The resident made 2 further stage 1 complaints (complaints 5 and 6) in November 2023 which the landlord responded to, however, no evidence of escalation of complaints 5 and 6 has been provided to this Service.
On 23 February 2024 the landlord emailed the Ombudsman and said that all the works had been completed in the property.
The resident has told this Service her solicitors discontinued their involvement in her disrepair claim, this was not settled, and she did not go to court. She said the whole experience caused her a great deal of stress and that she lost weight; it affected her whole life, and she no longer trusts named members of the landlord’s staff. Following a further complaint, the landlord agreed to permanently transfer her to a new property, and she moved on 25 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

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

The landlord first addressed the resident’s complaint about damp and mould in its responses to complaint 1. As part of its response, it agreed to reinspect the property when itfound, and repaired, a new leak to the hot water cylinder. It also considered measuresit could take around humidity and monitoring in line with its damp and condensation procedure.
It delayed in identifying works were needed to the wall and skirting board in the bathroom following the leak, and further delayed in completing these until May 2022 (wall) and July 2022 (skirting board) which was a failing and outside of its 20 working day repairs policy timeframe. Within its second stage 2 response to complaint 1 the landlord admitted this failing, apologised, and offered £250 compensation. It had therefore offered £500 in total for its handling of the repairs at that point in final response to complaint 1. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the property had been uninhabitable, or that only one room had been habitable, as claimed by the resident.
On 15 June 2022 the landlord discovered a leak under the bath and repaired this the same day in line with its emergency repair policy timeframe. Following contact from the resident at the end of July 2022 the landlord agreed to carry out further works in the bathroom, which it said would require removing a wall. The landlord completed the works in September 2022, outside of its 20-working day timeframe. The landlord accepted this was a failing in its stage 1 response to complaint 2 and offered £500 compensation.
Following further emails from the resident on 20 and 30 September 2022 the landlord agreed to visit her on 17 October 2022, which was outside of its 10-working day timeframe for reports of mould under its procedure and was a failing. It discovered a leak from the main stopcock and correctly attended an emergency repair that day, but it could not access the leak due to the cylinder tank being in the way. While it raised a follow-on repair, it did this as a routine repair, rather than an urgent one under its policy which was a failing. It admitted this failing within its stage 1 response to complaint 3 and offered £100 compensation.
After the resident reported damp and mould again at the end of October 2022 the landlord discussed the property but said it was habitable and no repairs were needed, although it is not clear what it based its decision on. While it had repaired the leaking stop cock there is no evidence it considered if any water damage had been caused which may have needed repair which was a failing. However, it agreed to visit again on 3 November 2022 and noted it did not see any mould or water, so it was reasonable that it did not raise any further repairs at that time.
The landlord correctly arranged to survey the property after it received the resident’s letter of claim, which was in line with its obligations under the Pre-action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims. It did this on 21 November 2022 and discovered a leak under the bath, with associated water damage and damp and mould to the bathroom walls and skirting boards. It completed an emergency repair to stop the leak in line with its repairs policy.
While it is not possible to evidence when this leak started, as the landlord had completed works to the bathroom in September 2022, and by the nature of the leak, it had not been leaking for long, and this was a reasonable conclusion made by a qualified surveyor. The survey did not state or show evidence that the property was uninhabitable but recommended a decant for the works. The landlord correctly accepted responsibility to carry out further repairs, and there is no evidence its findings or plan for repairs was disputed by the resident’s solicitor.
The landlord delayed in starting the works, following the resident being decanted to the holiday let, although explained via its solicitors in January 2023 that this was due to the resident’s possession still being in situ. It explained how it had tried to decant her and her possessions to the decant bungalow, and failing that to store her possessions, but the resident had refused both and so it was reasonable for it not to have started the works.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it takes a long time to fully dry out a property, and that the works were completed in February 2024. The landlord took down internal walls and stripped all fixtures and fittings out and replaced these. Considering the nature and full extent of the works, the timeframe was reasonable.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she had had ongoing leaks for the duration of her tenancy, which she said the landlord never repaired. However, the records, reports, and evidence show that the resident was the unfortunate victim of separate leaks from the kitchen, hot water cylinder, under the bath, the stop cock, and under the bath again. Following each reported leak the landlord carried out repairs as per its repairs policy except on one occasion. The landlord accepted where it had delayed in carrying out works and offered proportionate and appropriate compensation as part of its complaints process. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decants and request to make the move permanent

Under its decant procedure the landlord can offer a temporary decant when it cannot complete repairs with the resident remaining in the property. The policy does not state whether it or the resident is to decide on this point. When the resident first requested a decant in August 2022 for works the landlord agreed to book the holiday let of the resident’s choice, where she stayed for the works.
On 23 October 2022 the resident demanded to be decanted again and contacted the landlord several times stating the property was uninhabitable. It was reasonable for the landlord to question this as it had recently completed works although it proactively agreed to meet with her. The landlord did not conclude she needed to be decanted and after the resident persisted in her contact on the issue, it agreed to inspect the property.
Although the landlord did not find any reason to decant after the inspection it agreed to do so following the Letter of Claim into a holiday let of the resident’s choice. It decanted the resident a third time, at her request, after it surveyed the property, again using a holiday let of her choice. At all times the landlord followed its procedure, and allowed the resident choice which it was not obliged to do.
When the landlord recognised that the decant would need to be for a longer time, to allow for drying out and works in the property, it appropriately decided to offer a property from its own stock in line with its procedure. This decision was reasonable, as the offered decant property did not need to be booked like a holiday let, there were no concerns over how long it could be available, it would be more comfortable for the resident who could have her possessions, and it was more economical for the landlord. It also wrote to her and spoke to her about the nature of the decant, and that it would be temporary which was in line with its procedure.
The decant bungalow was an appropriate property for the landlord to have offered. It met the resident’s specific and numerous requirements which was more than reasonable considering the nature of a temporary decant and the landlord not having emergency accommodation available. While the resident was disappointed with the size, the landlord correctly tried to manage her expectations, and made compromises in offering to clean the outhouse despite it not being part of the liveable internal property and adapting the bath for showering. It also agreed to store any possessions which did not fit. The landlord had been fair in all the circumstances and the resident’s refusal was unreasonable.
The landlord further decanted the resident to another holiday let, when the previous one became unavailable, which was positive considering the resident’s refusal of the decant bungalow. Its decision to not agree to her request to be decanted to the premium holiday park was reasonable. It then offered a second suitable property from its stock, the decant house. It agreed to carpet and supply a £150 decorating voucher which was more than it was obliged to do.
The landlord sent a blank copy of the decant licence to the resident in advance of her signing it, which made clear it would be a temporary decant and that she would need to return to the property once the works were completed. However, from February 2023 the resident requested to remain in the decant house permanently and the landlord denied her request. Its stance remained consistent, and it repeated its decision and reasons on several occasions, which were reasonable. It advised her on how to apply to the local authority and about a mutual exchange which was solution focused. The landlord also considered its management transfer policy and decided that she did not qualify for a transfer, which was correct. It responded to her complaint about its decision (complaint 4) again detailing its reasoning which was correct.
Within its responses to complaints 2 and 3 it offered £750 for the inconvenience of having to be decanted, and £350 for not decanting her sooner, which showed it wanted to put things right. In the absence of any fault the landlord’s offers were solution focused and more than fair in the circumstances. The landlord followed its policy and procedure, had exceeded its obligations, had tried to work with the resident and accommodate her needs and preferences as far as it was practical. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions

After returning to the property following work in September 2022 the resident said that the landlord had damaged her freezer door, cool box, and painted floors, and entered rooms it should not have. She added these to complaint 2 and in its stage 1 response the landlord correctly apologised for the damage and intrusion. It offered £195 compensation. It also offered to repair or replace the freezer, but the resident has told this Service that it did not do this and that was a failing.
From October 2022 the resident started to tell the landlord that her bed was damp, and she had concerns for her possessions and asked for them to be stored in November 2022. The landlord did not identify any possession damage during its full survey and noted it had tested the wardrobe for moisture and it was dry. Therefore, it was reasonable that it had not taken any action at this point to remove the possessions.
After identifying the works needed, involving a decant, the landlord correctly concluded that it would need to remove the resident’s possessions to a decant property in line with its decant policy. It also agreed to the resident’s choice of company to carry out the move, and had the resident accepted the decant bungalow her possessions would have been moved out promptly. Failing this, the landlord agreed to store her possessions instead while she remained at the holiday let, which was solution focused as it would keep them protected and allow for the drying out of the property to start.
It is not known whether the resident was consulted on how her possessions would be stored, but she did suggest the company used and there was discussion over the location of the storage centre. Whether the landlord took the decision to ask for “deep storage” or whether this was all that was available in the area is also not clear, however, the storage company were clear that the resident could not attend its premises. It would have been helpful if the landlord had fully discussed how the resident’s possessions would be stored and sought her agreement, but it is also clear that the landlord was under pressure, from the resident, to remove the possessions from the property quickly as she believed they were being damaged.
Following the resident moving to the decant house, there was dispute over the condition of her bed and wardrobe. The resident said these could not and should not be moved due to being damp and warped. However, the evidence is clear that this was not the opinion of the storage company, and a different removal company were happy to, and did, move these possessions to the decant house. In addition, the landlord’s suggestion to wipe away any mould from hard surfaces was reasonable, although neither it nor the storage company reported seeing any mould on the possessions.
Within its complaint responses the landlord offered to consider compensating the resident for any damage to items which she was able to prove. This was solution focused but it does not appear that the resident provided evidence of damaged possessions.
Overall, there was service failure as the landlord did not inspect, repair, or replace the resident’s freezer. This failing caused additional inconvenience to the resident and an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 compensation to reflect this impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent refund request

Throughout her complaints, the resident requested a rebate of the amount towards the rent she paid due to being subject to the removal of the spare room subsidy, commonly referred to as the ‘bedroom tax’, and her service charges. Her reasons were that parts of the property were uninhabitable prior to complaint 1, and due to not being able to live at the property while she was decanted.
The landlord responded to her request in its second stage 2 response to complaint 1 where it said there was no evidence that any parts of the property had been uninhabitable, and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which disputes its conclusion. Within its stage 2 responses to complaints 2 and 3 the landlord also refused her request on the basis that the property had been habitable while she was living in it, and again there is no evidence this was incorrect.
Regarding the time the resident was decanted, the landlord correctly said it was not obliged to refund her rent. This was because it had not charged any rent for her stays in the decant holiday lets or decant house following its procedure. Within the licence agreement for the decant house, it states, “you do not have to pay us anything for the occupation of the [decant property], but you must continue to pay the rent and any other charges due under the tenancy of [the property]” and this sentence has been underlined. A copy of the licence was provided to the resident before she signed it, and it was clear what her obligations for rent were. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaints

Although the Ombudsman discourages further complaint responses following a landlord’s stage 2 response, the landlord’s reasons for providing a second stage 2 response to complaint 1 were understandable. It had told the resident it would do so, after carrying out the actions it said it would in its first stage 2 response and drew the complaint to a conclusion. It clearly stated it was its final response and how the resident could approach this Service if she remained dissatisfied. It also correctly repeated this when the resident tried to keep complaint 1 open.
The resident made complaint 2 on 9 September 2022 and added further elements on 30 September 2022, but the landlord failed to acknowledge it until 3 October 2022 which was outside of its 2 working day timeframe. It emailed her on 17 October 2022 to say it needed more time to respond, but it had already had 25 working days, which was more than its 10-working day timeframe and in breach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The landlord did acknowledge complaint 3 within 2 working days.
The landlord provided an update on 23 December 2022 for complaints 2 and 3, which it said it was managing alongside her disrepair claim. It was correct that the landlord had kept the complaints open and had not closed them following receipt of the letter of claim. However, by this point, it had exceeded its response timeframes for both complaints, which was a failing.
On 15 March 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 responses for complaints 2 and 3, after 129 and 89 working days respectively, which were both unreasonable delays in breach of policy and the Code. Within its responses the landlord accepted this, apologised and offered an explanation and £500 compensation, showing it wanted to be fair and put things right.
The landlord correctly acknowledged the resident’s escalation within 2 working days and asked for an extension of time just outside of its 20-working day response timeframe, which was a failing. It provided its stage 2 responses on 9 May 2023 when it said it would which was within the 10-working day extension requested.
There were failings in the landlord’s complaints handling due to poor communication and delays in response at stage 1 for complaints 2 and 3. However, the landlord recognised its failings, apologised, and offered compensation. Its reason was due to the complaints being part of a complicated case with a high level of contact, both of which were correct. In addition, while its communication around the complaints was lacking the landlord had remained in constant contact with the resident, who had been emailing and calling it repeatedly over a long period of time.
The landlord was dealing with her disrepair claim, decants, moving of her possessions and works to the property. The delays in its complaint responses did not delay its handling of the substantive issues. The landlord demonstrated that it was trying to put things right under difficult circumstances, and its apologies and offers of compensation were reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to her possessions.
2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Decants and request to make the move permanent.
  2. Rent refund request.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
2. Formal complaints.

Reasons

There was service failure as the landlord did not complete its complaint actions regarding the damage caused to the resident’s freezer.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and repairs, and formal complaints, as the landlord accepted its failings, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation. It demonstrated the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant and rent refund requests as it followed its policy and procedure. It was consistent in its approach which was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failure detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £75 for the inconvenience caused by the service failure.
3. Offer to repair or replace the resident’s freezer and do this.
4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Pay directly to the resident compensation previously offered within its complaint responses totalling £3,745, or the balance remaining if any of this amount has already been paid.
2. Carry out a case review to enable it to learn from the outcome of these complaints.